NOTE ON HAMLET.

HAM. Your Ladyship is nearer to Heaven, than when I saw you last, by the altitude of a chopine.'

In Raymond's Voyage through Italy, 1648, 12mo. a work which is said to have been partly written by Dr. Bargrave, Prebendary of Canterbury, the following curious account of the chopine occurs. "This place Venice] is much frequented by the walking maypoles, I meane the women. They weare their coats halfe too long for their bodies, being mounted on their chippeens (which are as high as a man's leg); they walke between two handmaids, majestickly deliberating of every step they take. This fashion was invented and appropriated to the noble Venetian's wives, to bee constant to distinguish them from the courtesans, who goe covered in a vaile of white taffety."

James Howell, speaking of the Venetian women, says, "They are low and of small statures for the most part, which makes them to rayse their bodies upon high shoes called chapins, which gave one occasion to say that the Venetian ladies were made of three things; one part of them was wood, meaning their chapins, another part was their apparrell, and the third part was a woman; the Senat hath often endeavour'd to take away the wearing of those high shooes; but all women are so passionately delighted with this kind of state, that no law can weane them from it."

Some have supposed that the jealously of Italian husbands gave rise to the invention of the chopine. Limojon de Saint Didier, a lively French writer on the Republic of Venice, mentions a conversation with some of the Doge's Counsellors of State on this subject, in which it was remarked that smaller shoes would certainly be found more convenient; which induced one of the Counsellors to say, putting on at the same time a very austere look, pur troppo commodi, pur troppo. The first ladies who rejected the use of the chopine were the daughters of the Doge Dominico Contareno, about the year 1670. It was impossible to set one foot before the other without leaning on the shoulders of two waitingwomen, and those who used them must have stalked along like boys in stilts.

THEATRICAL INSOLENCE.

THE unbecoming conduct of those individuals, whe supported by public patronage, frequently treat their benefactors with rudeness and insult, hath been often remarked and severely censured in many publications; an instance of this species of ingratitude, which took place at Athens, is recorded by a Greek historian.

A tragedy having been announced for public representation, the Athenians, on the day appointed, assembled in crowds; but just as the piece should have commenced, a popular actor, who, according to the custom of that age, was to have played a principal female part, refused to act, unless he was immediately furnished with a more splendid dress, and a greater train of attendants.

The insolent upstart was told, that if he had communicated his wishes at an earlier period of the business, they should certainly have been complied with, but that his expecting a new dress and additional attendants, at a moment when the people were impatiently expecting the tragedy to begin, was inconsistent and absurd. The player obstinately persisted in his resolution not to act unless his terms were complied with; the delay, altercation, and confusion, exasperated the manager so much, that he forcibly pushed the stubborn blockhead on the stage, at the same time observing to him, in an audible voice, "How can you be so ridiculous as to wish to make a parade and shew, when you see among the audience the wife of Phocian, the greatest of our commanders, the plainest drest of all the audience, and attended only by a single slave."

This well-timed reproof excited a loud and universal applause; the corrected offender, who deserved to have been hissed from the theatre, felt he was wrong, apologised for his preposterous conduct, and immediately performed his part,

SPANIARDS AND PORTUGUESE.

WE are apt to mistake the character of the Spaniards; there is, in the very excess and abundance of their wit, joy, and good humour, a certain steady evenness of manners, equally distant from pedantry, levity, and affectation; more mirth of the heart than all the noise, grimace, and badinage of their neighbours; a kind of grave, dry,

sententious humour, with a serene and placid firmness of countenance.

But, from too much of the religious, and then of the military spirit, they have rapidly declined into enthu siasm and cruelty; and as the human character never stops, have still continued to sink into indifference, pride, indolence, and barren devotion; they cannot be excited to any great effort but by superstitious terrors, love, revenge, and a fandango, the favourite dance of all ranks, in which, from a state of death-like stupidity, hey will, at the first touch of an instrument, join with enthusiasm, animation, grace, and delight.

It seems to have been the system of Spain and Portugal, to protect themselves by distance and desolation; to leave whole districts uncultivated, and roads impassable; as military science declined, timidity succeeded to discipline, and men prepared for war, by casing themselves in armour, to be smothered, or by shutting themselves up in castles, to be starved; they forgot that national strength consists in an active, moving, disposable force; and that the safest state of defence is, being always ready to attack.

The Portuguese pride has usefully changed its object, from the black cloak, spectacles, an affectation of wisdom and sanctity, and having nothing to do; they are grown fond of fine cloths, are become diligent, enter

prizing, and active.

Lisbon is a mixture of luxury and misery, nastiness and magnificence; the buildings erected since the earthquake of 1755 are barbarously gigantic: the Marquis de Pombal, their chief projector, had the misfortune of being elevated out of the reach of controul; no man presumed to understand even his own trade so well as the Prime Minister.

THEORY AGAINST FACT.

It is, I understand, an established opinion of the present day among professional men, that impressions made on the mind of a pregnant woman cannot in any way affect her unborn infant. Yet numerous and well-authenticated relations have strongly inclined many persons to think differently. Malbranche relates, that a Parisian female of his day, tempted by unamiable curiosity to sce

a public execution, was so struck with horror, that she was soon after delivered of a child, with bruises and frac tures on different parts of its body and limbs, similar to those of the malefactor, who had been broken on the wheel.

A friend of the editor's, to whom this circumstance was mentioned, and an orthodox thinker on the subject, raised a long and loud laugh against the relater of it, a venerable divine: "Nothing," said the humourist, who when he has any thing to say, thinks the wit a sufficient apology for the rudeness of his interruptions" nothing is easier to account for; the poor terrified woman, who, by the way, ought to have been at home mending her husband's stockings, would naturally endeavour to get away from a sight which affected her so disagreeably; and in the pressure of a rude and unyielding crowd, which generally collects on such occasions, might, very probably, be squeezed and bruised, herself as well as the infant, in the manner you describe, without having recourse to any supernatural means.'

He who is laughed at will not long be listened to; the quoter of Malbranche attempted to reply, but every word was overpowered by the noisy mirth of his companions. Yet similar accidents of pregnant women alarmed by mutilated beggars, monkies, monsters, &c. &c. have frequently come under the notice of the writer of this article, and many persons of undoubted veracity.

The common-place scientific answer to facts like these is as follows: the position you wish to support is impossible and untenable, for a nervous intercourse and communication between the mother and fœtus hath never yet been discovered, by the most accurate dissectors and diligent anatomists and physiologists: and, till such nervous connection hath been pointed out, it is impossible for a man at all acquainted with the animal economy to be of your opinion.

66

The circumstances you mention, and the monstrous births you point out, I do not mean to doubt; 'but be assured they were mere lusus naturæ, and would have taken place precisely in the same way without the previous and intervening accidents. Such appearances take place every day in plants, herbs, and trees, and I hope you do not attribute it in them to the effect of a thinking principle."