THE STAGE OF THE VICTORIAN ERA.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1321, 24 June 1897, Page 40

THE STAGE OF THE VICTORIAN ERA.

The Macready Period, 1837-51: The Sunset Glow. The Interregnum, 1851-71: Night. The Irving Period, 1871-97 i The New Day. ,_ ACTORS. Macready Hare Oharles Kean Irving Vandenhoff Neville Phelps Toole G. V. Brooke Brough Harley Kendal Matthews James Webster Thome Buokstone Wyndham Compton Wilson Barrett Chippendale Tree Leigh Murray Willard Creswick Alexander Barry Sullivan Waring Fechter Waller Bancroft ACTRESSES. Helen Faucit Madame Celeste Sr. J^ e Miss Adelaide Neilso Miss Taylor Mrs Stirling Miss Horton Miss Terry Mrs Glover Mrs Kendal Mrs Humbry Miss Genevieve Ward Madame Vestris Miss Julia Neilson Madame Celeste Mrs John Wood Miss Woolgar Miss Kate Rorke Miss Glyn Miss Eaatlake Mrs Keeley Mrs Tree Miss Sedgwick Miss Calhoun Miss Herbert Miss Achureh Miss C. Leclercq Mrs Patrick Campbell Miss Rose Leclercq Miss Winifred Emery AUTHORS. Leigh Hunt Burnand Browning Wills Talfourd Byron Bulwer Lytton Grundy Sheridan Knowles Jones Westland Marston Pinero Planche Carton Charles Eeadq Esmond Tom Taylor Parker Palgrave Simpson Wilde Boucicault Stevenson Herman Merivale Henry James Albery John Davidson Gilbert Haddon Chambers* Robertson CRITICS. John Forster Thomas G. H. Lewes Austin John Oxenford Watson W. S. Gilbert Hawkins Tom Hood, junr. Lowe Clement Scott Shaw Henry Morley Walkley Joseph Knight William Archer Dutton Cook PLAYS. Legend of Florence Charles I. Blot i' the Scutcheon Silver Shield lon In Honour Bound Richelieu Sowing the Wind Money Middleman Lady of Lyons Judah Love Chase The Silver King Donna Diana Second Mrs Tanqueray Masks and Faces Sweet Lavender Ravenswood Lady Bountiful White Pilgrim The Squire All for Her Liberty Hall Two Roses The Divided Way Dan'l Druce Beau Austin Gretchen Guy Domville Caste For the Crown School Captain Swift Olivia

To survey the wide field of the Victorian* stage and to sum up and embody theresults of that survey within the narrowv limits of one short article were to attempt'" the impossible. Not only is the field toe wide, but the subject matter is so varied and of such controversial character that the task of compression and adjudication is one of exceeding difficulty. All that can be done is to outline with a bold brush the most salient features of the period, leaving to the future Genesis and Dorans the history proper of the Victorian stage, and the settlement of such knotty and much-vexed questions as the advance or retrogression of the drama, the decay of elocution, long runs, the starring systems, the problem play, and other debatable topics which exercise the btudent of the stage. The Victorian era falls naturally into three divisions, which may be styled respectively :—l. The Macready Period (1837-51) ; 2. The Interregnum (1851-71), and 3. The Irving Period (1871-97) ; alternative titles being: The Sunset Glow — Night—The New Dawn. THE MACREADY PERIOD (1837-51).

The year 1837 found Macready the? acknowledged head cf British dramatic art. Though without the fiery passion of" Edmund Kean, Macready was a man of undoubted histrionic genius. From. 1837 5 . when lie became lessee of Covent Gardens Theatre, to his retirement in 1851*. Macready worthily upheld the traditions of the palmy days. With a company which included at various times, such famous players as Phelps,. James Anderson, Helen Eaucit 3nd> Miss Taylor, Mme. Vestris, Mrs Nesbitt, the Keeleys, and Charles; Matthews, he revived nearly all theShakespearian plays, and produced for thefirst time such representative works aa Bulwer's "Lady of Lyons" and "Richelieu," Sheridan Knowles 5 "Love," LeighHunt's "Legend of Florence." and Bouoi~-

'ca'ult's " London Assurance/' Migrating in 1841 to Drury Lane, Macready produced, among many other noteworthy plays, Byron's "Marino Falieri," Westland Marston's " The Patrician's Daughter" and Browning's -"Blot i' the Scutcheon." All Macready's productions Were characterised by thoroughness and culture, his stage management .was a great advance upon any that had preceded it, under his regimS Clarkson Stanfield painted, Talfourd, Bulwer, Hunt and Browning wrote ; John Forster and G-. H. Lewes criticised and when, in 1851. Macready, at the comparatively early age of 58, retired, it was with " golden opinions from all sorts of people," alike as actor* manager, and man. To quote from Bulwer Ly tton's eulogy : " I recall, gentlemen, that brief but glorious time when the drama of England appeared suddenly to revive and to promise a future that should be worthy of its past; when, by a union of all kindred atts, and the exercise of a taste that was at once gorgeous and severe, we saw the genius of Shakespeare properly embodied upon our stage, though I maintain that the ornament was never superior to the work. ... But that was the least

merit of that glorious management. Mr Macready not only enriched the scene, but he purified the audience, an'd for the first time since the reign of Charles 11. a father might have taken his daughters to the public theatre with as much safety from all that eould shock decorum as if he had taken them to the house of a friend. I cannot recall that management without a sharp pang of indignant regret, for, if that management could have lasted but 10 or 12 years longer, I know that we should have established a permanent school for actors, a fresh and enduring field for dramatic poetry and wit, while we should have educated an audience up to feel that dramatic performances in their highest point of excellence had become an intellectual -want, that could no more be dispensed with than the newspaper or the review,. And all this to be checked and put back for an age to come! Why ? - Because the public did not appreciate the experiment ? Mr Macready has told us that the public supported him nobly, and that his houses overflowed. Why then ? Because of the enormous rent and exactions for a theatre which, even- in the most prosperous seasons, made the exact difference between profit and loss. Gentlemen, it is not now the occasion to speak of remedies for that state of things. Remedies they are, but they are for legislation to effect. They involve considerations with regard to those patents which are secured to certain houses for the purpose of maintaining in this metropolis the legitimate drama, and which I fear have proved the main obstacle to its success."

THE INTERREGNUM (1851-71). The stage was new without a leader. The genius, tired of the struggle, had retired, leaving to his successors little but the record of his worst faults and mannerisms. The divine afflatus was gone: the gruntings and growlings remained behind. Charles Kean, who, at the Princess Theatre, had lavished time and money on his gorgeous Shakespearian revivals, retired in 1859 a poorer and sadder man. With but little of his father's or Macready's genius, he was yet a man of talent, who dearly loved art and served her well. Phelps' memorable management at Sadler's Wells was the only bright oasis in the dramatic desert, and by 1862 the death-knell of that enterprise was rung, and the lowest depth was reached. Able actors and actresses there were in plenty witness, Phelps, Eobson, Creswick, Barry Sullivan, Benjamin Webster, J. B. Buckstone, Compton, Chippendale, Charles Matthews, Henry Neville, Mrs Stirling, Miss Glyn, Miss Fanny Josephs, the sisters Carlotta and Rose Leolercq, Miss Herbert and many others—but there was no pre-eminent leader. The " starring " system —" one star and a bundle of ' sticks' " and the " sensation " drama came into vogue ; the London theatres were in the hands of men like Webster and Buckstone, good actors, but men of no culture or breadth of view or loftiness of aim. The slovenliness, niggardliness and general inaptitude of the stage productions were deplorable—men of culture had ceased to write plays ; society, partly following the Royal lead, and partly from disgust at the state of things, had dropped the theatre-going habit, and, worst of all, the most rampant protectionism prevailed, and was encouraged by managers and the baser press. To quote Clement Scott: "No critic of that day dared to allude to the French stage or French actors, under penalty of a managerial boycott, although the authors of the period stole all their plots and most of their dialogue from French plays—and never dreamed of paying for them. A year or two before a French company had dared to come to England and attempted to perform ' Monte Cristo ' at Drury lano. They were hooted from the stage by a cabal, led by eminent literary men and actors, and were at last graciously permitted to perform at St. James' Theatre, which was treated as a land of 'No Man's Land,' and supposed to be harmless because it was entirely patronised by the ' swells' of the West End, who were not in touch or sympathy with the ordinary dramatic amusements of the day." But "when night is darkest dawn is nearest." Fechter, as the exponent of the natural school of acting, as opposed to the stilted raouthings and stridings of the Macready-monkeys T. W. Robertson as the pioneer of a fresher literary method, the Bancrofts as his enthusiastic interpreters, with Tom Hood the younger and Clement Scott as their champions in the press, between 1865 and 1870, each and all, in face of bitterest opposition, did yeoma.n's service, and succeeded in infusing new blood and spirit into the poor old drama. THE IRVING PERIOD (1871-97). But tho stago was still waiting for its rightful leader, and it was not until No-

vernber, 1871, that Irving's wonderful per- ! f ormance of Matthias, in" The Bells," astonished the town, and at one bound suddenly lifted him far above all competitors. For five or six years previously Irving had been a London actor, and had touched nothing without success, his Rawdon Scudamore in "Hunted Down," hi 3 Chevenix in " Uncle Dick's Darling," his Bill Sykes in " Oliver Twist," and most of all his Digby Grant in " The Two Roses " had stamped him as a thorough artist in the opinions of the best judges. But these j were all comedy or " character " parts—his first real opportunity came with Matthias. He grasped his opportunity—it established his supremacy, and from that day he has been the undoubted leader of the English stage. How worthily he has filled the leadership it is not necessary to say. Though, like all great actors, marred by mannerisms, his histrionic genius is undoubted, whilst in culture, intelligence, genius for stage management, lofty ideals and reverence for his art he is certainly inferior to none of hi 3 great, predecessors, j He has magnificently revived Shakespeare, j he has revived Goethe, he has produced , plays by Tennyson and Lord Lytton ; he j has encouraged the literary dramatist by producing such poetical works as W. G. Wills' "Charles 1.," "Eugene Aram" and "Olivia," Calmon's "Amber Heart/' and Herman Merivale's " Ravenswood "; he has at different times and seasons •written with high ability on the Dramatic Art, and in many an eloquent speech and lecture he has urged the claims of the stage to consideration and respect. No title could have made Henry Irving greater than he is, but not even the fiercest Democrat among actors obiects to his Knighthood, for it is felt that apart from the personal distinction conferred upon so worthy an artist, the bestowal of the dignity is a formal recognition of the right of the actor, as such, to rank socially with other devotees of the liberal arts. Acting as a profession now has the direct sanction and approval of the fountain of honour in the British dominions, and though it be true that " Rank is but the guinea's stamp," still many good people won't take their guinea without it. No space is left to notice the efforts of the co-workers with Irving in the theatrical field since 1871; suffice it to enumerate Ellen Terry, the Bancrofts, John Hare, Mr and Mrs Kendal, Wilsqn Barrett, George Alexander, Charles Wyndham, Willard and Beerbohm Tree. The dramatic authors, too, for the last dozen years or so have displayed a great advance, and it is not too much to say that at no time since the very beginning of the reign have so many able men been writing for the stage as at the present. In A. W. Pinero the British stage has a dramatist of whom it may well be proud, wit, humour, pathos, knowledge of life, culture, style, he has at command. He has written the one really great English play of the age "The Second Mrs Tanqueray"; he has written the best domestic comedy, " Sweet Lavender" ; the four best farces, " The Magistrate," " The School Mistress," "The Amazons" and " Dandy Dick " ; and at least three or four other mixed pieces of very high excellence—" Lady Bountiful," "The Squire," "The Hobby liorso" and "The Profligate," and being yet little more than 40 years of age should be capable of giving the world many others. Of less executive ability, but still a dramatist of great gifts, is H. A. Jones. " His Saints and Sinners," " Judah," " The Middleman" and "Mitchael and His Lost Angel " are all noteworthy plays, and his essays on The Drama have also done much to leaven the public mind with an appreciation of the higher aims of the dramatic art. Sydney Grundy is another writer high above the average. His " Sowing the Wind," "In Honour Bound," "The Silver Shield " and " The Greatest of These " have all the true literary quality, together with the practical stage-craft the mere literary man so often lacks. Other writers from whom the public may look for good work in the near future are A. C. Calmour, Lewis Parker, Carton, Esmond and Haddon Chambers. Summing-up the loss and gain of the past 60 years we may, without adopting the genial optimision of Clement. Scott, or the doleful pessimism of Robert Buchanan, hold that on the whole the stage has advanced. Loss there has been ; the art of elocution has decidedly retrograded since the old school faded away. Wellington playgoers who recollect Hoskins, Creswick and Mrs Darrell must often sigh on hearing the mangling of Shakespearian blankverse whenever a travelling compauy produces "Hamlet," "Othello," or "Romeo and Juliet." In the recent Pwtter-Bellew season almost the only sound elocutionist in the company was Mr Cathcart, a brother of Mrs Darrell, who graduated in the school of Macready and Charles Kean. The " starring " system has also been on the whole an evil, though to us in the

colonies the reverse. But for it it is very unlikely that we should have had the pleasure and profit of seeing and hearing such artists as G. 'V. Brooke, Mr and Mrs Charles Kean, Jefferson, Barry Sullivan, Ristori, Creswick, &c, &c. But allowing for these losses and evils, and remaining alive to the " rocks ahead " m the shape of the syndicate system, long runs, meretricious adaptations from the French, and senseless musical comedies, there is yet a large balance of gain. In truth to nature in acting, in culture and taste in stage management, in mechanical and technical improvements, in literary merit and loftiness of aim in plays and criticisms the average standard to-day is much higher than it was at the beginning of the reign, public interest is much more intense and widelydiffused, and the social status of the actor has undoubtedly improved. Subject like all mundane affairs to mutability—to the great law of action and reaction—it is not safe to prophesy over-conhdentty about the future of the stage. Sdme dangerous

element, but now in the germ, may yet destroy the fair promise of the present that is "on the knees of the gods" but the past is immutable—- " What's done is done" —and nothing can rob the Victorian stage of the distinction of having been the scene of great achievements, surpassed only by " good Queen Bess's golden days." It has seen the triumphs of such geniuses as Macready, Rohson and Irving, of Helen Faucit, Fanny Kemble and Ellen Terry 3 men like Tennyson, Browning, Lytton, Charles Reade, Merivale, Wills, Gilbert, Robertson, R. L. Stevenson, Grundy, Jones and Pinero have written for it ; plays like " Becket," " Strafford," " Richelieu," •'Masks and Faces," "The White Pilgrim," "Ravenswood," -"Olivia," "Dan'l Douce," " Caste," " Beau Austin," " Sowing the "W ind," " The Middleman " and " The Second Mrs Tanqueray " have been created for it; and writers of the calibre of John Foi-ster,.G. H. Lewes, John Oxenford, Henry Morley, Dutton Cook, Clement Scott, Joseph Knight, A. B. Walkley and William Archer have employed their wit and eloquence in critical appreciation of it. Surely an institution appealing to so many varied orders of mind must have deep roots in the national life and is no mere ephemeral.