On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
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.
-
-
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
tribute to debase society , to generate a stagnant corruption in knowledge and happiness , and to retard the progress of the species . The London Heview , as a work , does not consider itself responsible for individual opinions . Its writers all affix
signatures to their several papers . The Examiner , the Athenteum , Mr . Roebuck , and others , have made this distinction in disagreeing with any particular views and propositions which they considered erroneous . A similar distinction is to be understood in the present case . There is some danger , however , that the London Review will become implicated in the views taken
by particular writers of the Drama , the Theatres , and the Fine Arts generally , because there is not only a separate article * of the kind to which we allude , in every number of the work , but a similar tone among other of its writers , whenever they discuss such subjects . We sincerely trust , that the conductors of a work which contains articles in every number , of a
masterly character , such as could only proceed from minds of the highest order in their several departments , will immediately turn a serious eye to the subject in question ( equally important by its influence , when *~ properly exercised on the public mind
and feelings , with the subjects to which they devote their best powers ) the method of treating which is essentially unphilosophical and vulgar , and inconsistent with the profesed spirit and purpose of the London Review . We snail commence with No . Ill , Art . II . entitled " Lamb ' s
Specimens of English Dramatic Poets , " being an article at the book , at the old dramatists collectively , and at modern dramatic representations in general . Beginning with sundry remarks on Lamb ' s character , the reviewer says" The greatest natural talents , when by any accident confined to a narrow und exclusive field of observation , must be weakened , and perhaps perverted . "
On the contrary , they are strengthened , as far as that parti * cular field is concerned , and confirmed in their course , which widens as they advance . The greatest natural talents , if they have any means of developement and vent , can never be confined to a narrow field , but only the smallest natural talents . The latter being exactly the reviewer ' s case with reference to the present subject , he is compelled "by accident" to narrow the field to liis own mind . Was it accident that occasioned Charles
Lamb to devote himself to the old Dramatists , or natural sympathy and the greatest talents ? The same qufcstkm rn ay be asked concerning Lamb ' s almost equally " narrow and exclusive " devotion to the old masters in painting ? Moreover , irtt&t are we to think of the critic who considers the stud y 6 f the Elizabethian dramatists and the old masters of painting " a narrow
Untitled Article
The Loibdon Bevictv v ^ The British Drama . ftSl
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), April 2, 1836, page 231, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2656/page/39/
-