to ruin individuals; to infect them with idleness; to make them look out for ways to fubfift without working; to render the common neople inactive and cowardly; to prevent them from feeing puolic and private objects, which ought to occupy their thoughts; to turn fobriety into ridicule; to fubftitute a theatrical jargon in the room of virtue; to place their whole morality in metaphyfics; to metamorphofe plain citizens into wits, tradefmen's wives into fine ladies, and their daughters into coquets.'

To be able therefore to judge, fays he, whether it be proper to open a playhouse in a town, we must first of all know, whether the manners of the inhabitants are virtuous or corrupt. He thus proceeds: In a great city, abounding with idle, intriguing people who have neither religion nor principles; and whose imagination, depraved by lazinefs, by the love of pleafure, and exceffive wants, engenders nothing but mifchief, and prompts them to every kind of villainy; in a great city, where morality and honour are reckoned for nothing, becaufe every man can easily conceal his private vices from the public eye, and is fure of gaining credit and efteem by a fuperiority of fortune; in fuch a city, the civil magiftrate cannot be to ingenious in multiplying law-o ful pleasures, nor in ftudying to render them agreeable, to the end that private perfons may not be expofed to the temptation of looking out for more dangerous amusements. As to divert and keep fach people from their occupations, is to divert them from doing harm, the ftealing of two hours a day from the influence of vice, would prevent the twelfth part of the crimes that are committed; and the hours spent at the theatre, and in running to coffee-houses, and other places of refort, for drones and fharpers, are an advantage to fathers of families, either in regard to the chastity of their wives and daughters, or to their private purfes. But in leffer cities, in places not fo populous, where private citizens, being always under the public eye, are naturally cenfors to one another; and where the civil magiftrate can easily have an eye over them all; different maxims are to be pursued.'

Our Author goes on to confider the state of the republick, of which he is a member, as to its capacity for fupporting the expences and avocations of a theatre. From his account of the number of inhabitants, the nature of their occupation, and other circumftances, it seems, indeed, he is in the right to diffuade his countrymen from erecting one. The confequence of fuch a ftep, however, does not appear to us in fo desperate a light as it appears in to our author. We are apprehenfive, it is true, that the comedians would as little find their account in it, as they do in Holland, and in fome other induftrious republicks; at the fame time, nevertheless, we conceive they would be held in an equal

degree

degree of infignificance and contempt; and have as little influence on the manners of the people, as they actually have at Leyden or Amíterdam.

Mr. Rouffeau juftly obferves, that the life of a comedian, in general, is a ftate of licentioufnefs and immorality; that the actors give themselves up to all manner of debauchery; that the actreffes lead moft fcandalous lives; that they are avaricious, and prodigal at the fame time; ever in debt, and ever extravagant; heedlefs in regard to expending their money, and indeli-. cate in regard to the manner of getting it.' This, it must be confeffed, is too often the cafe; but, doubtlefs, our Author goes too far, when he would prove the moral impoffibility of an actor's being an honeft man, or an actress a virtuous woman. With respect to the former, he fays, Thofe fellows, fo genteely equipped, and fo well practifed in the theory of gallantry and whining, will they never make use of this art to feduce the young and innocent? Thofe lying valets, fo nimble with their tongue and fingers on the ftage, fo artful in fupplying the neceffities of a profeffion more expenfive than profitable, will they never try their abilities off the stage? Will they never take the purfe of an extravagant fon, or a miferly father for that of Leander or Argan? The temptation of doing evil increaseth all the world over in proportion to the opportunity; and comedians must be honefter by far than the rest of mankind, if they are not more corrupt.'

As to the actreffes, he fays, I would fain know how it is poffible for a profeffion, whofe only aim is to appear in public, and what is worse, to appear for money; how is it poffible, I fay, for fuch a profeffion to fuit virtuous women, and be confiftent with modefty and good manners? Is there any occafion to difpute about the moral difference of the fexes, in order to be convinced how natural it is for a woman who exposes herself to fale upon the ftage, to be ready to ftrike a bargain when the play is over, and to be ftrongly tempted to fatisfy thofe defires, which fhe takes fuch great pains to excite? What; fhall a prudent woman, who has ufed a thoufand precautions to fecure her virtue, find it difficult notwithstanding to preferve her innocence, when she is expofed to the least danger; and shall these forward girls, whofe heads are filled with coquetry and amorous characters, whofe drefs is not the most decent, and who are continually follicited by brifk young fellows, in the midst of the foft founds of love and pleafure; fhall thefe girls, I fay, at their age, and with their tender difpofition, be able to withstand the objects that furround them, the fpeeches that continually allure them, the occafions that conftantly return; and above all, the gold to which their hearts are already half fold?'

แ

It must be owned, there is more appearance of truth than charity in what our Author has advanced on thefe fruitful topics. We cannot help, however, leaning a little to the opinion of Mr. d'Alembert, when he says, The barbarous prejudice which generally obtains against the profeffion of a comedian, together with the contempt in which we hold a fet of people, who contribute fo greatly to the progrefs and fupport of the arts, is certainly one of the principal caufes of the irregular conduct, which we lay to their charge: they ftrive to indemnify themselves by idle pleafures, for the difrepute annexed to their condition of life. A player, who behaves himself like a man of character, is doubly deferving of refpect; and yet we hardly take any notice of him. The public extortioner who infults the poor, and enriches himself by the neceffities of the ftate; the courtier who fawns and cringes, but never pays his debts; these are the men we honour most. Were comedians to be not only tolerated at Geneva, but fubjected at first to prudent regulations, protected and encouraged afterwards according to their good behaviour, and at length raifed to a level with the reft of the inhabitants, this city would fhortly have the advantage of what is generally looked upon as a phænomenon, though it is we that make it fuch, viz. a company of worthy comedians."

As an immediate answer to this, our Author takes Mr. d'Alembert to task in the manner following. To prevent the inconveniencies that may arife from the bad example of comedians, you would be for obliging them to be honest men. Thus, fay you, we fhould have public entertainments, and virtuous manners, fo as to unite the advantages of both. Public entertainments, and virtuous manners! This would be a fine fight indeed, efpecially for the firft time. But what method would you point out for keeping the comedians within bounds? Severe laws, well executed. This is at least acknowledging that they have need of being checked, and that the method is not eafy. Severe laws, you fay. The firft is to fuffer no fuch company: if we violate this, what will become of the feverity of the reft? Laws well executed? The queftion is, whether that can be done: for the force of laws has its meafure, and fo has that of vice. We cannot be fure of executing the laws, till we have compared these two quantities, and find that the former furpaffeth the latter. The knowlege of these two relations conftitutes the proper fcience of a legislator: for if his business was no more than to publish edicts and regulations, with a view of redreffing abufes as faft as they rife, no doubt but he would fay very fine things; yet for the most part they would be ineffectual, and

ferve rather as hints towards excellent laws, than as means to execute them.'

There is fomething very just in thefe remarks of our Author, refpecting the inftitution and execution of the laws. But how far they ferve his prefent purpofe, we will not pretend to determine: referring thofe who are curious to know the whole of his argument, to the work itself. With the leave of our Readers, however, we will prefent them with another, or two, of Mr. Rouffeau's digreffions. From the paffage laft quoted, he takes occafion to enter into an enquiry, concerning the immediate influence of the powers of government on manners. It is an important obfervation, fays he, that matters of morality and univerfal juftice are not regulated like those of particular justice and ftrict right, by laws and edicts. The first act of authority the Ephori of Sparta did, after they entered upon their office, was to enjoin the people, not to obferve, but to love the laws; to the end that it might be no hardfhip to obferve them. Thus, the hand of government, he remarks, can only influence manners, in general, by directing the public opinion. He does not, however, point out the proper means to be taken for directing this opinion; but contents himself with a striking example, to fhew that these means are neither laws, nor punishments, nor any fort of coercive methods. This ftriking example respects duelling; and, as our Author's obfervations on it are fenfible and juft, we shall give them in his own, or rather his translator's words: viz.

This example is juft under your eye; for I borrow it from your own country: it is the tribunal of the marshals of France, who are instituted fupreme judges of the point of honour.

• What then was the intent of this inftitution? To change the public opinion in regard to duels, that is, to the reparation of injuries, and to the occafions in which a gentleman is obliged to have recourfe to his fword, upon pain of infamy, in order to obtain fatisfaction for an injury done him. Thence it follows,

In the first place, that as force has no power upon the mind, a tribunal founded for operating this change, should banifh even the leaft appearance of violence. Even this word tribunal was improper: I fhould prefer that of court of honour. Its only arms ought to be honour and difgrace: no rewards, no corporal punishment, no prifon, no arreft, no guards. Only a beadle fhould make his fummons, by touching the accufed with a white rod; but no other constraint to bring him before the court. True it is, that not to appear within a certain time before thefe judges, would be confeffing they had no honour,

and

and figning their own fentence. Hence naturally fhould refult a mark of infamy, fuch as degradation of nobility, incapacity of ferving the King in his courts or armies, with other punishments of the fame kind, which naturally depend on, or are a neceffary effect of opinion.

Secondly, it follows, that to eradicate the public prejudice, it was requifite there fhould be judges of great authority on the matters in queftion; and in this refpect the founder entered perfectly into the spirit of the inftitution: for in a military nation I want to know who are the beft judges of a proper occafion of fhewing courage, or of demanding fatisfaction for injured honour, but veterans adorned with military titles; veterans grown grey with laurels; veterans who have a hundred times proved, at the expence of their blood, that they know full well when it is their duty to fpill it?

Thirdly, it follows, that as nothing is more independent on the fupreme power than public judgment, the Sovereign ought to take care, above all things, not to mix his arbitary decifions with the decrees made to reprefent, and what is more, to determine this judgment. On the contrary, he should endeavour to raise the court of honour above himself, as subject to its venerable decrees. He ought not therefore to have begun with condemning all duellifts indiftinctly; this was fetting up a fhocking oppofition all at once betwixt honour and the law: for even the law cannot oblige a man to dishonour himself. If the public are of opinion, that fuch a man is a poltroon, in vain will it be for the King, with all his power, to declare him brave; nobody will believe a word of it: and this fellow, who was looked upon as a poltroon, and who wants to be refpected by force, will only be the more defpifed. As to what the edicts fay, that to fight a duel is offending God, this is a very pious opinion without doubt: but the civil magiftrate is not a judge of confciences; and whenever the fupreme authority would interpofe in difputes between honour and religion, it runs a risk of expofing itself on both fides. Neither do thofe edicts reafon better, in faying, that inftead of fighting, we ought to addrefs ourselves to the marshals; thus to condemn all duels without diftinction or referve, is to begin with previously determining what is referred to their judgment. It is very well known, that marshals are not allowed to grant a duel, even when injured honour can have no other fatisfaction; and there are many fuch cafes, according to the prejudices of the world: for as to the ceremonious fatisfactions which may be offered to the perfon injured, these are mere children's play.

Suppose a man has a right to accept of a reparation for himfelf, and to forgive his enemy, this maxim artfully managed may