Love in a Village.

moft trite, hackneyed fentiments, in awkward verfification; with feveral flips of grammar, and

not a fhadow of genius; as to the effence of dramatic merit, a moral, there is no trace of it to be discovered the young ones very romantically run away from their parents and for fuch a notable breach of filial duty they have their wishes fulfilled; Lucinda does all fhe can towards an elopement and gets her lover too; though there are no very pernicious inferences arifing from these incidents, yet they recommend indifcretion, and are void of any useful tendency; and brings them at beft under the infipped denomination of merely inoffenfive.

With respect to characters, the justice is a well drawn, opinionated, ignorant, pofitive old cox-comb; mostly in the wrong without any ill meaning, and when in the right, void of fenfible intention; Sir William Meadows a' pliant, good humoured baronet, in whom fome peculiarity is attempted, without the leaft degree of fuccefs, unless most palling repetition of "let me never do an ill turn" lays any claim to merit-Young Meadows is a mere loving milkfop, with nothing but difiinterestedness to mark him, and yet Euftace is much more a cypher-Hodge is a clown moderately well depicted; Rofetta and Lucinda two young ladies of independent principles who think. they have an exclufive right to please themselves, without the leaft appeal to parental jurisdiction, and Mrs. Deborah a formal antiquated virgin,. vain of judgement which fhe has not, and mali

ciously.

Love in a Village.

2

ciously fond of preventing that happiness in others, she never has enjoyed herself and despairs of ever tafting.

The part of Woodcock was doubtless defigned for Mr. SHUTER, and I presume it will be admitted that no author ever judged an actor's capability better; there is a ftrong peculiarity of humour most happily hit off in performance; the character owes its commanding influence much more to features happily laughable, and expreffion truly comic, than the writer's genius; and without exaggeration it may be faid that Mr. SHUTER in this whimsical juftice, muft have force enough to dilate even the rigid mufcles of methodifm; if it was poffible to tranfplant a groaning congregati on from Moorfields, or Tottenham Court, into Covent Garden, even while their ears tingled with a fire and brimftone harangue; they must unbend their gloomy brows, and smilingly obey the irrefiftable force of matchlefs humour.

Young Meadows has very little acting merit, therefore is well adapted to that faintnefs of expreffion fo discoverable in Mr. MATTOCKS, who nevertheless supports the fongs, and even speaks better than Mr. DUBELLAMY, a gentleman we never wish to hear speak in public, both in juftice to himself and to the audience: Mr. DODD of Drury Lane did this part much better than either of the performers above mentioned; there is an agreeable manner and a fenfible vivacity about him, that the others are entire ftrangers to.

Hawthorn

Love in a Village.

Hawthorn as he lived, fo we may say he died with that truely great intelligent English finger Mr. BEARD; who expreffed open hearted glee with amazing pleasantness and propriety; every perfon in this light of comparison appears to great 'difadvantage; however Mr. MORRIS is far from con-temptible, indeed gives a much better idea of the character than any other perfon we have seen.

That inoffenfive perfonage Euftace finds very tolerable accommodation with Mr. DYER; and it is no fmall degree of merit to preserve fuch an unfeafoned character from the charge of infipidity: Mr. DUNSTALL's Hodge deferves a great deal of praise, and yet we cannot help thinking if Mr. KING was often feen in the part he would discover confiderably more of critical humour; Sir William Meadows may be done by any body without much. chance of praise or cenfure.

Lucinda has too little acting for Mrs. MATTOCKS, who makes as much of the speaking as it will admit and fupports the fongs agreeably-Mrs. PINTO'S Rofetta, as to the finging, unexceptionable; but for the reft, mercy deliver us! the part will not readily appear more delicately pleafing throughout than by Mrs. BADDELY's performance, whofe figure, voice and manner all happily concur to feaft both eyes and ears-of the country girl we can only say that Mrs. BAKER makes a very pretty Madge.

The general merit of Love in a Village we muft confine merely to being inoffenfive as to its tendenVOL. I.

cy,

Love in a Village. cy, with fome fpirit, an agreeable fhare of eafe and regularity; most of the characters fpeak asthey ought and the circumftances are well connected but if we look for sterling fenfe, brilliant wit with keen useful fatire; which fo much abound in the Beggar's Opera; we must say that this piece is nothing more than fhowy bafe mettle, favoured with a very indulgent ftamp of public favour to give it a kind of critical currency; to which, we apprehend, select music adapted with real taste contributed not a little; any person who reads the Village Opera may foon perceive what ufe Mr. Bickerstaff has made of it.

ROMEO

ROMEO AND JULIET.

Altered from SHAKESPEARE by GARRICK.

As we have already hinted it is matter of a

stonishment how Shakespeare could be fo negli gent of uniformity, or fo fervile to depraved tafte, as to incumber fcenes, which reach true fublimity, with others that may juftly be styled poetical babbling; and it is equally odd, how the audiences which relished one, could poffibly digeft the other, however we have felf evident proof of this lamentable inequality in moft of his best pieces.

Romeo and Juliet, in which our author has taken very unusual, and very successful pains with his female character, has many weeds in its original ftate to choak up fome beautiful flowers of genius; we may venture to say without pruning it would have made but an aukward appearance in representation; Otway, a moft excellent painter of the tender paffions, faw its luxuriance in that point, felt and transplanted whole fcenes into his plot of Caius Marius, which was an act of gothic depradation; producing a most unnatural connection which only ferved to prove that endeavouring to keep pace with Shakespeare he fell far beneath himself.

We have feen an alteration of this tragedy by Mr. Theophilus Cibber which was not void of merit;

Z 2