anticipate the danger which might result from a private and unqualified perusal, for the parent to select such pieces as have in them the fewest of those corruptions, which truth must allow that Shakspeare possesses in common with other dramatic poets? For who will deny that all the excellences we have ascribed to him are debased by passages of offensive grossness? are tarnished with indelicacy, false taste, and vulgarity? This is not the place for a discussion of those faults, too obvious to be overlooked, too numerous to be detailed, too strong to be palliated. Let me, however, be permitted to observe, that though Shakspeare often disgusts by single passages and expressions, (which I will not vindicate by ascribing them to the false taste of the age in which he wrote; for though that may extenuate the fault of the poet, it does not diminish the danger of the reader,) yet perhaps the general tendency of his pieces is less corrupt than that of the pieces of almost any dramatist; and the reader rises from the perusal of Shakspeare without those distinct images of evil on his mind, without having his heart so dissolved by amatory scenes, or his mind so warped by corrupt reasoning, or his heart so inflamed with seducing principles, as he will have experienced from other writers of the same description, however exempt their works may be from the more broad and censurable vices of composition which disfigure many parts of Shakspeare. Lest I be misrepresented, let it be observed, that I am now distinguishing the general result arising from the tendency of his pieces, from the effect of particular passages; and this is the reason why a discriminated perusal is so important. For, after all, the general disposition of mind with which we rise from the reading of a work, is the best criterion of its utility or mischief. To the tragedies of Shaks

peare, too, belongs this superiority, that his pieces being faithful histories of the human heart, and portraits of the human character, love is only introduced as one passion among many which enslave mankind; whereas by most other play writers, it is treated as the monopolizing tyrant of the heart.

It is not because I consider Shakspeare as a correct moralist and an unerring guide, that I suggest the advantage of having the youthful curiosity allayed by a partial perusal, and under prudent inspection but it is for this very different reason, lest, by having that curiosity stimulated by the incessant commendation of this author, with which both books and conversation abound, young persons should be excited to devour in secret an author who, if devoured in the gross, will not fail, by many detached passages, to put a delicate

reader in the situation of his own ancient Pistol when eating the leek; that is, to swallow and execrate at the same time.

But to conclude,-which I will do with a recapitulation of the principal objects already touched upon. That I may not be misunderstood, let me repeat that this preface is not addressed to the gay and dissolute; to such as profess themselves to be "lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God;"but it is addressed to the more sober-minded; to those who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ; who wish to be enlightened by its doctrines, to be governed by its precepts, and who profess to be

seeking a better country, even an heavenly one." The question then which we have been asking is, whether the stage, in its present state, be a proper amusement for such a character? What it would be, if perfectly reformed, and cast into the Christian mould, we have considered as another question, which it will be time enough to answer when the reformation itself takes place.

Neither (as has been observed) is it to the present purpose to insist that theatrical amusements are the most rational; for the question we have undertaken to agitate is, whether they are blameless? In this view, the circumstance of going but seldom cannot satisfy a conscientious mind: for if the amusement be right, we may partake of it with moderation, as of other lawful pleasures; if wrong, we should never partake of it.

Some individuals may urge that the amusements of the theatre never had the bad effects on their minds which they are said to have on the minds of others; but supposing this to be really the case, (which however may admit of doubt,) ought not such persons to reflect, that by their presence they sanction that which is obviously hurtful to others, and which must, if so, be displeasing to God?

The stage is by universal concurrence allowed to be no indifferent thing. The impressions it makes on the mind are deep and strong; deeper and stronger perhaps than are made by any other amusement. If then such impressions be in the general hostile to Christianity, the whole resolves itself into this short question-Should a Christian frequent it?

[In addition to what has here been advanced on the subject of theatrical amusements, the editor hopes to be excused for inserting the conclusion of Jeremy Collier's "Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage:" printed in 1699.

"These entertainments are, as it were literally renounced in baptism. They are the vanities of the wicked world, and the works of the devil, in the most open, and emphatical signification. What communion has light with darkness, and what concord has Christ with Belial? Call you this diversion?

can profaneness be such an irresistible delight? Does the crime of the performance make the spirit of the satisfaction, and is the scorn of Christianity the entertainment of Christians? Is it such a pleasure to hear the scriptures burlesqued? Is ribaldry so very obliging, and atheism so charming a quality? Are we indeed willing to quit the privilege of our nature, to surrender our charter of immortality, and throw up the pretences to another life? It may be

so; but then we should do well to remember that NOTHING is not in our power. Our desires did not make us, neither can they unmake us. But I hope our wishes are not so mean, and that we have a better sense of the dignity of our being. And if so, how can we be pleased with those things which would degrade us into brutes, which ridicule our creed, and turn all our expectations into romance.

"And after all, the jest on't is, these men would make us believe their design is virtue and reformation. In good time! they are likely to combat vice with success, who destroy the principles of good and evil! Take them at the best, and they do no more than expose a little humour and formality. But then, as the matter is managed, the correction is much worse than the fault. They laugh at pedantry, and teach atheism; cure a pimple, and give the plague. I heartily wish they would have let us alone. To exchange virtue for behaviour is a hard bargain. Is not plain honesty much better than hypocrisy well dressed? what's sight good for, without substance? what is a well-bred libertine, but a well-bred knave? One that can't prefer conscience to pleasure, without calling himself fool; and will sell his friend, or his father, if need be, for his convenience.

"In short nothing can be more disserviceable to probity and religion than the management of the STAGE. It cherishes those passions, and rewards

But

those vices, which 'tis the business of reason to discountenance. It strikes at the root of principle, draws off the inclinations from virtue, and spoils good education. It is the most effectual means to emasculate people's spirits, and debauch their manners. How many of the unwary have these syrens devoured? and how often has the best blood been tainted with this infection? what disappointments of parents, what confusion in families, and what beggary in estates, have been hence occasioned ? and, which is still worse, the mischief spreads daily, and the malignity grows more envenomed. The fever works up towards madness, and will scarcely endure to be touched. And what hope is there of health, when the patient strikes in with the disease, and flies in the face of the remedy? Can religion retrieve us? yes, when we don't despise it. while our notions are naught, our lives will hardly be otherwise. What can the assistance of the church signify to those who are more ready to rally the preacher, than practise the sermon? to those who are overgrown with pleasure, and hardened in ill custom? who have neither patience to hear, nor conscience to take hold of? you may almost as well feed a man without a mouth, as give advice where there's no disposition to receive it. It is true, as long as there is life there's hope. Sometimes the force of argument, and the grace of God, and the anguish of affliction, may strike through the prejudice, and make their way into the soul. But these circumstances don't always meet, and then the case is extremely dangerous. For this miserable temper, we may thank the STAGE, in a great measure; and, therefore, if I mistake not, they have the least pretence to favour, and the most need of repentance, of all men living."]