afterwards, must all of them operate as so many drawbacks from this pleasure and it is not unusual to hear persons, fond of such amusements, complaining afterwards that they had not answered. There is therefore, probably, more pleasure in the preparations for such amusements, and in the previous talk about them, than in the amusements themselves.

f

It is also probable that the greatest pleasure felt in a ball-room is felt by those who go into it as spectators only. These perceive pleasure from the music, from the beat of the steps in unison with it, but particularly from the idea that all who join in the dance are happy. happy. These considerations produce in the spectator cheerfulness and mirth; and these are continued to him more pure and unalloyed than in the former case, because he can have no drawbacks from the admission into his own breast of any of those uneasy and immoral passions above described.

But to return to the point in question The reader has now had the different cases laid before him, as determined by the moral philosopher.

philosopher. He has been conducted also through the interior of the ball-room. He will have perceived, therefore, that the arguments of the Quakers have gradually unfolded themselves, and that they are more or less conspicuous, or more or less true, as dancing is viewed abstractedly, or in connection with the preparations and accompaniments that may be interwoven with it. If it be viewed in connection with these preparations and accompaniments, and if these should be found to be so inseparably connected with it that they must invariably go together, (which is supposed to be the case where it is introduced into the ballroom,) he will have no difficulty in pronouncing that in this case it is objectionable as a Christian recreation. For it cannot be doubted that it has an immediate tendency in this case to produce a frivolous levity, to generate vanity and pride, and to call up passions of the malevolent kind. Now in this point of view it is that the Quakers generally consider dancing. They never view it, as I observed before, abstractedly, pr solely by itself. They have therefore forbidden

I

forbidden it to their Society, believing it to be the duty of a Christian to be serious in his conversation and deportment, to afford an example of humility, and to be watchful and diligent in the subjugation of his evil passions.

CHAP

CHAPTER VI.

Novels-Novels forbidden-their fictitious nature no argument against them-arguments of the Quakers are, that they produce an affectation of knowledge, a romantic spirit, and a perverted morality; and that, by creating an indisposition towards other kinds of reading, they prevent moral improvement and real delight of mindHence novel-reading more pernicious than many other amusements.

AMONG the prohibitions which the Quakers have adopted in their moral education, as barriers against vice, or as preservatives of virtue, I shall consider that next which relates to the perusal of improper books. George Fox seems to have forgotten nothing that was connected with the morals of the Society. He was anxious for the purity of its character. He seemed afraid of every wind that blew, lest it should bring some noxious vapour to defile it. And as those things which were spoken or represented might corrupt the mind, so those which were written and printed might cor

rupt it also. He recommended, therefore, that the youth of his newly-formed society should abstain from the reading of romances. William Penn, and others, expressed the same sentiments on this subject. And the same opinion has been held by the Quakers, as a body of Christians, down to the present day. Hence novels, as a particular species of romance, and as that which is considered as of the worst tendency, have been particularly marked for prohibition.

Some Quakers have been inclined to think that novels ought to be rejected on account of the fictitious nature of their contents. But this consideration is by no means generally adopted by the Society as an argument against them. Nor would it be a sound argument, if it were. If novels contain no evil within themselves, or have no evil tendency, the mere circumstance of the subject, names, or characters, being feigned will not stamp them as censurable. Such fiction will not be like the fiction of the drama, where men act and personate characters that are not their own. Different in different ages of the world, have

men,

had