DOI Heft:
March 6, 1880
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.17763#0104
98
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI. [Mahch 6, 1880.
v -
■ ' </' T JPAs
-?//, />■%.' /' >■ y-A 'J/K
- J
. • x . f/ / } f-J. j A, jmAj] ^ rki
tt'/, {y'x/r s''
/y'// y / / ^ "S / ^ t !*£'y/
1/1 jJs/C /r ,
>/ 'fa /y /'A-'
Ls /
TRYING A FRESH LOT.5’
Dealer {to Jim, Ms Head Man). “Now, then, where are you going with that Hoss?”
Jim. “ Lord only knows to a Field or two, Sir.”
has indicated in his part. I should applaud, not blame, him for the
absence of tenderness in his voice, look, and manner, with Rosalind
in her boy’s clothes. A different bearing would have been indelicate.
The banter between the two young lovers, as presented at the
Imperial, loses all suggestion of offence by their sprightliness and
animal spirits. I noted no lack of feeling in Mr. Bellew’s manner
in the First Act, nor of manly tenderness in his demeanour to old
Adam, which was in refreshing contrast all through with the
wooden-heartedness of most Orlandos of Punch's acquaintance.
The Jaques was not unworthy of these two leading figures of the
play, but it is a mistake to put him before them. It is true that the
part of Jaques is far subtler, far harder to hit the key-note of
than either Rosalind or Orlando, for whom youth, grace, and
spirits will do so much. There are many ways of conceiving
the character. In Punch's conception of him he is no Stoic, but a
blase Epicurean; his attitude of cynical superiority to the world
is mainly affectation, and his philosophy, while putting on all the
airs of profoundness, little more than skin-deep. Everybody sees
through him.
According to this view, Mr. Herman Yezin, beautifully as he
declaimed the famous “Seven Ages,” did it with too sincere and
deep-seated a gravity. The speech is, to our notion, a light prolu-
sion of Jaques's, not a philosophical summary; in it, as in all he
does and says, he is thoroughly self-conscious. In fact Punch
still waits _ for his Jaques, till Mr. Irving puts on his mask. In
the meantime he is glad to bear witness to the admirable delivery of
the famous soliloquy, and all the other speeches of the part, from
Mr. YEZjN’s own saturnine conception of the character, which is a
very maintainable one, and perhaps the most effective in acting.
Punch noted with pleasure that the speech of the First Lord
describing Jaques's moralising over the wounded deer, was given
back to its proper speaker, instead of being put into Jaques's own
mouth, as has long been done by acquiescence in an arrangement
that must have been first dictated by some stage necessity. Strange
to say, the speech is still thus spoken in many theatres. It was so
spoken by Mr. Charles Harcourt at the Haymarket when the play
was last revived there.
A young Actor, Mr. Stephens, spoke the difficult speech with
excellent discretion, though too nervous to be quite master of his
measure.
Mr. Brough’s Touchstone was safe to be funny, but not to be so
refreshingly free, as it is, from extravagance or vulgarity. It was
droll and quaint, without any overcharging.
Mr. W. Farren’s Adam was dignified and pathetic, though hardly
homely or robust enough, perhaps. There seemed too little of the
healthy red of a “kindly winter” upon his cheek, or of [the
hoarded strength of frugal years in his bearing. Still, the imper-
sonation was complete from its own point of view, and in no way
out of keeping with the rest of the cast.
As much may be said of the Celia of Miss Cresswell, which was
essentially graceful and sweet, if a little wanting in presence and
weight of elocution—which will, doubtless, come.
Mr. Everill gave the fine lines of the Banished Duke with the
right feeling both of their music and their meaning.
Miss Silvia Hodson’s Audrey in dress, look, and bearing, was
the right uncouth, and unkempt, but comely, Shepherdess, who
might have followed her flock and milked her kine in Arden. The
minor parts of William by Mr. Bannister, Silvius and Phebe by
Mr. Trevor and Miss Brunton, and Corin by Mr. Bunch, were,
the first exceptionally well, the rest adequately filled. The songs
of Amiens were effectively sung, with a good manly voice and good
execution, by Mr. Coventry.
Mr. Charles was an animated Le Beau, and marked the meaning
of his part well. Mr. Allbrook was a stalwart Charles, and Mr.
Edgar, first, a duly malignant, and, afterwards, a duly penitent,
Oliver. Mr. Barnard, Conductor of the Orchestra and the Chorus,
did justice to the well-selected music. The scenery of the Duke’s
Palace with its stately terraced garden, and the two Forest Glades,
one with the old carlot’s cote, were beautiful examples of scenic art
and arrangement; and the painter, Mr. Perkins, fairly deserved
the call which summoned him and his chimney-pot and black frock-
coat to make their bow in Arden !
Altogether it is long, very long, since Punch has felt so happy in
a Shakspearian revival—mounting, stage management, and acting
together.
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI. [Mahch 6, 1880.
v -
■ ' </' T JPAs
-?//, />■%.' /' >■ y-A 'J/K
- J
. • x . f/ / } f-J. j A, jmAj] ^ rki
tt'/, {y'x/r s''
/y'// y / / ^ "S / ^ t !*£'y/
1/1 jJs/C /r ,
>/ 'fa /y /'A-'
Ls /
TRYING A FRESH LOT.5’
Dealer {to Jim, Ms Head Man). “Now, then, where are you going with that Hoss?”
Jim. “ Lord only knows to a Field or two, Sir.”
has indicated in his part. I should applaud, not blame, him for the
absence of tenderness in his voice, look, and manner, with Rosalind
in her boy’s clothes. A different bearing would have been indelicate.
The banter between the two young lovers, as presented at the
Imperial, loses all suggestion of offence by their sprightliness and
animal spirits. I noted no lack of feeling in Mr. Bellew’s manner
in the First Act, nor of manly tenderness in his demeanour to old
Adam, which was in refreshing contrast all through with the
wooden-heartedness of most Orlandos of Punch's acquaintance.
The Jaques was not unworthy of these two leading figures of the
play, but it is a mistake to put him before them. It is true that the
part of Jaques is far subtler, far harder to hit the key-note of
than either Rosalind or Orlando, for whom youth, grace, and
spirits will do so much. There are many ways of conceiving
the character. In Punch's conception of him he is no Stoic, but a
blase Epicurean; his attitude of cynical superiority to the world
is mainly affectation, and his philosophy, while putting on all the
airs of profoundness, little more than skin-deep. Everybody sees
through him.
According to this view, Mr. Herman Yezin, beautifully as he
declaimed the famous “Seven Ages,” did it with too sincere and
deep-seated a gravity. The speech is, to our notion, a light prolu-
sion of Jaques's, not a philosophical summary; in it, as in all he
does and says, he is thoroughly self-conscious. In fact Punch
still waits _ for his Jaques, till Mr. Irving puts on his mask. In
the meantime he is glad to bear witness to the admirable delivery of
the famous soliloquy, and all the other speeches of the part, from
Mr. YEZjN’s own saturnine conception of the character, which is a
very maintainable one, and perhaps the most effective in acting.
Punch noted with pleasure that the speech of the First Lord
describing Jaques's moralising over the wounded deer, was given
back to its proper speaker, instead of being put into Jaques's own
mouth, as has long been done by acquiescence in an arrangement
that must have been first dictated by some stage necessity. Strange
to say, the speech is still thus spoken in many theatres. It was so
spoken by Mr. Charles Harcourt at the Haymarket when the play
was last revived there.
A young Actor, Mr. Stephens, spoke the difficult speech with
excellent discretion, though too nervous to be quite master of his
measure.
Mr. Brough’s Touchstone was safe to be funny, but not to be so
refreshingly free, as it is, from extravagance or vulgarity. It was
droll and quaint, without any overcharging.
Mr. W. Farren’s Adam was dignified and pathetic, though hardly
homely or robust enough, perhaps. There seemed too little of the
healthy red of a “kindly winter” upon his cheek, or of [the
hoarded strength of frugal years in his bearing. Still, the imper-
sonation was complete from its own point of view, and in no way
out of keeping with the rest of the cast.
As much may be said of the Celia of Miss Cresswell, which was
essentially graceful and sweet, if a little wanting in presence and
weight of elocution—which will, doubtless, come.
Mr. Everill gave the fine lines of the Banished Duke with the
right feeling both of their music and their meaning.
Miss Silvia Hodson’s Audrey in dress, look, and bearing, was
the right uncouth, and unkempt, but comely, Shepherdess, who
might have followed her flock and milked her kine in Arden. The
minor parts of William by Mr. Bannister, Silvius and Phebe by
Mr. Trevor and Miss Brunton, and Corin by Mr. Bunch, were,
the first exceptionally well, the rest adequately filled. The songs
of Amiens were effectively sung, with a good manly voice and good
execution, by Mr. Coventry.
Mr. Charles was an animated Le Beau, and marked the meaning
of his part well. Mr. Allbrook was a stalwart Charles, and Mr.
Edgar, first, a duly malignant, and, afterwards, a duly penitent,
Oliver. Mr. Barnard, Conductor of the Orchestra and the Chorus,
did justice to the well-selected music. The scenery of the Duke’s
Palace with its stately terraced garden, and the two Forest Glades,
one with the old carlot’s cote, were beautiful examples of scenic art
and arrangement; and the painter, Mr. Perkins, fairly deserved
the call which summoned him and his chimney-pot and black frock-
coat to make their bow in Arden !
Altogether it is long, very long, since Punch has felt so happy in
a Shakspearian revival—mounting, stage management, and acting
together.