the symbol of a comet, having a period of about five hundred years? One historical authority, says, that the phoenix first appeared in Egypt fourteen years before the accession of Sesostris, and in his days. Another confirms it by saying, that it was first seen in the age of Sesostris. The phoenix, therefore, appearing to Sesostris in his battle with the Scheti, clearly confirms this historical tradition. If it was the symbol of a comet, its period, in round numbers, was five hundred years. Was it, therefore, Whiston's great comet of 1680, whose period is five hundred and seventy-five years. All learned men knew the theory of Whiston and Burnet;-that this comet has been the great agent in all the revolutions of this globe, and is to be the great agent in its future revolutions. Its period, with tolerable precision, brings it to the Hebrew date of the creation-to the Hebrew date of the flood-and to the appearance of the great star which designated the death of Julius Cæsar, and preceded the birth of the Messiah.

Calculating retrospectively, its alleged period will bring it, with tolerable accuracy, to the time when a comet appeared to Cyrus in his march upon Sardis and one more revolution calculated retrospectively, will bring it very nearly to the era of Sesostris; 1194. If this be so, then the period of this battle with the Scheti may, with very little trouble, be fixed. The inscriptions which accompany these battle pieces, and which will doubtless be produced by Champollion's succeeding livraisons, state the month, and day of the month, when the event, with which they are associated, occurred; but the Egyptian chronologers had no other means, or did not publicly employ them, of recording the general lapse of the earth's time, except by reckoning the years of the successive kings; and it was in the fifth year of the reign of Sesostris when this campaign occurred.

We have now concluded the subject as far as the illustrations of Champollion's great work on Egypt extend. We presume that the line of publication, chalked out in this instance, will be preserved, that portraits of all the Egyptian sovereigns of the 18th dynasty, after the reign and acts of Sesostris have been rendered complete by illustration, will be given; and that each will be followed by all that is interesting in the personnel of his court, or the materiel of his army; in his pacific actions,

or in his belligerent exploits. We wait with much anxiety and curiosity for the succeeding livraisons of this important work. At no time could they appear more opportunely than at the present. Knowledge of every kind is indeed devoured with delightful eagerness. But no information can be more useful, or is at this moment more required, than historical narration, which unites the period of our classical recollections with distant times, and exhibits one course of consistent Providence ruling through all ages.

ARTICLE VI.

Minutes of Evidence taken before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, respecting Dramatic Entertain

The Drama Vindicated; with copious Notes. By JOHN DENMAN, ESQ., S. C. L. Cambridge: 1835.

THE laws affecting Dramatic Literature were never, perhaps, so comprehensively misunderstood as at the present period; to use a happy phrase of the late Sir James Mackintosh, they are, indeed, "flourishing in the full vigour of their incapacity.” Notwithstanding that the Commons House of Parliament, in its anxiety for the wise nourishment and advancement of the intellectual amusements of the people, appointed, in June 1832, Mr. E. L. Bulwer, Sir Charles Wetherell, Mr. Alderman Waithman, together with twenty-one other noblemen and gentlemen of various talents and acquirements, to inquire into the subject, to "call for persons, papers, and records,” and to report thereon; and, notwithstanding that this Committee put 4197 questions within the space of "one little month" to nearly forty managers, actors, critics, and authors, and made their report, nothing has been done by the Legislature to effect an amelioration of laws confessedly acknowledged by all parties to be widely and effectively mis-understood. A Bill, apparently framed upon the report, was prepared and brought into the House of Lords by the Marquis of Clanricarde; and though it flirted with reform, it acquired no favour in men's eyes, attached itself to no worthy object, and, on the 27th of June, 1834, died a natural death in that condemned cell for measures of Reform, the

House of Lords. Its aim seems to have been to regulate the mode of licensing new theatres; to define, confirm, and extend the prohibitory powers of the Lord Chamberlain; to recognise the office of Censor, and in a schedule to regulate his hitherto mystical fees. It is high time, we think, that the just rights and useful influences of the Drama should be regarded and advocated by those who have the improvement of the manners and morals of the people at heart; and those Members of the legislature who are in the sessionly habit of striving to over-starch the Sunday pastimes and pursuits of the people, and of toiling like labourers over the conflicting interests of railways and bullock markets, will not be employing themselves less profitably, wisely, or humanely, in strenuously applying their exertions towards clearing away the briars of useless restriction, and removing all acknowledged abuses from that best source of national amusement, our Dramatic Literature.

It is our intention, as far as our limits will permit us, to give a short exposition of the dramatic laws as they at present stand. To show the distortions, extortions, and errors which have crept into the interpretation and execution of the statutes; and to throw out some hints for the amendment of these statutes, which, if the serious attention of Parliament be called to the subject, will, we trust, be found serviceable in the constructing of any future bill. But before we thus proceed, we cannot refuse to ourselves and to our readers the pleasure of turning briefly to the minutes of evidence, and to the report very properly preceding them (as it clearly is not consequent upon the mass of questions and replies) which were presented to the House by its ingenious Committee. One thing we much regret, and we think the omission might well be rectified in reports made to the House in general, viz., that the name of each inquirer was not prefixed to the question put by him to the witnesses; as we confess we should, as the Irishman said, be desirous of knowing the gentleman who could have the hardihood to identify himself with a few of the interrogatories. How the report, too, could have been determined upon and drawn up, it is difficult to conjecture, unless we may conclude that a disinterested mind, out of the committee, being carefully and utterly preserved from the darkness of the evidence, had been employed upon it with all its unprejudiced ignorance.

We can hardly better commence our notice of the evidence than by extracting the following loose query and prejudiced reply.

"But before a play is accepted, must it not, generally speaking, go through the ordeal of the approbation of the leading actor or actors of the theatre! -No. Sometimes we find, on reading the play over, that they will not act their parts; but in reply to that question, I beg to state, that after a play has been read in the green-room, I have seen the performers delighted with their parts, and I have seen that go on till the day of the night of representation; and then I was more nervous than when every one of them hated it,-because three times out of four, when they are delighted with their parts, the play does not succeed; and I have seen, when they were of a contrary opinion, it has succeeded. You see this is what the theatres are subject to."—(p. 113.)

From judges so proverbially loose in their "summings up" as these respondents are (if respondents can at any time be called judges), have the selected legislators sought for that information regarding the drama, upon which they have suggested to the House the cause of the decay of dramatic literature, and plans for its future renovation. We find accordingly, minuted down in this bulky report, with short-hand precision, Mr. Kean's remarks on the excellence of large theatres, and the extremely favourable seats in the one shilling gallery; and we have Mr. Dowton lauding small houses to the gods, and requiring those gods not to be out of hearing or of sight. We have Mr. Laporte (the then embryo lessee-victim of Covent Garden theatre) speaking against the German and the Italian opera! and Mr. T. P. Cooke, all for Black-Eyed Susan, a clear stage, and plenty of favour. We have Mr. Bartley simply denying that he has a share in any theatre; and Mr. Braham, with an intense gratitude, like Byron's favourite "Hate," "known only on the stage!"-thanking God* that he is not the proprietor of any house-of-call for the drama. We have too Mr. Charles Kemble standing up lustily for patent rights, which he does not, because he cannot, explain. And Mr. Mathews gives an imitation of John Kemble, which must of course be full of agreeable instruction to the minds of the Wetherells and the Waithmans at the green table, panting for the diffusion of useful theatrical knowledge. The following questions and answers,

* The King has been pleased to grant a licence to Mr. Braham; and with a courtly submission, the latter has built a theatre, and revoked his gratitude.

as to what constitutes the Legitimate Drama, will give the reader a fair notion of the collective wisdom to be found in the evidence:

"Mr. JAMES WINSTON.

"What do you consider is meant by the regular drama?—The regular drama I consider to be tragedy and comedy, and everything on the stage."

"Can you state what you consider to be not the regular drama ?—I do not know—that is a very difficult thing to ascertain:-if they can play every thing, every thing is the regular drama."-(p. 20.)

"Mr. T. P. COLLIER.

"You think the wish of the public is for the legitimate and regular drama, then?—I think it is, at the same time, that depends entirely on what you mean by legitimate and regular drama. I call the regular drama, any drama which has good dialogue, good characters, and good morals; I make the word 'legitimate,' as applied to the drama, depend on the nature of the plot, characters, and dialogue."

"You do not think a harlequinade is part of the legitimate drama ?—I think not, though it may be presented at a legitimate theatre; but when I speak of legitimate drama, I do not mean legitimate in point of antiquity, for then the grossest absurdities may be brought in. I do not think legitimate drama depends on any number of acts."-(p. 28.)

"Mr. DUNN.

"Are all your representations at Drury Lane confined to what you conceive to be the legitimate drama?—No; we perform farce and spectacle, and pantomime."-(p. 73.)

"Mr. MORRIS.

"By the regular drama, you mean tragedy and comedy, in five acts?—Yes.", (p. 138.)

"Mr. JERROld.

"How do you describe the legitimate drama?—I describe the legitimate drama to be where the interest of the piece is mental; where the situation of the piece is rather mental than physical. A melo-drama is a piece with what are called a great many telling situations; I would call that a melo-drama; I would not call a piece like the Hunchback a melo-drama, because the interest of the piece is of a mental order."

"A piece rather addressed to the ear than to the eye?—Certainly."—(p. 158.) "Mr. POOLE.

"Do you consider that it is possible to give any definition of the regular drama, which shall be exactly binding in law?—No; except by negative. I could tell you what the regular drama is not; but it would be very difficult to define it positively."

"Did you ever see it defined ?—I never did."

"It would be very difficult to give that definition to the regular drama which should be legally binding?-No; it would not be difficult if you were to take up the point now, to say what should be the legitimate drama; but it is a hard thing to say what is legitimate drama at present,"

"How would you define it?—I would say that comedy and tragedy, without any musical accompaniment, would be regular drama.”—(p. 193.)