troup of vocalists, than Drury Lane possessed. At the latter house, neither new pieces nor new players succeeded, till, on the 20th of January, 1814, the playbills announced the first appearance of an actor from Exeter-whose coming changed the evil fortunes of the house, scared the old, correct, dignified, and classical school of actors, and brought back to the memories of those who could look back as far as Garrick-the fire, nature, impulse, and terrible earnestness-all, in short, but the versatility of that great master in his art. While Kean is dressing for Shylock, I will briefly notice a few incidents connected with both sides of the curtain, and which chiefly belong to that part of the century when he was not yet known in London. NEW IDEAS; NEW THEATRES; NEW AUTHORS; AND THE NEW ACTORS. EARLY in the present century, Mr. Twiss published his Verbal Index to Shakspeare: and this led to an attack upon the poet and the stage, as fierce, if not so formidable, as the onslaught of Prynne and the invective of Collier. The assailant, in the present case, was an anonymous writer, in the Eclectic Review, for January, 1807. As an illustration of the feeling of dissenters towards the bard and players, generally, this attack deserves a word of notice. The writer, after denouncing Mr. Twiss as a man who had no sense of the value of time, in its reference to his eternal state; sneering at him as one who would have been more innocently employed in arranging masses of pebbles on the seashore; and bewailing "the blind devotion which fashion requires to be paid at the shrine of Shakspeare," professes to recognize "the inimitable excellencies of the productions of Shakspeare's genius ;" and then proceeds to illustrate the sense of the recognition, and to pour out the vials of his wrath, after this fashion: "He has been called, and justly, too, the 'poet of Nature.' A slight acquaintance with the religion of the Bible will show, however, that it is of human nature in its worst shape, deformed by the basest passions and agitated by the most vicious propensities, that the poet became the priest; and the incense offered at the altar of his goddess will continue to spread its poisonous fumes over the hearts of his countrymen till the memory of his works is extinct. Thousands of unhappy spirits, and thousands yet to increase their number, will everlastingly look back with unutterable anguish, on the nights and days in which the plays of Shakspeare ministered to their guilty delights. And yet these are the writings which men, consecrated to the service of Him who styles Himself the Holy One, have prostituted their pens to illustrate! such this writer, to immortalize whose name, the resources of the most precious arts have been profusely lavished! Epithets, amounting to blasphemy, and honors, approaching to idolatry, have been and are shamelessly heaped upon his memory, in a country professing itself Christian, and for which it would have been happy, on moral considerations, if he had never been born. And, strange to say, even our religious edifices are not free from the pollution of his praise. What Christian can pass through the most venerable pile of sacred architecture which our metropolis can boast, without having his best feelings insulted, by observing, within a few yards of the spot from which prayers and praises are daily offered to the Most High, the absurd and impious epitaph upon the tablet raised to one of the miserable retailers of his impurities? Our readers who are acquainted with London, will discover that it is the inscription upon David Garrick, in Westminster Abbey, to which we refer. We commiserate the heart of the man who can read the following lines, without indignation: "And till eternity, with power sublime Shall mark the mortal hour of hoary time, Shakspeare and Garrick like twin stars shall shine "Par nobile fratrum !' your fame shall last during the empire of vice and misery, in the extension of which you have acted so great a part!" There is much more in this style, and it seems rather overstrained, however well meant. I must confess, too, that the writer had some provocation to express himself strongly, not in the writings of Shakspeare, nor in Twiss's Concordance, but in the meanness and blasphemy which Mr. Pratt, or Courtenay Melmoth, infused into his wretched epitaph on Garrick's monument. Charles Lamb has hardly gone further in attacking the monument itself. "Taking a turn the other day, in the Abbey," he says, "I was struck with the affected attitude of a figure which I do not remember to have seen before, and which, upon examination, proved to be a whole length of the celebrated Mr. Garrick. Though I would not go so far, with some good Catholics abroad, as to shut players altogether out of consecrated ground, yet I own, I was not a little scandalized at the introduction of theatrical airs and gestures, into a place set apart to remind us of the saddest realities. Going nearer, I found inscribed, under this harlequin figure, a farrago of false thoughts and nonsense." Such falsehood and nonsense helped to bring the stage into disrepute; and the pulpits, for seven or eight years, often echoed with disparaging sentiments on the drama-and quotations from Shakspeare. Nevertheless, those who never worked, as well as those who were overworked, needed amusement; and what was to be done? "The devil tempts the industrious; idle people tempt the devil," was a saying of good Richard Baxter. Good men took it up, in 1815. Well-intentioned preachers denounced the stage, and recommended rather an unexceptional relaxation;—the seaside, pure air, and all enjoyments thereon attending. But, while audiences were preached down to the coast, and especially to Brighton, there were zealous pastors at the latter place, who preached them back again. One of these, the Rev. Dr. Styles, of Union Street, Brighton, did his best to stop the progress of London-on-sea. He left the question of the stage for others to deal with; but, in his published sermons, he strictly enjoined all virtuously minded people to avoid watering-places generally, and Brighton in particular, unless they wished to play into the devil's hands. He denounced the breaking up of homes, the mischief of minds at rest, and the consequences of flirting and philandering. He looked upon a brief holiday as a long sin,-at the sea-side; and, with prophecy of dire results attending on neglect of his counsel, he drove, or sought to drive, all the hard workers, in search of health and in the enjoyment of that idle repose which helps them in their search, back to London! Then, as now, England stood shamefully distinguished for the indecorum of its seacoast bathers; but, with certain religious principles, whereby to hold firmly, the good Doctor does not think that much ill may befall therefrom; and he sends all erring sheep with their faces towards London, and with a reference to Solomon's Song, above all things!-bidding them to await for the south wind of the Holy Spirit to blow over their spices! On the other hand, good men in France were then seeking to render theatrical amusements universally beneficial; and a pamphlet, by Delpla, suggested a few reforms which evoked notice in this country. In some respects, the project was a development of that proposed in England, in 1732, when the idea of turning Exeter Change into a theatre and college, was first started. M. Delpla held, that the public required stage exhibitions, but that they did not always know what was good for them. He thought, that in every country there ought to exist a theatrical board, or censorship, composed, not of government officials, but of poets, reviewers, retired actors, and men of letters, generally. There would then be, he thought (poor man!) a reconstruction of theatrical literature;-the beautiful, preserved; the exceptionable omitted; and the instructive, imported. Historic truth was never to be departed from; local costume was to be strictly observed; dénouements, in which virtue looked ridiculous, or vice seemed triumphant, were to be severely prohibited; and poets, critics, and ex-actors, were to be charged with this responsibility! M. Delpla considered that, by such means, the theatre and the pulpit would be on a level, as public instructors; or, if any dif ference could be between them, the greater efficiency of instruction would rest with the stage. If they were simply equal, the writer concluded that bishops themselves would show their exemplary presence in the side boxes! The French Government only adopted that part of M. Delpla's project which spoke of a censorship; but as the censors were not competent persons, poets, critics, actors, literary men,-but "officials," they often came to grief. Their greatest calamity, I may notice here, though it befell them at a later period, when a new law rendered the old censorship more stringent. To the authorized officials two well-known dramatic writers sent a new tragedy for examination and approval. It was returned in a few days, with 1,500 erasures. The authors were required to modify 300 lines, replace 500 words, shorten 12 scenes, and change a score of names, all of which, in the original, was considered obnoxious to public tranquillity, political order, and dramatic propriety. On VOL. IL-16 |