Page images



In answer to numerous inquiries, I here subjoin a table of my expenses last year from London to Ober-Ammergau :

£ s. d. London to Cologne, 2nd class, via Dover and Ostend

9 0 Extra for ist class on board steamer O 5 0 Difference on ist class from Verviers to Cologne

5 10 Cologne to Bingen (steamer), ist class. 0 6 Bingen to Nuremberg, 2nd class

O 16 Nuremberg to Munich, 2nd class

O DI Munich to Weilheim, 2nd class

o 2 6 Weilheim to Ober-Ammergau, carriage


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors]

£5 16 4 It will be observed, first, that this does not include hotel expenses; secondly, that the journey was made all the way by second class, except on three occasions, when I travelled first class ; thirdly, that I went out of my way in going to Nuremberg. I have omitted also some extra expenses for luggage, because they were quite unnecessary. Hotel expenses are, of course, a matter of taste; but, if wines are dispensed with, six shillings a day will easily cover every thing. I hired a carriage from Weilheim to Ober-Ammergau; but I might have made that part of the journey by omnibus for about three shillings. On the whole, I have no doubt that one may go to Ober-Ammergau by Cologne and Munich, and return within a fortnight, for £15. This would include all necessary expenses, and would enable the traveller to have a secondclass ticket all the way to Ober-Ammergau and back. By taking the steamer from London to Antwerp, or Ostend, and travelling third class, I believe the trip could be made for £10, provided the traveller can speak German. But I would not advise any one to attempt it, even by the cheapest route, with less than £15 in his pocket.

A through-ticket from London to Munich saves trouble ; but it is a mistake as regards expense. Let the traveller take his ticket from London to Ostend (if he goes that way), a second ticket from Ostend to Verviers, and a third from Verviers to Cologne, and he will save at least ten shillings between London and Cologne.

I hope to see the Passion Play this year again myself; and I have not the smallest fear that my second visit will mar the favourable impression of

my first.

LONDON, May 24, 1871.


IT is

T is a trite observation that the drama, both

ancient and modern, had a religious origin. The Grecian mythology was the source, and furnished much of the materials, of the tragedy of Greece. In addition to that public worship of the gods in which there was nothing of mystery or concealment, there were, as every body knows, a variety of Mysteries in which only the initiated could share. In these Mysteries there does not appear to have been any exposition of doctrine or any course of oral instruction. It was not the intellect that was addressed, at least primarily and directly, but the bodily senses and the imagination. After the initiatory rites of lustration and sacrifices, all the rest was an elaborate drama in which were represented the diversified adventures and

various transformations of certain deities, with their relations—sometimes malign, sometimes beneficent -to the human race. This circumstance had an enduring influence on the subsequent drama of Greece, which retained to the end a semi-mythic character. The scene and characters are almost invariably laid in a remote past, and represent the results of actions rather than the actions themselves. The heroes of the national legends are seen on the Greek stage, not struggling or scheming, vanquishing or being vanquished, but in still and solemn repose—in a state of misery or happiness, rather than on the way towards it. There is thus no development of character, no play of human passion; and hence the use of the mask, which concealed the features of the actors, and gave to the face the appearance of preternatural impassiveness; hence also the liberal employment of tableaux vivants to illustrate and interpret the successive acts. Another reason for this characteristic of the Greek drama was, no doubt, the immense size of the ancient theatres. Any one who has

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »