DOI issue:
August 12, 1882
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.17753#0079
August 12, 1882.]
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
n
I
f
Time Past—Crinoline Era. IN THE STALLS. Time Present—Fan Development.
THE DOUBT OE THE BENEFIT.
Mr. Irving took a benefit and apologised for it. Quite right. An
abuse which is indefensible needs an apology, though we shall make
no apology for abusing an abuse. At the same time we shall
always heartily commend the proper and legitimate use of a Benefit,
which, got up under “distinguished patronage,” was meant to re-
imburse the needy and deserving Author or Actor, or Author-Actor
where both callings were combined in one person, who had sustained
loss in his honest endeavours to amuse the public.
The Manager of the Lyceum, we are glad, to say, cannot plead
j poverty as his reason for taking a Benefit. It is not to put money in
■ his purse that he announces his Benefit,—though that it does add to
his funds he admits as the merest detail,—but he fondly “ clings ” to
I the Benefit Night as a sort of good old genial theatrical custom for
which he has a sentimental regard, and which serves him as an
excuse for gathering about him a dress-circle of admirers who will
listen to a speech from the throne, and give him an extra ovation.
He likes, on such a delightful occasion, to be their spokesman, to
express their sentiments, to speak for them in their name, as well as
to them in his own. All very charming, friendly, sociable, and har-
monious. Only why make use of the Benefit machinery which was
intended for a charitable purpose ? Surely, if all that Mr. Irving
wants is to gather his friends round him in order to make them a
pleasant and affable speech about Lyceum retrospects and prospects,
he could insure a crowded audience by issuing tickets.of invitation
for a meeting at his theatre in the afternoon, or at night after the
; performance, when he could speak for an hour or so if he liked, and
! then dismiss them with his blessing, or, if he wished to make n, sort
of birthday festivity of it, he could throw in a supper—a supper -
numerary attraction—and he could say, by way of old-fashioned
“tag,” “If our friends in front will only accept my little hospi-
; tality, I am sure that no happier party will sit down this night
than Yours truly, Henry Irving and Company Limited.”
Mr. Irving pleads the previous example of “ many great masters
of my art ”—who were not ashamed to take Benefits. No : and on
one of these occasions, to add to th€ attraction, Edmund Kean danced
as a Harlequin, and sang Tom Tug's song in The Waterman, in
imitation of Incledon. Would Mr. Irving follow him in this
eccentricity ? Why not ? The announcement that he would dance
as John d’Auban, or sing as Sims Reeves, would draw a big house,
and he would have the authority of, at all events, one of “the
great masters of my art ” as a precedent.
Would Mr. Irving be thoroughly Shakspearian F “Certainly,”
says Mr. Dutton Cook, a most trustworthy guide, in his Booh
of the Play, “in Shakspeare’s time, the Actors knew nothing
of Benefits.” And be goes on to point out that at this period
the Actor was “looked upon as if close kin to the rogue and the
vagabond, and with degrading possibilities in connection with the
stocks and whipping-post never wholly remote from his profes-
sional career.” Nowadays, the only stocks known practically to
the prosperous Actor, are those in which he invests his money.
“An Elizabethan player,” says Mr. D. Cook, “would probably
have been deemed guilty of a most unpardonable impertinence,”
had he announced a “ complimentary,” or “ special Benefit.”
Benefits grew out of “Authors’ Nights,” the raison d'etre of
which lay in the poverty of the Dramatists, who were so parsimo-
niously treated by Managers; and there was, subsequently, an
excuse for Actors’ Benefits, when, as in Betterton’s time, the
salary of a leading Actor was only four pounds a week. Benefits,
whether for Authors or Actors, were usually associated with
the idea of previously insufficient remuneration, or some other
temporary necessity. After a while, once more to quote our Mr.
Cook, “To draw a crowded house, and bring money to the Treasury,
was the only aim.”
The reasons that led the Eton authorities to abolish the “ Montem,”
which had grown into an abuse, would, we apprehend, apply to the
discontinuing of the Benefit system as it is now practised. Once
discountenanced by the theatre-going Public, it will be discontinued
by the Theatrical Profession.
We would see the charitable use of the Benefit system retained,
and the theatre-goer’s contribution would then be applied to de-
serving objects.
Mr. Irving is an admirable Comedian, an occasionally impressive
Tragedian, a nervously painstaking Actor, and, generally, an indif-
ferent Elocutionist. Still, with all his faults and mannerisms, from
which no original Artist, Writer, Orator, or Actor can be entirely
free, the Lyceum Manager is a popular favourite, because everyone
who wishes well to the Drama is as firmly convinced as we are our-
selves, that, among all the Actors, there is not one who has the true
interests, professional and social, of the Stage more at heart than j
Mr. Henry Irving ; and as we cordially and ungrudgingly wish
him every possible success, so we should be the more satisfied
with him personally if he would take the initiative, and, instead
of sentimentally apologising for the continuance of an abuse, boldly |
reform it altogether, and do his best to banish it from the Stage.
Melbury Road News.—Ex-King Cetewayo is located all among
the Artists. He is developing a taste for
Sunflowers and Dados. He has been advised
by Mr. Yal Prinsep to go to a picture-cleaner’s
in order to be “restored.” On his restoration,
Mr. Y. P. will be offered a seat in the Zululand
Cabinet at the first Dark Seance.
The theatrical bookseller, Mr. French — a
most appropriate name for a vendor of British
dramatic works—advertises a Handy Make-up
Box for Actors. In the list of necessary articles
included is “a puff.” Of course this, to an
Actor, is indispeDsable.
Annoyed by the reticent character of the
Ministerial replies, the Fourth Party describe the policy of the present
G-overnment as one that “ won’t answer.”
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
n
I
f
Time Past—Crinoline Era. IN THE STALLS. Time Present—Fan Development.
THE DOUBT OE THE BENEFIT.
Mr. Irving took a benefit and apologised for it. Quite right. An
abuse which is indefensible needs an apology, though we shall make
no apology for abusing an abuse. At the same time we shall
always heartily commend the proper and legitimate use of a Benefit,
which, got up under “distinguished patronage,” was meant to re-
imburse the needy and deserving Author or Actor, or Author-Actor
where both callings were combined in one person, who had sustained
loss in his honest endeavours to amuse the public.
The Manager of the Lyceum, we are glad, to say, cannot plead
j poverty as his reason for taking a Benefit. It is not to put money in
■ his purse that he announces his Benefit,—though that it does add to
his funds he admits as the merest detail,—but he fondly “ clings ” to
I the Benefit Night as a sort of good old genial theatrical custom for
which he has a sentimental regard, and which serves him as an
excuse for gathering about him a dress-circle of admirers who will
listen to a speech from the throne, and give him an extra ovation.
He likes, on such a delightful occasion, to be their spokesman, to
express their sentiments, to speak for them in their name, as well as
to them in his own. All very charming, friendly, sociable, and har-
monious. Only why make use of the Benefit machinery which was
intended for a charitable purpose ? Surely, if all that Mr. Irving
wants is to gather his friends round him in order to make them a
pleasant and affable speech about Lyceum retrospects and prospects,
he could insure a crowded audience by issuing tickets.of invitation
for a meeting at his theatre in the afternoon, or at night after the
; performance, when he could speak for an hour or so if he liked, and
! then dismiss them with his blessing, or, if he wished to make n, sort
of birthday festivity of it, he could throw in a supper—a supper -
numerary attraction—and he could say, by way of old-fashioned
“tag,” “If our friends in front will only accept my little hospi-
; tality, I am sure that no happier party will sit down this night
than Yours truly, Henry Irving and Company Limited.”
Mr. Irving pleads the previous example of “ many great masters
of my art ”—who were not ashamed to take Benefits. No : and on
one of these occasions, to add to th€ attraction, Edmund Kean danced
as a Harlequin, and sang Tom Tug's song in The Waterman, in
imitation of Incledon. Would Mr. Irving follow him in this
eccentricity ? Why not ? The announcement that he would dance
as John d’Auban, or sing as Sims Reeves, would draw a big house,
and he would have the authority of, at all events, one of “the
great masters of my art ” as a precedent.
Would Mr. Irving be thoroughly Shakspearian F “Certainly,”
says Mr. Dutton Cook, a most trustworthy guide, in his Booh
of the Play, “in Shakspeare’s time, the Actors knew nothing
of Benefits.” And be goes on to point out that at this period
the Actor was “looked upon as if close kin to the rogue and the
vagabond, and with degrading possibilities in connection with the
stocks and whipping-post never wholly remote from his profes-
sional career.” Nowadays, the only stocks known practically to
the prosperous Actor, are those in which he invests his money.
“An Elizabethan player,” says Mr. D. Cook, “would probably
have been deemed guilty of a most unpardonable impertinence,”
had he announced a “ complimentary,” or “ special Benefit.”
Benefits grew out of “Authors’ Nights,” the raison d'etre of
which lay in the poverty of the Dramatists, who were so parsimo-
niously treated by Managers; and there was, subsequently, an
excuse for Actors’ Benefits, when, as in Betterton’s time, the
salary of a leading Actor was only four pounds a week. Benefits,
whether for Authors or Actors, were usually associated with
the idea of previously insufficient remuneration, or some other
temporary necessity. After a while, once more to quote our Mr.
Cook, “To draw a crowded house, and bring money to the Treasury,
was the only aim.”
The reasons that led the Eton authorities to abolish the “ Montem,”
which had grown into an abuse, would, we apprehend, apply to the
discontinuing of the Benefit system as it is now practised. Once
discountenanced by the theatre-going Public, it will be discontinued
by the Theatrical Profession.
We would see the charitable use of the Benefit system retained,
and the theatre-goer’s contribution would then be applied to de-
serving objects.
Mr. Irving is an admirable Comedian, an occasionally impressive
Tragedian, a nervously painstaking Actor, and, generally, an indif-
ferent Elocutionist. Still, with all his faults and mannerisms, from
which no original Artist, Writer, Orator, or Actor can be entirely
free, the Lyceum Manager is a popular favourite, because everyone
who wishes well to the Drama is as firmly convinced as we are our-
selves, that, among all the Actors, there is not one who has the true
interests, professional and social, of the Stage more at heart than j
Mr. Henry Irving ; and as we cordially and ungrudgingly wish
him every possible success, so we should be the more satisfied
with him personally if he would take the initiative, and, instead
of sentimentally apologising for the continuance of an abuse, boldly |
reform it altogether, and do his best to banish it from the Stage.
Melbury Road News.—Ex-King Cetewayo is located all among
the Artists. He is developing a taste for
Sunflowers and Dados. He has been advised
by Mr. Yal Prinsep to go to a picture-cleaner’s
in order to be “restored.” On his restoration,
Mr. Y. P. will be offered a seat in the Zululand
Cabinet at the first Dark Seance.
The theatrical bookseller, Mr. French — a
most appropriate name for a vendor of British
dramatic works—advertises a Handy Make-up
Box for Actors. In the list of necessary articles
included is “a puff.” Of course this, to an
Actor, is indispeDsable.
Annoyed by the reticent character of the
Ministerial replies, the Fourth Party describe the policy of the present
G-overnment as one that “ won’t answer.”