Current:

Leader (1850-1860), 31st January 1852, Edition Town of 2, Page 112

Page 112
Page 20
20 of 24

On this page

  • Departments (1)
    • €ht %rts.
  • Text (3)

      Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    • Untitled Article

      Untitled Article

    • Untitled Article

      Untitled Article

    • €ht %rts.

      €ht %rts.

  • Transcript

    • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

      Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

      Untitled Article

      I take to myself ; in double part , the following letter , handed over to me because the discussion to which it refers is closed : — " January 20 , 1852 . ¦«« Sib , —I feel some reluctance in troubling you with any addition to the many correspondents who have already written ; in censure or defence p £ Alexander Smith ' s sonnet . But it has brought into discussion a subject that excites much interest in my own circle , amongst many of my own sex , who are readers of the Leader ; and we have often questioned

      among ourselves whether those who expatiate so eloquently , so voluptuously , on the external , the physical charms of the fairer sex , softer sex , toeaker sex , ot whatever they may please to call us , are at all aware of the effect they produce on our minds ( at least on the minds of some of us ) by their eloquence in such direction ; if they were , we think they would be a little sparing of their compliments—not that we are hy any means disposed to the " ascetic " in preference to the " human ' ' view of life with respect to love and art . We are fully convinced that nature ,

      in any of its real forms or its representations m art , can present no impropriety to the imagination of one whose understanding is enlightened , and whose heart is uncorrupted . " We do not question the right to the vigorous and healthy use of all our senses—to the exercise of them in developing our taste for the beautiful in all its aspects—not unmindful of that one in particular that originated the discussion in question . We are true admirers of animal beauty in all its varieties . We delight in a fine horse , a fine dog , a handsome

      man , a handsome woman , inasmuch as they present ideas of beauty in form and feature—ideas most readily appreciated by the senses—affording them innocent enjoyment , which we thankfully accept from the hand of nature , being good of their kind and in their place . But they soon satiate ; and though they may be serviceable materials for a poet who seeks fame more from the varnished language and showy dress in which he clothes his thoughts than from the loftiness of the thoughts themselves , we are apt to associate other views with our ideas of poetry .

      " We regard it as an elevating art , suggesting to the imagination things unseen—that cannot be appreciated by the senses—revealing the vast mysteries of nature , the hidden thoughts , mental struggles , and great emotions of great souls , when humanity is the subject . True , the senses may , often with advantage , be made the medium of conveying mental emotions—the contracted brow , that portraits the storm within—the reproachful glance , that reveals uhkindness felt , and a thousand other figures that are at a poet ' s command , may awaken sentiments that we dwell on with satisfaction . But " the heaving breast , " " the beating heart , " and such like descriptive terms , that might be equally well applied to a vast number of animals , convey to our imagination

      no very permanent poetic impression , though we do not wish to deprive them of their legitimate place in the region of art , yet surely they do but occupy the lower level ; and we do not feel ourselves at all flattered by poets , who , when they make us the theme of their song , admit us only into this . lower level , as if we inspired them with no higher sentiments than such as are suggested by a fair complexion , flowing hair , pearly teeth , rosy lips , or " bosom white , " ignoring that we have souls as they—noble passions , lofty aspirations , moral courage , and self-denying heroism , in a degree not perhaps inferior to themselves . Why are all these qualities kept in the background ? Is there no poetry in them ? Or does the secret of our influence over man lie in mere sensual

      attractions , that they must be ever uppermost in their minds , most ready at their tongues end . If so , we cannot but feel ourselves desecrated when we become ( objects of interest to them ? If we cannot appeal to their souls , we scorn to pander to their

      senses . " In these reflections I believo I represent the feelings of a large class of women , who aro disgusted with the position they too often hold in the esteem of man with his present ideas . " Yours respectfully , A . J . E . " I do not think it fair to reproach sonneteers and lyrists for what they omit . It is not every genius that devotes itself to the interpretation of the " vast mysteries of nature "—that " sweeps the empyrean " with expanded wings . Anacreon is not Pindar ; nay , did not , " the bard of Toos " { style choisi et classique !) frankly toll us , that let him take up his . lyre with never such grand , patriotic , and Atrideschanting ambition , yet the chords would only tremble to the accents of Love ?

      * A / 3 ap / 3 / ro $ &e xfip Souq 'Kpooroo fAOiivoy ri % u . Let not the poet bo reproached , therefore , if ho can only sing of Love ; crown him with your smiles and tears if homing worthily of so groat a theme 1 Ah ! believe me , A . J . K ., there is something more than " varnished languago and showy ideas " in the rapturous hymns to Beauty which the poet sings

      when he sings of the charms of her who has enthralled him ! , And this word " charms" leads me to the other question raised in the letter before me . Women of intelligence and high feeling are indignant at being considered pretty dolls , and treated as agreeable playthings . It . is a proper indignation . I reprobate the vulgar assumption of those who pretend to make mere playthings of women . But surely if there are men whose admiration of women is simply the influence of sensual attractions , it is not among poets that those men are found ? In the !

      iiame of the race I protest against the charge I say , and do most honestly believe , that whatever stupid soulless men may feel , no man who has a soul can fail to appreciate soul in another ; and that poets , and all sympathetic men of talent , keenly appreciate the intellectual eminence of women , though they do not always love the cleverest women . And why ? Before that question can be fairly asked , you must prove that the cleverest women or the cleverest men are the pleasantest , the most loveable But it appears the poets ( and I am under the same charge ) are eloquent on the beauty of the fair sex , and are silent on their intellectual charms ! As far

      as the soul shows itself in womanly ways—m refinement , in gaiety , in grace , in tenderness , in heroic fortitude and constancy—we are surely eloquent enough about it ? But I plead guilty to the charge of uttering no rhapsody on Isabella ' s proficiency in Conic Sections , or on Harriet ' s attainments in Malachology ! The intellect—the hard work-a-day instrument of man ' s supremacy over Nature—is not the topic for poetic fervour , at least as regards women , simply because its connection with the emotions is remote and slender .

      I will not here moot the vexed question of whether woman is equal to man , because I think it an idle question . Equal in sheer intellect she is not ; but equal in capacity of soul she certainly is . Be that as it may , however , the grand ideal characteristic of Man is Intellect , that of . Woman is Affection . Right or wrong as psychology , such you will admit to be the generally accepted notion ; the poet , therefore , appealing to general convictions , is forced to respect them ; and while he dwells upon the pale and thoughtful face of Man , seeks for the sweetest images of health and beauty when he describes the cheek of woman .

      Now , perhaps I can make intelligible to you why the poet , without in the least ignoring the souls of women , is naturally and irresistibly led to lay such stress upon her charms of person . It is because these charms are intimately associated with our emotions of tenderness and love . The affections lie near the senses j and if we are rapturous about physical beauty , the reason simply is—that beauty excites feeling akin to love within us . What can

      be more beautiful , more poetical , more intensely associated with the tenderest feelings , than this said " bosom white " ? For my part I plead guilty to a most unaffected admiration of every charm a woman possesses , from the soft and fragrant hair that plays about her cheek to the delicate foot that tramples mine under the table . Whatever is soft and gentle , and womanly , seems to be hers by right divine ; and the less like man she is , the more perfect is she as woman .

      " For woman is not undeveloped man , But diverse : could we make her as the man Sweet love were slain , whose dearest bond is this Not like to like , but like in difference ! " So says the poet , " and he ought to know "; let woman ' Set herself to man Like perfect music unto noblo words , " and she will find that her charms are very essential elements in the harmony . People try to browbeat us out of our admiration

      of women , by calling ugly words , and telling us the charms are " merely sensual . " What then ? I see no reason to turn up one ' s nose at sensual charms 1 This wonderful body of ours is a miracle , not a degradation—a temple , not a dunghill . I protest against the . assumption conveyed in the word " sensual " ! Think what you please of me for the avowal , but l . d . o admire a "bosom white /' arid you cannot make mo ashamed of it . All men admire it ; all men should . Tartufo called for the neckerchief—because ho was Tartufc 1

      The " fair sex" and the " softer sex" then I must designate women ; hut in doing so I shall bo grossly misunderstood , if I am thought to imply that women are only fair and soft . I have known too many women of splendid intellects to permit such an implication . Nor is it a " pretty doll " that is wanted . Stupidity is intolerable in woman

      as in man ; but I put any my readers * whether intellect , in and for itself , is reall y a charm enviable above all other charms ? Take these two extrern . es and say which will be preferable , preferred : —a lovely woman of ordinary intellect , and an unloving immensely clever woman , deep in endless 6 logi . es , and destitute of hips ! Therefore , O fair and gentle Sex ! do not suppose we males are indifferent to your souls because we grow eloquent about your charms . Intellect is not your crowning grace , your supreme dominion ; nor in my opinion is it man ' s ( but that ' s a heresy !) * A stupid woman only stupid men can love ; but a loving woman is the noblest work of God !

      I am , as you kriow , a Bachelor—and mean to remain so ! But if you will have my Confession of Faith , here it is : I should not like a wife wanting in the gentle attributes of the gentler sex —I should wish towed a Woman , not a Mind , Beauty is not indispensable , but it is an immense advantage ; and at all events , I will not hesitate to avow my decided preference for a loving nature with . a " bosom white , " to Intellect and wadding ! ?

      Untitled Article

      FRA DIAVOLO . At last there has been genuine success at Drury Lane , thanks to Sims Reeves and his wife , and Whitworth , and Miss P . Horton—no thanks to Mr . Bunn , who suffered a murderous orchestra and chorus to do their worst on Auber ' s graceful music ... and they did it ! Yet Rip Van Winkle believed the old chorus of twenty years ago—engaged ' . ' irrespective of expense" ( what a thing it is to be a poet , and know your own language!)—would satisfy audiences that have listened to Jullien and to Costa . In ordinary cases I should pass by such want of managerial capacity ; but Mr . Bunn—the managerwill not let me . Does he not , with impudence colossal as his incapacity , actually appear before the curtain to receive the plaudits of the audience for this opera ? Does he not bow patronizingly to his public , hand pressing down an exulting heart , smiles approving the applause ? For what ? For producing that " startling novelty ? " or for the rebellious chorus and erratic band ? Is he applauded for Sims Reeves ? Does Auber owe success to him ? What is it Mr . Bunn has done that

      we should have him grimacing before the curtain and accepting an ovation ? .... An idea strikes me ! It is the author of those Bills the public wishes to see and applaud ! Napoleon ' s eloquence was uttered in proclamations to his soldiers ; Mr . Bunn ' s finds vent in Playbills . The public is a curious public , and wanted to see the man capable of writing those bills—that is the only solution I can give you of the difficulty !

      To quit Mr . Bunn—whom I drag relentlessly before you because he is one of the men most injurious to the drama—I advise you to go and see Fra Diavolo in spite of drawbacks . Robert the Devil I could not get to see , and it has been withdrawn ( owing to " immense success , " I presume !) since the first night . Helen Faucit is engaged for a few nights , and will attract many glad to see her , even in such a company . She has faults , serious faults , but on the whole she is without question the finest tragic actress on our stage . But to see Romeo and Juliet so cast !

      AMINTA . On Monday the Haymarket produced a comic opera , in two acts , by Howard Glover , son of the great comedian , called Aminta , the Village Coquette , to a vociferous body of friends and a remarkably unmoved public . 1 was one of that public , and amused myself by observing the contrast . -Th e only occasions whon the public seemed really to take part in the applause was at the unaccompanied quintett in the first act ( a charming composition ; , and at the lively pizzicato song , . " What a thing w act

      love , " , sung by Mrs . Caulfield in the second , which , though anything but original , is ear-tickhng . The music y& light , but commonplace . r l h er 0 are no original melodies , not even phrases , such as indicate musical genius ; but there is considerate ^ cleverness of adaptation , and the whole i « free from vulgarity . The number of " songs" introduce ^ with an eyo to the publishers , make the opera wearisome , t , ho more so as they are not of that earcatching character which carries popularity . On the whole , the opera was well put on tno stage . Louie * Pyne , as the village coquette , wa *

      Untitled Article

      [ it to of 112 m $ t Jlraiier . Satom ^ _ ¦ —^^ . ^^ m ^^** ^^ m ^^^*^^ " ^^^*^*^—^^^^^^^^^ - - - — M _ ^ P r - j a \ _ . ¦ . __ . £% . ¦_ . .

      €Ht %Rts.

      € ht % rts .

  • Citation
    • Leader (1850-1860), Jan. 31, 1852, page 112, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1920/page/20/