ESa-,
I
NO. 1.
t.OOAt, .10UHNA1.1HM.
75
his theatre, and to lit llieso for the stage.
This implied un occasional interpolation,
designed to licklu thecals ot'liis audience.
Wo can thus explain the occurrence of
such anachronisms as the bca coast of
Rohcmia, and the use of gunpowder at
the sobjo of Troy. No accomplished
scholar would have Introduced such in
accuracies us these.
The profession o( stage mnnngor is at
the present time rather precarious, despite
the crowds of people who frequent our the.
ators. It is hardly safe to assume that it
was less so at the opening of the seven
teenth century when England was on the
verge of the Puritan Revolution. It would,
moreover, have been a formidable task
for any man to have attended to the many
duties oi stage manager, and, at the same
time, be writing two plays every year.
None of our present managers, however
eminent they are, pretend to be original
authors.
Shakespeare may indeed have had consid
erable literary ability; perhaps ho sot the
stamp of his own individuality upon the
writings of others; but such work is ol
inferior nature. 0. F. M.
LOCAL JOURNALISM.
The average country newspaper of to
day is the worst exhibition of human
weaknesses, and thu most disgusting dis
play of general oUhsednoss that a Unite
mind can well conceive of. We have
heard much abi ul the liberty of the press;
but if, by the press, is meant only those
bundles of inconsistencies called news
papers, then 1 would say, if a damnable
outrage deserves liberty, by all means
give it to the "press." For if, thus lim
ited, it is not an outrage, it is a lunacy,
and, in either case, to give it liberty
amounts to about the same thing. If we,
as a people, are willing that ignorance
and inconsistency should stalk through
the land, biassing and prejudicing the
minds of the young, and deluding the old
with absurdities, then let us tolerate and
patronize the political paper as we find it
at the present time. Now, perhaps, I
shall be called fanatical for making theso
statements, but I propose not only to
stand that, but to back up what I have
said by facts.
And first, journalism wields u vast in.
llucncc over us as a people, Wo read
more from newspapers than any other
nation. Many men's opinions, politically
and otherwise, are moulded by what they
read in the newspapers. All are influ
enced more or less by them. They arc
authority, from the very fact that they aro
so generally read, and if their opinions
are not concurred in by all, they arc not
often openly refuted. If good men see
anything erroneous and dangerous, they
smother their indignation into silence,
rather than to expose their name and
character to attack by an unprincipled
editor. This is not imagination. It is a
fact. 1 have known, and do know it to be
the case.
Well, then, who are our journalists in
general? Who is it that holds in his
hands this moulding power? Surely we
will all admit that such positions in soci
ety demand the very best men ; above all,
educated and honorable men. Rut aro
our journalists such men ? My observa
tion says no. A man who descends to
devote columns of his sheet to slinging
all the mistiness that his foul brain can
produce, at a "brother" editor in a "news,
paper quarrel," is a man eminently out of
his place. A man who will attack the
character of another out of purely politi.
cal differences, or for some trivial or im
aginary offense, is, to say the least, an
outlaw. I have known men to read a red hot
democratic paper, and, at the same time,
these very men were confirmed republi
cans. In uch a case the editorials could
not be otherwise than trumped up, and yet
they were palmed off as genuine. What
hypocrisy! What a reflection on jour
nalism! And yet, for some indefinable
reason, the people are disposed to over.
ffBWffWSff
g