SIR HENRY IRVING

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22319, 5 February 1938, Page 18

SIR HENRY IRVING

Henry Irving, the centenary of whose birth occurs to-morrow, was the last of a line of great figures in British theatrical history—a worthy follower of Burbidge, Betterton, Booth. Garrick. Keane. the Kembles. Young, and Macready. 1 include Booth because, although an American actor, his visits to England and. particularly, his memorable association with Irving in a unique revival of "Othello” at the Lyceum Theatre, make it difficult to omit him. History is said sometimes to repeat itself. If this is correct, perhaps we may one day behold the equal of Henry Irving. Personally, I doubt it. Certainly, no actor of even remotely comparable powers has appeared sinpe his death. Let me make it quite clear at the outset, however, that, while

I am convinced of this superiority, I have by no means lost sight of Irving's equally undeniable faults—artistic faults, that is. The Irving Mannerisms The main defects were two. In scenes of much emotional excitement, Irving’s speech became sometimes incoherent; and he was apt to stride across the stage in a fashion more striking than graceful. Of course, these peculiarities were seized upon with glee by his de- j tractors, from whose unwelcome at- ■ tentions Irving suffered probably in j greater degree than any celebrity of ! his time or since. When I was a I young man the Irving “mannerisms” j became the subject of heated dr- j bate, a perennially sore topic that > parted friends and caused divisions ! in families. Nothing like it has been i known in recent times, despite occa- i sional outbursts over the Epstein : statues. This incessant iteration and i exaggeration of the great actor’s un- j conventional style may have been what we now term good publicity, but at that time such persistent detraction might have done irreparable harm to a man with less power over the popular imagination. Those who were most active in this campaign of hostility seemed to forget, or perhaps did not know, that several of Irving’s distinguished predecessors also possessed personal peculiarities which inViow way bin- j dered their success with the public, j It is on record that John Philip j Kemble’s pronunciation of English rvas frequently so abnormal that it ( used to be openly challenged by | members of his audiences. When | this happened. Kemble would ad-: vance to the footlights and engage j in acrimonious argument with his; assailants. On one particular occa- I sion. indeed, we are told that he 1 offered to fight, there and then, any gentleman who dared to impugn I his diction! | “The Light of Genius” j Between the uncompromising enemies of Henry Irving and that vast army of worshippers who would admit no flaws in their idol, there was, happily, a very considerable temperate and intelligent element which, while yielding to nobody in admiration of the actor’s genius, did not ignore his manifest shortcomings. A discerning American critic wrote as follows; Irving's gestures arc not easy or graceful, nor docs he tread the stage in any but a distractingly awkward ■way; but the man is so picturesque and imposing, his face is so strangely facinating, his intellectual force and his command of his audience's feelings is so absolute, that it is impossible to remember his mannerisms in the interest and admiration excited by his better qualities. Irving has been accused of occasionally mumbling his words and of making grotesque movements on the stage. This may all be true, but the accusations cannot carry weight in the face of his magnetic personality and marvellous accomplishment. Despite every drawback, his success is of the kind that cannot be Questioned, and disarms criticism. Another American writer, who made no secret of his aversion to “ungraceful demeanour,” “fantastic stage tricks,” and “defective elocution,” said; Nevertheless, it is our duty to see, and to record, that the art of acting is a complex art, compounded of many arts: that we must not suppose it is an actor's business always to be graceful in his stage attitudes and movements, or always regular and polished in his periods and enunciation; that every artist has a way of his own by which he attains his results; and that a sound critical judgment will never allow itself to be blinded or embarrassed by the caprices of taste. Henry Irving has shown himself as a strikingly original and often a magnificent actor, one who makes even his defects help him, and if the light that shines through his work be not the light of genius, we know not what it can be. This is reasonable comment and in abrupt contrast with the remarks of the scribe who wrote: “Take away Irving’s personality, and he is merely an awkward player.” In other vords, take away his imagination, his insight, his emotional sympathy, his artistic conscientiousness, his unique facial expression, and his vast experience, and there was nothing left but the “mannerisms,” which could be denounced at large. That typified the unreasonable sort of criticism which dogged Irving wherever he went.

The indisputable fact was that, as pointed out by one of the shrewder writers quoted above, Irving actually thrived to some extent on his blemishes. These were inherent in his style and could not be eradicated. But such was the innate dignity of the man that his performances completely nullified what in another less gifted might have seemed ludicrous. His very faults had a certain unwonted quality which to the sensitive observer suggested their own pardon. Even the most hostile critics were led, sooner cr later, to admit themselvese conquered by what one of them described as “an indefinable charm in the acting of Henry Irving which is perplexingly baffling, defies analysis, but is bewilderingly potent on the emotions of the spectator.’’ The Lyceum Company An accusation of quite another kind was often levelled against, Irving during his lifetime, and has ; been made since his death by no less ■ a person than Mr Bernard Shaw. This was to the effect that the actor purposely surrounded himself with indifferent associates in order to concentrate public attention upon himself. Nothing further from the truth could well be uttered. It is a matter ■C historical fact that such subsequently and independently famous actors as William Terriss, George Alexander. Martin Harvey, and Forbes-Robertson, besides others of lesser renown, were for years members of the Lyceum company. On •everal occasions, too, Irving proplays ip which he himself had cither a comparatively minor part, or onq little suited to him, so that

Centenary of a Great Actor •van-rex for thk ii'-ess/ .By L. D. AUSTIN.J

I Ellen Terry might have all the limelight, Examples were “Olivia.”

"Romeo and Juliet." W. G. Willis’s “lolanthe,” and Lytton’s "The Lady of Lyons.” Here again the testimony of a leading American critic went far to refute the charge that Irving sacrificed everything to his own selfish dominance.

We in America who have long been accustomed to the evils of the -, star” system in our theatres were astonished and delighted to find that in many of the Irving productions the great actor was simply a personage in a play who had no manner of deference paid to him by the rest of the company beyond what was due to the character he represented.

It was my treasured privilege to witness nearly all the major productions and revivals at the Lyceum

Theatre in the heyday of its prosperity. My father’s position as Irving’s secretary gave mo the run of the theatre, and I was there almost cvery r M - eek during the nineties. My experience showed conclusively that Irving was far from desiring always to be the central figure of a surrounding group, in winch everyone else was to be subordinated and regarded as a foil to the leading part. Henry Irving had no selfishness of that kind in his composition. He collected round him a set of players who were proud to be acting with him, whose loyalty did much to ensure the brilliant success of his management, and who, after his death, never tired of extolling his character and inspiring example. No one could doubt, after a glance at that noble countenance, that its possessor tvas a man among men, one of those rare beings fashioned by Nature only at long intervals, whom to have known is the highest honour, and to remember i.s the keenest joy. It is thus that those who loved him think of Henry Irving.