times. The literature and arts of other countries, particularly of Italy, were unlocked, and although they made no essential part, served to reveal the intellectual riches of that age. Added to these, were other influences, which acted equally, though differently. Chivalry was not extinct. Those days were gone indeed when "worlds were lost for ladies' eyes," but their nobler features still remained. The poet's description embodied not only "all he saw," but "part of what he was." He was not, like his posterity, placed upon a stand-point above mankind, where he could take in at a glance the whole range of human affairs, but mixed with them, and was of them. Hence the strength and truthfulness of his descriptions. It were a bootless, and for us a dangerous task, to essay a minute critique upon any of the men who made the reign of Elizabeth great. The names of Shakspeare, Ben Jonson, Massinger, Beaumont and Fletcher, have become household words;-and even the less familiar, such as Lyly, Marlowe, Marston, Webster Decker, &c., we will not abuse by criticism. Let them sleep-the dead who live. Our limits also forbid a close review of the English Drama down to our own day. The present dramatic literature of England and our own country is not the legitimate offspring of that which we have noticed. It claims no greater antiquity than the reign of Charles II. With the simple remark, then, that although Comedy may, high poetry cannot keep pace with the progress of civilization, we will hasten to consider the means by which these old days have been made familiar to us. And why is it that we no longer look upon this age as a vast Sahara of mind? Why do we bring fond and zealous minds to converse with those great old days? It is not that, stripped of their quaint old-fashioned guise, they have put on the mottled cloth of modern wear. No;-they are not changed; but we are. A second Reformation has taken place, different in kind, it is true, but equally marked with the first. That learning which until within a few years was banned to all except the acute and drudging student, is now our common, our cherished property. Resultant to this, our authors in prose as well as verse have learned that the chastest models may be found in their mother-tongue, and that to write well is not to write fashionably, but from the "red-leaved tables of the heart." This end is the work of legitimate means, the Stage. It is impossible for the mind to understand a play without aid from the senses, the eye and ear. True, in the most simple, this is doubly so when a play is involved and introduces a wide range of character; above all, when it abounds in such anachronisms as we meet in Shakspeare. A Dramatist's object and excellence lie in so managing a variety of characters that they shall bear a distinct part in the action, and yet tend unitedly to the denouement. Notwithstanding our own emotions answer to the passions portrayed, they are indefinite, unless these passions be seen acting through flesh and blood. We cannot shift the scenes; at one moment in a field of blood, thrilled with the hot enthusiasm of battle, and at the next, dazed with the pomp and glitter of a court; the mind cannot make these quick transitions so as to realize its change of situ ation-there must be a bridge between our emotions. If such be the necessity where real existences are introduced, how far more feeble is our attempt to follow the Dramatist when he enters the invisible; when he brings before us in all their airy and spirit-array the shapes of Elves and Fairies! We make a more stupid figure in lands of such enchantment, than did the doughty Falstaff among his "moonshine revelers." And in this we may remark, the Epic poet has an advantage over the Dramatist. His spirit-machinery (if we may so speak) is of a less subtle kind. We can soar with Milton into the unknown, and tread with him the "sapphire walls of Heaven;" we can descend with Dante, and thrill while the shapes of "ugly hell" gape at us; but we may not follow Shakspeare in his flight to the enchanted Island; we may not mix with Prospero in the spirit-conclave, or couch with the Court of Titania, reveling in the golden bells of flowers. Into these gorgeous privacies of the imagination no unaided eye can pierce. The mimic circumstance of the Stage must introduce us to these "little ethereal people," 66 as on the sands with printless feet, They chase the ebbing Neptune." Such, however, are lessons to the mind-that great mission to the heart which Nature has given the Poet is his nobler calling. And shall we ban him from the Stage because immoralities attend its representations? because low, debauched humanity trails its slime and venom into the place where Manliness and Beauty wait upon mind? The same justice would discard a play because vicious characters are admitted. Away with this uneasy virtue, which sits starched and puckered like ruff on the cold neck of an old maid. Give us your stout, bold-fronted virtue, which fears no evil, because it knows none. Immoralities are not, however, necessary attendants upon theatrical representations. When the good and pure give that patronage to the Stage which it deserves, the Theatre will cease to be the resort of the low. The truth of this was shown, to a degree, in the recent representation of Richard III. at the Park. Wit and fashion there usurped the places of ignorance and vulgarity. Similar testimony is given by the better class of English Theatres. Still, even granting that they are unavoidably the haunts of vice, we should contend none the less strenuously for their encouragement. Every large city is full of vice, in all its multifaced deformity. It does not walk the streets alone. It does not fester and rot only in the brothel. It crowds the gay and costly saloon, and lists to the rich lures of feasting and song. Every corner and nook holds out some snare to the unwary. Every window sparkles with some gay iniquity. Those then who would close the Theatre, from benevolence to the young and inexperienced, yield them either to scenes of more gairish wickedness, or to the cells of drunken and slimy vice. Let then the American public give that patronage to the Stage which it so eminently deserves. Let it foster dramatic genius, and some of our own glorious history may yet be "wedded to immortal verse." ORIGIN OF THE ROBIN-REDBREAST. (AN INDIAN FAble.) [The following Indian tradition will be found in Mrs. Jamieson's "Winter Studies and Summer Rambles," for whom it was expressly translated from the Chippeway language. It is here done into rhyme, and all its allusions to the customs of the Aborigines of our country, are in the main correct.] Long time since, ere the white man came To these rubrics derived from heaven In western wilds a seat to claim,- II. And now his son, of robust form, Manly limbs and manly arts, Seeking vigor in repose, Or whate'er shape the dream might show, III. The son in wisdom's ways to make Far better than all others, Than all his magi brothers. IV. And at each morn the old man came That their presence might inspire And since 't was thought this magic power And courage in battle's ire. V. When nine of the twelve days were gone, Lessened down to astonished eyes, 64 VII. My father refused to give me meat When two days more their course had run, Manito* to me has been most just, Imploringly repeats his son The request that before was sent VI. By the first light the father brought The future fame of his young son, And shown me mercy-go I must— My son, my son," the old man cries, 66 VIII. Forsaken, now, Oh! sir, you see There starts from him the plumage bright, I still will charm the ground they tread, *The good spirit of the Indians. ix. Then looking up the sky upon, X. Do not despise this tale so rude, GILES SCROGGINS. I ALWAYS had an aversion to that species of practical jokes called hoaxes. To tell a man in sober earnest, that a thing is so and so, and then to laugh at him for a ninny, because he is fool enough to believe you, seems to me rather a proof of knavery and unblushing impudence, than of any of that keen shrewdness and wit, which the perpetrators of these deceptions generally arrogate to themselves, and that too, with the consent of a considerable portion of people who ought to know better. These deceptions are seldom carried out without more or less of downright falsehood, and what is rather singular, the individuals who are foremost in such undertakings, are always those who are ready to fly into a passion if their word is doubted, and consider the least imputation against their veracity as the deepest insult. But I will leave homilies on that subject to the more capable, and go on with, or rather begin, my story. As I was saying, I always had an aversion to hoaxes-that is, in principle, but from long habit, in this quizzical world, I have become somewhat accustomed to them, and if I had not, I have seen some at which, in spite of my scruples, I could not choose but laugh. There is something so very ludicrous in the pertinacity and persevering obstinacy with which one of these victims of ridicule persists in making game of himself, that it seems as if they were sent into the world on purpose that the schoolmaster, Experience, should never be idle, but that he might have employment and wages the year round. One of these unfortunate wights, in particular, is at present in my mind, who, after being made, for several successive months, a subject of these experiments, most perseveringly refused to grow one particle wiser, and at length left the place in search of employment, just as 'ready and waiting' to be hoaxed as on the morning when he first entered it in all the verdancy of youthful expectation. Common jokes and quizzes were dull and perfectly disgusting when applied to him. The tales of the Arabian Nights, and Sinbad the Sailor, he would have believed as readily as he did the Spelling |