DRAMATIC AND MUSICAL.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume X, Issue 16, 22 April 1893, Page 368

DRAMATIC AND MUSICAL.

THE production of Ibsen’s ‘Master Builder’ has reawakened interest in the Norwegian dramatist, whom Mr William Archer first introduced to English readers. Ibsen, who is nearly sixty-three, after his university career became director of the Bergen Theatre, and subsequently started on his career as a dramatist. His earlier works were mainly occupied with the sagas of his Norse ancestors, though in ‘ Emperor and Galilean ’ he diverged into a criticism of ‘ Julian the Apostate.’ In 1877 appeared •The Pillars of Society,’the first presentment of Ibsen’s social views, followed by the startling ‘ Ghosts,’ ‘ An Enemy of the People,’ ‘ The Wild Duck,’ ' Rosmersholm,’ and ‘ Hedda Gabler.’ All these latter have been translated into English, and played in London with varying verdicts. One school of critics has acclaimed Ibsen as the keen, social surgeon, probing the hypocrisies of life with stern sarcasm, and at the same time as the reformer putting the true facts of heredity before his generation. His opponents, on the other hand, declare that his ‘ realism ’ is unreal, that the darker side of life is unjustifiably magnified, while the lighter disappears, and that a distorted picture is presented. Ibsen has always been an uncompromising advocate of Norwegian independence, and the Socialists have claimed him as their own, though with not very certain grounds. Of late years he has lived principally in Munich. His wife is a step daughter of the Norwegian poetess, Magdalena Thoreson. The * Master Builder ’ deals less closely with social problems than some of his other plays. It is impregnated with a symbolism which the Ibsenites are busy trying to interpret, with somewhat diverse results.

The Auckland Amateur Opera Club is, as everyone knows, one of the proudest institutions of the poverty stricken amusing literature—literature of the sort which breeds Northern capital, and anyone in search of instructive and thought—cannot do better than beg, borrow, or even steal a copy of the annual balance-sheet and report which has just been issued to the gratified members of the said Club. The circular is signed by the Honorary Secretary—whose right to so describe himself is at least problematical as will presently be shown—and commences with a genial par. of self congratulation on the success of the year’s work.

In vague but distinctly discreet language the resignation of all the men who made the Club a success in the good old days is briefly chronicled, but naturally and wisely the ‘ various causes ’ which led to such resignation are left to the imagination. It is, however, really delightful to hear that the committee consider that the new members acquitted themselves so well that really the public could scarcely have noticed any alteration. Shades of Jackson and Tayler I With what a shudder we recollect the preposterous endeavours of the would-be but unfortunate tenor who ill advisedly took and mutilated the part of Ralph RackStraw.

But, after all, the report is common place, and merely leads up to the really amusing and instructive information which is found coyly hidden in the figures of the annual balance sheet. Here we learn that the refreshments in ‘ Pinafore ’ cost only £5 less than the magnificent scenery of which there was such an almighty puffery and pother, ‘ specially painted for the occasion ’ and what not. BuL most interesting of all, we learn that the Honorary, mind the Honorary, secretary, Mr Charles Chambers, received for his services no less than £35 of the club funds during the year.

No one will for a moment deny that if the Club think Mr Chambers worth £35 a year they are perfectly right to pay him that figure, but how does Mr Chambers make out that receiving this money he has a right to sign himself so bravely Hon. Sec , and to have those touching little paragraphs in the daily papers concerning his zeal, rewarded only by the consciousness of success and well-doing. It’s all very well to call the thing an honorarium. As Squeers said to Nicholas Nickelby. ‘Anyone may call their house a “ hall ” if they like.’ There’s no law against that. And very likely the lad who sweeps ont the great Mr Chambers’ corner behind the counter calls his modest weekly screw an honorarium, hut that scarcely alters the real state of the case, and if Mr Chambers receives £35 from the Opera Clnb for service performed he is surely their salaried servant just as be is the salaiied servant of Messrs Wilson and Horton,

who doubtless pay him a munificent sal — beg pardon, honorarium, for deigning to stand at a desk in the nether office of the Herald.

Poor George Leopold, who saved the Club from utter disgrace and destruction, and who taught the members all that was anyway approaching good in * Pinafore,’ only received £2O, that is to say £l5 less than the Honorary Secretary, whose share of the funds was indeed only £5 less than that of Herr Schmitt, who bad the incredible and well-nigh intolerable task of instructing the young operatic idea how to sing, or rather how to attempt to sing.

It would be interesting to know who arranged those fees, presentations, and honorariums. Surely not a general meeting of the Club ! Surely the commonsense of the majority would have revolted against rating the services of the musical expert who was doomed to suffer the agonies of their rehearsals only £5 higher than that of a secretary, however energetic, useful, and ornamental. Sundries (almost every imaginable thing is mentioned apart from this) at a trifle under £4, and several other items also afford food for reflection and a quiet smile, but obtain a copy and read, mark, learn, and if possible, digest for yourself.