Retrofpec of Deomeftic Literature...Novels and Romances. 1055 
expeé to have found in an author, who, 
in his ‘“* Effay on Englifh Style,”. ex- 
amined the works of others with fo cri-. 
tical and microfcopic an eye as t~ detect 
faults where others faw beauties, the in- 
accuracies which have forced themielves 
upon us, even when we were in great mea- 
fure abforbed by the intereft of the ftory. 
“We have likewife been compelled to ob- 
ferve fome curious inconfiftencies and 
contradi€tions. St. Leon enters not into 
a detail of the ftranger’s fecrets, becaufe’ 
he was forbidden—he was equally for- 
bidden even to mention the ftranger. 
Vol. II. p. 103, he fays, ‘* It is no mat- 
ter that thefe.pages fhall never be fur- 
veyed by other eyes than mine ;”’ and at 
page 243 he talks of his readers, and an- 
ticipates their objeétions. The immor- 
tal St. Leon talks of being fubjected to 
ignominious death, of his whole {pedies 
combining to murder him! We appre- 
hend that thefe trifling blemifhes in what 
is upon the whole a mafterly work are the 
conlequence of too great hurry for publi- 
cation. An author of Mr. Godwin’s ge- 
nius and talents ought to write more for 
pofterity than for the exifting generation. 
ORCA MIA. |...” 
In this department, as in that of no- 
vels and romances, our patrioti{m has to 
regret that rhe works of foreigners have 
excited much more of the public attention 
than thofe of our own nation. At no 
period has the Englifh ftage been at fo 
low an ebb as,during the laft few years. 
Inftead of the happily-imagined and weli- 
conneéted fable, the brilliant and witty 
dialogue, the vis comica and the original 
and highly-finithed charaéters which once 
were to be met with in Englifh comedy, 
we have now nothing but worn-out fo- 
Ties, trite incidents, unmeaning buile, 
njiferable puns, cant phrafes, and hack- 
neyed characters, whofe infipidity is in- 
fupportable, “Even that great dramatift, 
whofe efforts, few though they have been, 
will enfure him a brilliant and eternal re- 
putation, feems to give up the caufe, 
cither from defpair of equalling his foriner 
works, or from difguft at the want of 
tafte in the public, and condefcends to 
borrow the produétion of a foreign au- 
thor which, as we fhall have occafion 
to obfetye in che courfe of this depart- 
ment pf our review, he has not ar all 
improved. With refpeét to this fup- 
poled want of tafte in the public, we 
cannot help thinking that it is merely an 
excufe made by authors for their own in- 
ability to offer any thing worthy of the 
approbation of good take, Phe Englifh 
-erity. 
public difcerned the beauties, and felt the 
athos of the ‘ Stranger ;’’ and the great 
fuccefs of this piece is fufficient to ex- 
culpate them from the ill-grounded charge 
of ‘want of tafte. But even if this def- 
ciency did exilt, it would be no excufe 
for dramatic writers; it is their place to 
form, to cultivate, and to improve the 
tafte of their countrymen. | 
‘© What is She ?” is a comedy which 
did not fucceed on the ftage: we know 
not why, for it is certainly fupefior to 
many which have had their run. Ir 
lathes feverely fome fafhionable follies-— 
follies which our pofterity will fearcely 
credit, fhould indeed this play reach poft~ 
If it fhould keep its place on 
the fhelf of our libraries, it will be oa 
the fame principle that we keep pic- 
tures painted in Queen Elizabeth’s time, 
for the fake of wondering at the abfurd 
dreffes of our anceftors. 
Mr. HoLMan’s “ Votary of Wealth,” 
if confidered as one of the great mafs of 
Englith comedies, hardly reaches. medi. 
ocrity, but holds a high rank among the 
productions of the day. The ftory is 
interefting, the charatters, though not 
new, well fupported, and the moral un- 
exceptionable and highly neceffary to be 
inculcated at the prefent day, when the 
temple of Plutus is fo tnronged with 
afpirants, that we find men of confider- 
able fortune making neck-or-nothing 
fpeculations for the fake of increafing 
their wealth: but thelanguage is flat and 
fpiritlefs, and is very deficient in avit, 
though not in attempts at this fcarce ar- 
ticle. 
Mr. Corman has publifhed ‘ Feudal 
Times,”’ a drama in two aéts, which was 
performed during laft winter. Not hav- 
ing been prefent at the exhibition, we 
cannot fay what effect the mufic and the 
fpectacle may have produced: if they 
are good, we are forry they were not 
accompanied by a better drama. 
Mr. ReyNoups’ “ Laugh when vou 
can,’ whatever it may do onthe ftave, 
produces very little laughter in the clofer. 
‘¢ Sighs, or the Daughter,” a comedy 
which met with deferved fuctcfs on the 
Haymarket theatre, is altered from a 
drama of Kotzebue, by Mr. Prince 
Hoare, who has, in moft inftances, 
difplayed judgment and stafte in his al- 
terations. Jn this age of anti-jacobinifm, 
it is clear, from his preface, what were 
Mr, Hoare’s motives-in the alterations of 
Von Snarl’s character. 
<The Peckham Frolick, or .Nell 
Gwynn” is, as the author has juitly 
nam-d 
