The National Register. — London, England, 1808-01-04 00:00:00

JAN. 4. in 17 minutes, 2 in 16, 2 in 15, 2 in 14, 2 in 13, 2 in 17, and the 6 last miles hi 54 minutes—total, IS miles in 146 minutes. The pedestrian, it will be seen, had two miles to go in 4 mi nutes, when he resigned, visibly fatigued. He only halted for about two minutes during the race, when he eat a mouthful of chicken. and drank half a pint of mulled wine. The day was extremely unfavourable for the pedestrian, who, if the report be correct, did the distance in less than the given time, on Tuesday last, whilst training. He is of low stature, and 35 years of age. His regular step was to do Y miles in 15 minutes. C IT Y. Bier. D.—Tuesday the Lord Mayor ordered the price of Bread to be raised half an asiize, or a penny in the peck loaf. The quartern loaf of wheaten will then be sold for 1l d. and household 91d. EAST INDIA A 'FAIRS. Tuesday a Court of Directors was held at the East India House, when the following ships were thus timed, viz. Euphrates, Sir William Bensley, Sovereign, Madras, and Ben gal ; Monarch, Northumberland ; Madeihk, Nladras, and Ben gal; Alexander, Madeira and Bombay. To be afloat iTth January. Sail from Gravesend 2i th Feb. Ilarriet, Madras and Bengal ; Iluddart, Bombay. To be afloat 11th Feb. Sail from Gravesend llth March. The Court adjourned at 6 o'clock till Wednesday next. The Court of Director► of the East India Company, on Thursday, ordered the following ships, viz. Ocean, Ceres, Canton, Dorsetshire, Alnw•ick Castle, David Scutt, and Exeter, to prepare for the reception of troops, to be landed at Madras, in their outward voyage to India. THE THEATRE. Dramatic Criticism, or something which bears that title, is now so much in request, that a Newspaper can scarcely obtain a great circulation, without presenting a pretty large portion of such matter. We shall, therefore, devote a considerable space in Tut; NATIONAL RI:GIiTER to this fashionable sub ject, although we do not intend to treat it in the fashionable style. Of late, in the most popular of the periodical Critiques, the absence of scientific principle has been supplied by the supertit,ity of spleen, and the want of experience has been compensated by the ebullition of wit. The fallacy has pleased the Public : because every body can admire what is brilliant in wit, but every body cannot detect what is erroneous in v.( ience. The spectators in a Theatre are distant from the stage, arid foil dazzles their eyes w ith all the lustre of real gold : The readers of these current criticisms are remote from those circles iu n hick the Drama is understood, and pointed antithesis strikes them with the force of truth. In the columns of this Paper we shall consider the criti c ism o f th e Dr a ma not as a task which may be slurred by idleness or blotted by caprice : but as a science possessing principles as certain and as exalted as the general criticism of poetry . , of painting, of sculpture, or of any other of the Fine Arts. The Draam, considered as a Fine Art, which may become the subject of criticism, divides itself naturally into two parts ; the one iA the art of Dramatic Composition, which we may critieke as fully as any poetry can be criticised : and the other it the art of Acting, is hid, can be criticised as fully as we may criticise Painting of Sculpture. To draw a parallel between the art of Poetry and the art of Dramatic Composition w ould be idle, because the latter is allowed to be a branch of the former : but we are no less certain of our ground, when we assert that there is a strong analogy in the three arts of Painting, Sculpture, and Acting. All equally tend to the same object : that is, to please by the just representation of what is striking, interesting, or agreeable in nature. Acting bears the same relative distance to Sculpture, that Sculpture bears to Painting—for Painting represents Nature by lines and colours laid on a fiat surface to be viewed from a single point : Sculpture goes further, and represents the round ness and real proportion of Nature in ever; point front which THE NATIONAL REGISTER. 13 a statue can be viewed ; but Acting surpasses them both. and with a Promothean power, gives motion, and voice, and life! But though Acting, thus considered, of all the fine Arts comes nearest to Nature's Prototype; yet it is the most difficult to be criticised, because Its productions are the most evanescent. If we wish to decide on the merit of a picture or a statue, we way keep it before our eyes, unvarying in its expression and un injured in its workmanship, for an hour, for a day, for years : if we disapprove it at a first glance, we have opportunies of discovering its beauties by degrees, of revising, perhaps totally changing our original judgment. But the representation of Nature, which is produced by Acting, vanishes as soon as it is beheld ; and though the spectator may not happen to be in the right frame of mind at the moment when the actor delivers a particular passage, there is no opportunity of arresting the images in order to ascertain their merits or defects. Yet, though Acting is thus of all the Fine Arts the most dif ficult to be criticised, it is nevertheless the most universally and the most confidently canvassed. An uninformed person who enters a gallery of pictures or statues, if he gives any opinion at all, usually gives it with some sort of reserve : he for the most part leans to the favourable side: and, even when he dis approves a work, he usually makes use of some such phrase as, 1 don't admire it, but very likely that is because I know " nothing about painting. or sculpture." But almost every body who enters a Theatre, thinks himself entitled to give a positive opinion on Acting, although he perhaps may never have seen fifty plays in his whole life. No one should believe that every reasonable creature whom Nature has brought into the world, can judge of acting, because good acting is a reasonable repre sentation of Nature: for Acting, as well as the other Arts by which Nature is represented, has rules which direct, and rules which restrain, not only its mechanism, but even its conception; rules whirl' cannot be understood and applied without original taste, extensive readin;,-, theatrical intercourse, and long ex perience. If these positions be true, our readers will not he surprised, when we declare the very low opinion we entertain of the thea trical critics, who blot the periodical publications of the present age. As dramatic nature now appears, reduced to regular scien , titic principles, yet casually " snatching a grace beyond the " reach" of any settled principle at all, attired in a garb, which though it ought to fit her closely, yet is not the dress which site wears on ordinary occasions, sometimes restrained by tbe necessity of subordination, and sometimes stimulated fiir the dis play of magnificent effects, there can be but very few persons who have the natural qualifications for judging nicely of acting, and fewer yet to whom education and practice have imparted their final and necessary skill. In our theatres there must al ways he a scarcity of fine actors, because in the highest walk of the profession no man can he really great, without a union of all the qualities which can give executive brilliancy to accuratp. conception; among which are many of the powers of poetical combination, all t tie qualities of discriminative analysis, and al"' the qualities of a finished gentleman. There is as a lamentable scarcity of fine critics in our newspapers ; and it would be dit • ficult to find four of these authors who possess poetry enough to • feel, and yet coolness enough to discriminate ; gaiety enough to laugh, and yet elegance enough to understand high-breeding: who know the green-room sufficiently to distinguish how much effect is produced by the author, and how much by the actor ; who, with all these natural and artificial requisites for forming their judgment, have adequate Lowers of (omposition for de - livering that judgment gracefully, and so much moderatinn as to abstain from condemning to.mercifully. After having said so much of the requisites for perfect criti. cism, it would he the height of vanity and presumption to pro mise that our criticisms will be perfect ; but we may be allow ed to say, that it' we are not capable of doing all that these principles require, we trust to avoid what these principles con demn. Before we animadvert upon a play or upon an actor, it is our custom to study the play itself, with a view either of discussing its merits, or of estimating its characters. Before we make positive assertions, we shall take care to ascertain our facts ; and having once made up our minds upon truth, we shall never sacrifice that truth to party pique, or to the vauity of 1