body has thought it worthy of their attention, or the strictures have not fallen in my way; therefore as this subject is not one of those that lose their importance or propriety by a short lapse of time; and as, on the contrary, the present controversy in Philadelphia, on the application to the legislature against the stage, seems to render it peculiarly seasonable, I beg the favor of you to publish the following observations:

The author of the paragraph published by Mr. Freneau, though a warm advocate for the theatre, vouches for me as to the fact that there has been a character of disgrace for many ages, impressed upon the theatrical profession. Though he had not affirmed it, the fact is undoubtedly certain, that the theatrical profession has had a disgrace affixed to it from the earliest times, and in all the countries where theatres have been in use.

Public actors on the stage were counted infamous by the Roman law, they were excommunicated by the church from the time of the introduction of Christianity into the Roman empire, even to the time mentioned by the author of the above paragraph, the expiration of the French monarchy.

If this had been only occasional, local and temporary, it might have been considered as owing

to some of those accidental, but transient causes, which sometimes produce remarkable effects for a little time, and then wholly cease. But so uniform and so general an effect must have some adequate and permanent cause or causes to produce it-which is to be the subject of the present inquiry.

I have only to add as to the fact, that even the present living, warmest and most zealous advocates for the stage have not been able to efface this impression from their own minds. There does not exist in Philadelphia, or any where else, any person of rank or character, who would be pleased with an alliance with the stage, either by their son's marriage with an actress, or by their daughters being married to actors.

Before entering into the principal part of the subject, it will be necessary that the reader should give particular attention to the following remark. The infamy which has attended the profession of players belongs wholly to the profession itself, and not to the persons, or rather, circumstances by which they may be distinguished. Players. when they are seen on the stage, are dressed in the finest habits, assume the manners, and speak the language of kings and queens, princess and princesses, heroes and heroines, which is a very

N

different situation from those who belong to what are sometimes called the lower classes of life, Those who follow the mechanic arts are sometimes considered as in a state of disgrace, but it is wholly owing, not to their profession, but to the poverty and want of education of a great majority of them. The profession is lawful, laudable, useful and necessary. Let me suppose a blacksmith, a weaver, a shoemaker, a carpenter, or any other of the mechanic professions, and suppose that, by activity and industry he becomes wealthy, and instead of a work-shop, sets up a factory; if he becomes rich early enough in life, to give his children a good education and a handsome fortune, tell me who is the person, who would refuse his alliance or be ashamed of his connexion? Is it not quite otherwise as to players, with whom though eminent in their profession, as Moliere and Madamoiselle Clairon in France, Garrick, Mrs. Siddons and Mrs. Bellamy in England, I believe there is hardly any example of any person of decent station, or of middling fortune who would be ambitious of a family connexion. Therefore, I repeat it, and desire it may b ept in view in the whole of this reasoning, that the disgrace impressed upon the character of players belongs to the profession, and not to

the person. Nay, though according to the old saying exceptio firmat regulam, there should be an instance or two picked up in distant ages, in which superlative merit, overcame the general prepossession, such as Roscius in Rome, Moliere in France, and Shakspeare in England, this would not hinder the certainty or importance of the remark in general, of the opprobrium that follows the profession. I now proceed to the reasons on which the fact is founded. First, all powers and talents whatever, though excellent in themselves, when they are applied to the single purpose of answering the idle, vain, or vicious part of society, become contemptible.

There is not upon record among the sayings of bold men, one more remarkable than that of Sobrius, the tribune, to Nero the Roman emperor, when asked by the emperor, why he who was one of his personal guards, had conspired against him? He answered, I loved you as much as any man, as long as you deserved to be loved, but I began to hate you when after the murder of your wife and mother, you become a charioteer, a com median and a buffoon. I am sensible that in this reasoning I consider theatrical pieces properly speaking as intended for amusement. I am not however ignorant that some have dignified

them with the character of schools or lessons

of morality.

But as they have been generally called, and are still called by the writers in the Philadelphia News-papers, amusements, so I am confident every body must perceive that this was their ori ginal purpose, and will be their capital and their principal effect. It seems to me of consequence in this argument to observe, that what is true of theatrical exhibitions is true of every other effect of human genius or art, when applied to the purposes of amusement and folly, they become contemptible. Of all external accomplishments, there is none that has been for many ages held in greater esteem than good horsemanship. It has been said that the human form never appears with greater dignity than when a handsome man appears on horseback, with proper and elegant management of that noble creature. Yet when men employ themselves in singular and whimsica feats, standing instead of riding upon a horse at full gallop, or upon two horses at once, or other feats of the like nature, in order to amuse the vain, and gather money from the foolish, it im

mediately appears, contemptible.

And for my

own part, I would no more hold communication with a master of the circus than a manager of