Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

a

ancient and appropriate costuma. ed hoop-petticoat (pushed sideways We saw those things without amaze- on the stage) rise like an exhalation. ment then.

As she advanced in the character of Let me not, however, fail to re: Calista, Belvidera, or Monimia, she collect, that this Atlas of the stage pitched her recitation in that plain. could stand under the enormous globe tive key, from which she hardly ever of Falstaff's paunch, and carry him. varied, and you felt yourself profes. self through that eccentrick charac. sedly at a tragedy in the first senter with

consummate pleasantry. tence that she uttered. It was sweety When I saw him once in that part, I

but it was sweetness that sickened was very young, and of course very you; a song that wearied you; a easily amused; but it was in my charm that unnerved; a perfume that much riper state of judgment, when stifled you. You would have thankI kept much more careful watch ed Mr. Fawcet, or any other saw. upon Henderson in the same part, grinder, to have broken the spell. and his performance was according There was no bearing the pathetick to my conception of good acting prolongation of one silver tone alone of those instances, so soon sum- though melodious as Apollo's harp. ed up, of absolute histrionick perfec. Neither is there any reason why tion; and I class it in my idea of metrical recitation should copy the excellence with the Lear of Garrick, mechanical correctness of a steam. the Lady Macbeth of Mrs. Pritchard, engine ; because heroick lines are all the Penruddock of Kemble, and (1 of the same length, it does not imply must take leave to add) with the lago that they must all be set to the same of Mr. Cook.

tune, and sung in the same time.

Let the heroine, who wishes to have Quin was not a confined actor. He did not walk in a narrow path, but

mourners at her death, recollect that

the swan only sings when she is dy. took a circuit in his road to fame ?hrough all the graver casts of the ing. Whilst I am writing this, I

have Mrs. Henry Siddons in my legitimate, sententious comedy. He would not have done much for the thoughts; and as this is the only in

stance in which she shares the failmerry dramatists of the present day, ings of her prototype, I sincerely but to the writers of the middle age, wish her to dismiss it. Every picVanbrugh and Farquhar and Con

ture must have light and shade. The greve, he was a tower of strength. I believe he was oratorical preceptor

eye enjoys the change of seasons;

so does the ear of sounds. The tra10 his present majesty. I know he

, taught lord Halifax and some other gick performer should be aware,

that the passions must not be wearied pointed, penetrating style of Garrick by continual solicitation ; the strong gave a less laborious and a quicker occasion. No hearer can sit through

appeal must be reserved for great current to poetick measure, Quin's five long acts of continual lamentaAtlantick swell kept its majestick tion. The finest feelings are the roll unrivalled.

most fugacious; they can only be It is no new thing to tell the world arrested by a master hand, and then zhat Quin was a mannerist. Every they can be held but for a certain tragick performer, male or female, time. A tedious petition destroys has been, is, and will be a mannerist, its own purpose, and a loquacious as long as the stage endures. Mrs. pleader is not calculated to excite Cibber was decidedly such. I have compassion. her now in my mind's eye. I behold Mrs. Cibber was extremely eleher a slender, graceful form from gant and alluring in her action. Her between the wings of a wide expand- very frame was fashioned to engage

[ocr errors]

your pity, for it seemed wasted with when she broke out and feigned a fit, sorrow and sensibility. The cheek that electrified the theatre and saved was hollow, and the eye was joyless. the play There was neither youth, nor health, The part of lady Macbeth is pronor beauty; yet, perhaps, in the re- bably the strongest test, to which the presentation of many of her charac- genius and powers of an actress can ters, she became more impressive by be put. None can altempt it with the privation of those charms, than impunity, whose abilities are not of she would have been in the posses- the highest order; for the passions sion of them. I have heard some, that it stirs, the language it employs, who remembered her, contend, that as and the energy it demands, are all of an actress she has never been equal. the sublimest cast. As our nation to led. I am not of that opinion. Her its honour boasts the poet who constyle and manner harmonized :ith ceived it, so has it also had to boast Barry's, as Mrs. Pritchard's did with of actresses, who in succession from Garrick's. Barry was the Marc An- the date of its production to the pretony and Romeo of the stage. Gare sent day of Mrs. Siddons, have figu. rick would have played Machelh and red in that luminous situation without Abel Drugger in the same night; diminishing its lustre. and Mrs. Pritchard would have play- As I am now speaking of Mrs. ed with him as lady Macbeth and Pritchard, and not called upon, nor Doll Common. Foote said, that Gar disposed, to make comparisons, I rick would have rehearsed Richard shall only say that I retain a strong the third before a kitchen-fire, in impression of her exce lence I have July, to amuse the boy that turned distinctly in my mind her conduct the spit. I do not know that Mrs. and deportment in the opening scene, Pritchard would have done quite as where meditating on the intelligence much ; but she was so little fastidious her husband's letter had imparted to about her cast of parts, that she took her, she gives the first tremendous first, second, or third, as they fell to indication of her character; during her lot; and as nature was her guide, which she never failed to command she always appeared to be the very the profoundest stillness and attencharacter she assumed. Whilst she tion throughout all the theatre. As could display the finest powers in the she proceeded to unfold her thoughts, loftiest parts, I have seen her play and her mind seemed expanded to the humble confidante to Mrs. Cibo admit the visions her ambition teember's heroine, and never give an ele, ed with, her air, voice, feature, form vation to a single line above its pitch itself and her whole nature visibly and station in the drama. I remem- imbibed the poet's inspiration. Then ber her coming out in the part of it was we felt that thrilling horrour Clarinda in The Suspicious Husband, at our hearts, which gave us the full whilst Garrick acted Ranger. The consciousness of her powers, and unfitness of her age and person only proved there was an actress, who added to the triumph of her talents. could picture to the life a character As Garrick's genius could dilate his of the most terrifick sublimity, that stature, so could her excellence give ever man's imagination formed. grace and juvenility to her person. To her succeeded Vrs. Yates; to In short, he might have played a Mrs. Cibber, Mrs. Barry, and the giant, and she a fairy, if Shakspeare stage was still respectably supported. would have written parts for them. Mrs. Barry in her best days was a On the first night of the Jealous Wife, lovely and enchanting actress. She at which I was present, she rescued possessed, in an eminent degree, all Garrick from his embarrassment, the properties that are adapted to exand the audience from its languer, press and to excite the tender passa

Q 9

VOL. HI.

a

sions. She had more variation and pathos of his under tones, spent in flexibility of tone than Mrs Cibber, their passage through the misty void, and her eyes were powerful auxilia- would have failed to reach the outries to her voice and action. She skirts of that greedy theatre And was not exclusively a tragick actress, he would have found himself only but filled the characters of upper co- understrod in the neighbourhood of medy with great success.

I do not the orchestra, whilst the rest of the recollect to have seen Garrick play spectators would have discovered litwith more animation on any occasion, tle else in the finest actor that ever than when upon the stage with her, lived, but the diminutiveness of his as for instance, in the part of Don figure. Felix and others of that amatory cast. If the dreadful spectacle which In those days, before theatres were those blazing theatres have alternateof the size to which they since have ly displayed to the astonished capital, grown, the countenances of perform- cannot burn them into smaller and ers could be distinctly seen, and the more modest compass, but that they language of the eyes could be under. will rise more splendid from the stood by the spectators; and not to downfal, and defy their fortune, the have discovered how their lively same resources must supply the same comment animated and improved demands; the muse of comedy must the text would have been a loss in- resume her cap and bells, and the deed.

proprietors must again call forth aut Of Garrick it was not originally urfum, aut pugiles, to amuse the peomy purpose to have spoken in this ple's eyes, when they no longer can place ; but the recollection of his regale their ears. various and enchanting talents pres

l's Yates was an actress of a lof. ses on my mind, and not to speak of

tier cast and higher tone than either him, when speaking of his colleagues Mrs. Cibber or Mrs. Barryand contemporaries, is a self-denial For dignity composed, and high exploit, that I cannot practise. He was the her natural powers were great, her great promoter (I had almost said the genius bold, her person, voice and founder) of that legitimate taste for action so commanding, that somethe early dramatists, particularly times, in the domineering torrent of Shakspeare, which Mr. Kemble, to her passion, she would so overbear her his honour be it spoken, struggles to interlocutors, as almost to outstep uphold, but struggles against a tor- decorum and monopolize the stage. rent of mummery, and machinery, Still, where any great and striking and song, and spectacle, which the cir- effect was to be produced, I have necumstances of the time he lives in, ver seen the performer, who in my and of the stage he treads, render opinion surpassed Mrs. Yates. In it impossible for him to do more than short, she was as decidedly formed to struggle with. It is a turbid tor. and fashioned by the hand of Nature rent which he cannot stem. If he to be an actress, as Mr. Femble is to cannot trust himself to the character be an actor She had an independent even of lacbeth on the little stage style unmethodized by art; a spirit in the Haymarket, without Viother that disdained prescription, and a Goose to cackle in his after-piece, towering genins, that dreaded nothing neither could Garrick have filled that but mediocrity. Colliseum, which is now a ruin, un- This great heroine is now no more; lcss Johnson had drawn out his ele. but the stage bas still possession of phants to allure the gapers in the an actress, whom all have admired, gallery. All the intelligence of his and many idolized. Were I only eye, the archness of his smile, the called upon t: speak of Mrs. Siddons novement of his brow, the touching as she has been, I should say that in

her first display of character she was as pure, as perfect, and as near to Nature as Nature's fairest representative could be. I apprehend she has too cautiously restrained and circumscribed her powers, and being sensible that repetition needs relief, has not sufficiently considered that absolute perfection does not admit of variation. Why else she should resort so often to her under tones I cannot

tell; for they are positiv ly inaudible, and the people, who call upon her to speak louder, should convince her that she is still too fine a speaker to be allowed to deprive them of their right without a remonstrance.

As an actor, who in the decline of our national taste stands firm in the support of the legitimate drama, and may be truly styled the gravis Esopus of his time, Mr. Kemble has my most sincere respect, and when I bear this unprejudiced testimony to his merit, I am moved to it by no other consideration, but as I think it due from me, being the conductor of a work, devoted to the interests of fair criticism and contemporary genius. If he is evidently cautious how he lends himself to great variety of character, he very probably acts wisely for his fame, and prudently for his health; but I am far from sure, that we have seen him in the whole capacity of his powers, nor does it follow, because he has never stepped beyond the boundaries of his genius, that he has absolutely stepped up to them. I rather think, that if he chose to sally from his intrenchments, he might take new ground, and post himself very strongly on it. I have watched him in his Leon, and will venture to say that his fatuity in that character is more highly coloured than that of Garrick's was. I dare say my readers can recollect certain parts, in which his unimpassioned recitation, that would hang so heavy in the hands of others, has a charm that never wearies us in his. I am satisfied he might considerably enlarge his compass, if he would. Ne

vertheless, we must confess the stamp of Nature is upon him as the tragick hero; and when we add to that the habits he has acquired by the study of his art, and probably by the disposition also of his mind, he has a right, if he sees fit, to be seen in none but the gravest and most dignified situations. Nay, although it were allowed on all hands. and he himself were conscious, that such were the true compass and determined limitation of his histrionick powers, yet Mr. Kemble would have no right to arraign the liberality of Nature because she did not give him features as flexible, and frame as plastick as she gave to Garrick: what is great, and solemn, and sublime she has qualified him to express, and though her gifts, as such alone, had not been very varitremely valuable. But I adhere to ous, they surely may be called exmy conjecture.

Mr. Hunt says of Mr. Kemble, as Racine did of his own Athaliah

Non in se crimen amoris habit. Mr. Hunt is a nice observer, and very apt to be right. Mrs. Inchbald differs from him, and upon a question of that nature little likely to be wrong; how can we decide?

The ingenious writer of these essays under my review expresses some disapprobation of a certain stiff and studied manner, which he remarks in Mr. Kemble, and observes that he is an actor even in the operation of taking out his handkerchief, when he is upon the stage. I can believe the fact to be as Mr. Hunt has stated it, but I do not quite agree with him in the comment, that he grounds upon it. I conceive it must depend upon the character, which Mr. Kemble represents, and the situation he is in, whilst an action of this sort is introduced, whether his manner of performing it is, or is not, pedantick and improperly artificial. Heroes and kings may take out their handkerchiefs on the stage; but certainly not for that familiar purpose which meaner characters would apply them to,

whose noses had occasion for them. Mr. Kemble, as the representative of dignity, will of necessity dignify every movement, that fills up the action, and what is termed the by-play of his part. He naturally will not allow himself to perform such common offices, as are above alluded to, like common men, but specifically and precisely as the individual would, whose image is in his mind, and whose minutest habits he would wish to make his own, so long as it may be his duty to reflect them. If he does no more than this, he does right, and I have not observed him apt to offend against character. No performer ever fashioned himself more studiously on reflection, and where I think him open to criticism is, when he suffers that reflection to be seen in representation, which only should precede it.

The part of Hamlet has generally been selected as the test of genius. I rather look upon it as the touchstone of versatility It is not always the best actor who will play Hamlet best, but he who is most variously endowed; for that applauded drama is, in fact, a most irregular and particoloured composition. In parts and passages of that non-descript performance various actors have succeeded; several in many; Kemble in most; Garrick alone in all.

Mr. Hunt says (and I quote it as a passage in his best manner)

"That it must be the praise of a man, who shall possess a genius capable of more than the art of acting, to personate Hamlet, the gallant, the philosophical, the melancholy Hamlet, that amiable inConsistent, who talked when he should have acted, and acted when he should not even have talked. Who, with a bosom wrung with sensibility was unfeeling, and in his very passion for justice unjust. Who, in his misery had leisure for ridieule, and in his revenge, for benevolence. Who, in the most melancholy abstraction never lost the graces of mind or the elegances of manner; natural in the midst of artifice, and estimable in the midst of erreur."

Upon this arduous part Mr. Kemble enters with attributes in some respects happier and more auspicious than those with which Mr. Garrick was by nature armed. The dignity of the prince is in his form; the moody silence, meditative look, repulsive coldness, and taunting ridicule cast on the creatures of the court, who besiege him, are peculiarly his own. In the judicious management of soliloquy, so little understood by some, he is not to be surpassed by any. In his interviews with the apparition of his father no actor can be more impressive; but in the gracious. ness of his manner with Horatio, Laertes and others; in his familiar condescension to the players, and especially in those delicate observances, which are not to be totally laid aside, even in his sarcastick scene with Ophelia, and that more sharp and accusatory one with his mother, which were so finely and so curiously managed by Mr. Garrick, I must confess I have not received that perfect satisfaction from Mr. Kemble, which in other parts he has given me. When Hamlet, in his interview with Ophelia, repeatedly vociferates: T a nunnery! to a nunnery! and quits the stage, Mr. Garrick tempered the unmanly insult in a manner that I cannot define; but by the effect it was evident that the sensibility of the actor operated as a softener to the asperity and coarseness of the poet. I have thought that in the stateliness of his deportment, and above all, in the measured march and high pitched tone of his declamation, Mr Kemble did not sufficiently yield and accord himself to the fluctuations of that changeful character, which is throughout the drama alter et idem. But these are merely superficial opinions, that have floated in my mind, whilst I have been watching his performance, and they may very possibly be coloured by the prejudice of first impressions, and I feel how perfectly unfair it is to bring actors now,

« PredošláPokračovať »