DOI issue:
October 4, 1884
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.17757#0172
October 4, 1884.]
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
165
THE STAGE BY KENDAL-LIGHT.
What ! at it again ? This talented Histrione is coming out as the
Great Irrepressible! The cacoethes loquendi has seized her: the
example of the G.O.M. is daily before her eyes, and Mrs. Kendal
(bless her !) is becoming quite a Premier in Petticoats. She is the
Kendal that won’t be put under a bushel, but which will Hare up,
and, in spite of an occasional sputtering, will warrant itself to last
for any number of hours. Hot one of your “ short sixes,” but a
“long composite,” that is, judging from her lengthy composition
delivered last week at a “ Brummagem ” meeting of the Social
Science Congress. To be acting and speechifying on and off the Stage
is too great a strain for the finest constitution, in fact, it is burning
the Kendal at both ends,—a very exhausting process in the long
run ; still if it is a “ long run,” Mrs. Kendal will be satisfied. And
so more power to her powerful elbow.
She laid about her in all directions : Audiences, Critics, Actors,
Authors, all got it hot and strong. Why ? Who has been attacking
her ? or if she elects to champion the Stage, again we ask who has
been attacking it ? And why does she choose to come forward as
the apologist for the Stage, at a time when, according to her own
statements, the Stage was never less in want of defence or apology ?
Far be it from us to wish to apply the extinguisher, even off the
Stage, but we take upon ourselves the ancient office of candle-snuffer
to the theatre, in order that, after a little judicious trimming, this
Kendal may give a clearer light. We just snip off this fragment of
smoky wick,—not having time to pay more attention to this burning
light just at present,—and here it is:—“The terms ‘Actor’ and
i ‘ Gentleman ’ may now be regarded as synonymous.”
When Mrs. Kendal said this, she was attempting to show that
the Stage as a “ profession” is nowadays accepted socially as on the
same level with the Bar, the Church, the Army, which professions
\ she alluded to as “overstocked.’’ Now, first, the Stage is not
recognised as a profession at all, in the same way as the Bar, the
j Church, the Army, and Navy are recognised. Such a general asser-
I tion as Mrs. Kendal makes, is nonsense. It is as false to say,
: “ You are an Actor, therefore you are a vagabond,” as it is to say,
“ You are an Actor, therefore you are a Gentleman by position.”
We put entirely aside, as having no bearing on the case, the ques-
J tion of conduct. It is simply a matter of fact,—has the Actor, qua
j Actor, the same social position, dejure et de facto, as is held by the
Barrister qua Barrister, the Officer qua Officer, and the Clergyman
qua Clergyman? Be a man’s social position what it may, he obtains
a distinct status as a Gentleman by becoming an Officer, a Barrister,
or a Clergyman, a status that can be only forfeited by his own mis-
conduct. But is it so with the man who “ goes on the Stage ? ” No.
If a man be a Barrister, an Officer, or a Clergyman, the presumption
is that he has received such a training as will fit him for the society
of educated, if not of highly cultured, gentlemen. In some cases
we may “ presump ” wrong, but that a man is “on the Stage ” is a
guarantee for nothing at all,—not even for his being able to act.
Again, when a man becomes a Barrister, or a Clergyman, or an Officer,
does he change his name, and appear as somebody else, for fear of
disgracing his family ? Yet this is the rule with those who adopt
the Stage as a profession, no matter to what social rank in life
they may have previously belonged. And to this rule there are only
i rare exceptions.
Bring the question home. Knowing what we do know about the
I Stage, wishing it well, and trying to make the best of it, how many
of us would choose the theatrical profession for our daughters as
their sole means of earning a livelihood; not, mind you, as future
i Stars,—for all have not the great artistic gifts of an Ellen Terry or
i Madge Bobertson,—but simply as ordinary Actresses in the rank
and file, getting from two to five pounds a week ? If she be a young
Lady by birth and education, pure in mind, and refined in taste,
then, what we will term the “ atmosphere of the theatre,”— not to
go into details familiar to all who do not regard everything through
rose-tinted spectacles,—will either utterly disgust her, and she will
quit the Stage at once and for ever, or she will rapidly and uncon-
sciously (that is. the worst of it) deteriorate—and then ?—histoire
banale !
Parental supervision, night after night, and day after day at
rehearsal, is impossible, unless the parents are in “the profession”
themselves, and then, as the girl will have been habituated to it all
from her earliest years, such strict supervision will, possibly, be
deemed unnecessary. A woman born and bred up in the profession,
an Actress from the first moment she toddled on in a Pantomime
opening at three years old, comes d son insu to accept as part of her
everyday life, manners, customs, and modes of expression that would
be revolting to an ordinary English home-bred girl. We should all
be indeed delighted were the case not so,—but so it is.
Mrs. Kendal blushes for the sort of pieces played at the Criterion,
where we are only to laugh at peccadilloes, be amused by such
absurdities as are just possibilities, and no more. Madame, “because
you are virtuous, are there to be no more cakes and ale ? ” Go to!
There are many Ladies who would rather take their daughters to
laugh at such farcical comedies, than to see the “ suggestive” Peril,
or to the St. James’s to see the termination of the Second Act of The
Squire, a situation which not all Mrs. Kendal’s admirable Art could
render delicate.
As for Actors advertising themselves, we object to it, and to the
beggarly Benefit system, as much as anybody, but it is an adver-
tising age; and what, we may ask, was 'Mrs. Kendal doing at the
Brummagem Social Science Meeting except advertising herself very
cheaply, and on a very extensive scale ? And is not her speech to be
published as a pamphlet, with a portrait of Mrs. Kendal, by way of
frontispiece ? What is this but a form of advertisement ?
Stop—we are wrong—she didn’t only advertise herself, but she
gave “ Parr’s Life Pills and Holloway’s Ointment” such an adver-
tisement as should be handsomely acknowledged by the grateful
proprietors of those patent remedies. Pears will send to Mrs.
Kendal to implore her to mention his Soap. It could, be done so
easily : just mention “ soft soap,” and so forth.
As to the Drama, Mrs. Kendal needn’t trouble her head about
that. Taking to-day’s published list at haphazard, we find, eighteen
Theatres mentioned where, including original Burlesques and Extra-
vaganzas [which have the merit of always being original, except a
few of the late Mr. Planche’s, which were French prose turned into
the neatest English rhyme], are being performed fifteen original
English pieces, exclusive of Farces.
Mrs. Kendal regrets the good old days of mirth-provoking Farces,
when Wright at the Adelphi, and Buckstone at the Haymarket
said and did things which no audience of to-day would tolerate.
For ourselves, we prefer real humour and genuine fun to coarseness.
Honi soit qui mat y pense. There is a humorous side to the most
serious intrigue, and the charge brought by the Critics, against our
Dramatic Authors who adapt French plays to English taste, is, that
the pieces lose their spice in the process, because the Englishman
ingeniously gives the essence of the comic plot and situations while
avoiding all suggestion of indecency. We only know one exception to
this rule, and then the fault was shared between the Author and
the Actor.
But what is the gist of Mrs. Kendal’s much ado about nothing ?
It is to claim for the Actor, qua Actor, a position in “ Society.” As
Miss Squeers exclaimed, “ Is this the hend ? ” Is this the aim and
object of the Actor’s art, to get into “ Sassiety ” ? If so, farewell
erratic genius, and welcome respectable jog-trot mediocrity. Are
there more Actors and Actresses received into “ Sassiety ” now than
in the time of Macready, Charles Kean, Miss Faucit, Charles
Mathews, and Mr. and Mrs. Alfred Wigan ? There ought to be,
for the number of theatres has been nearly doubled ; but if the pro-
portion is the same, the social position of the Stage is not one whit
better than it was a quarter of a century ago. Of course, young |
men who are Gentlemen by birth and education, and who have not
forfeited their position by misconduct, will be received as they were
before they “went on the Stage,”—though not everywhere; but ]
these are not received qua Actors, that is, as were Miss Helen
Faucit, Macready, and the others, with, perhaps, the exception of
Charles Kean,
quoted above.
Now we have done
—for the present. The
St. James’s Theatre
re-opens to -morrow
with the adaptation
from the French—
(those wicked French!)
— entitled The Iron-
master (“ le jeu ne
vaut pas la Kendal"),
and we give them this
gratis advertisement,
by singing, “The
Kendals are com-
ing ! ” But should
the talented Actress
feel inspired to step
before the Curtain
and address her sym-
pathetic audience, we
can only warn her off
this course, or this
discourse, with Mr.
Punch's historic ad
vice, “ Don’t! ”
The Best of Autumn Leaves.—Leave to pass the Franchise
Bill in October.
Cowper’s “ Task.”—Mediating between Lords and Commons.
Vol. 87.
6
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
165
THE STAGE BY KENDAL-LIGHT.
What ! at it again ? This talented Histrione is coming out as the
Great Irrepressible! The cacoethes loquendi has seized her: the
example of the G.O.M. is daily before her eyes, and Mrs. Kendal
(bless her !) is becoming quite a Premier in Petticoats. She is the
Kendal that won’t be put under a bushel, but which will Hare up,
and, in spite of an occasional sputtering, will warrant itself to last
for any number of hours. Hot one of your “ short sixes,” but a
“long composite,” that is, judging from her lengthy composition
delivered last week at a “ Brummagem ” meeting of the Social
Science Congress. To be acting and speechifying on and off the Stage
is too great a strain for the finest constitution, in fact, it is burning
the Kendal at both ends,—a very exhausting process in the long
run ; still if it is a “ long run,” Mrs. Kendal will be satisfied. And
so more power to her powerful elbow.
She laid about her in all directions : Audiences, Critics, Actors,
Authors, all got it hot and strong. Why ? Who has been attacking
her ? or if she elects to champion the Stage, again we ask who has
been attacking it ? And why does she choose to come forward as
the apologist for the Stage, at a time when, according to her own
statements, the Stage was never less in want of defence or apology ?
Far be it from us to wish to apply the extinguisher, even off the
Stage, but we take upon ourselves the ancient office of candle-snuffer
to the theatre, in order that, after a little judicious trimming, this
Kendal may give a clearer light. We just snip off this fragment of
smoky wick,—not having time to pay more attention to this burning
light just at present,—and here it is:—“The terms ‘Actor’ and
i ‘ Gentleman ’ may now be regarded as synonymous.”
When Mrs. Kendal said this, she was attempting to show that
the Stage as a “ profession” is nowadays accepted socially as on the
same level with the Bar, the Church, the Army, which professions
\ she alluded to as “overstocked.’’ Now, first, the Stage is not
recognised as a profession at all, in the same way as the Bar, the
j Church, the Army, and Navy are recognised. Such a general asser-
I tion as Mrs. Kendal makes, is nonsense. It is as false to say,
: “ You are an Actor, therefore you are a vagabond,” as it is to say,
“ You are an Actor, therefore you are a Gentleman by position.”
We put entirely aside, as having no bearing on the case, the ques-
J tion of conduct. It is simply a matter of fact,—has the Actor, qua
j Actor, the same social position, dejure et de facto, as is held by the
Barrister qua Barrister, the Officer qua Officer, and the Clergyman
qua Clergyman? Be a man’s social position what it may, he obtains
a distinct status as a Gentleman by becoming an Officer, a Barrister,
or a Clergyman, a status that can be only forfeited by his own mis-
conduct. But is it so with the man who “ goes on the Stage ? ” No.
If a man be a Barrister, an Officer, or a Clergyman, the presumption
is that he has received such a training as will fit him for the society
of educated, if not of highly cultured, gentlemen. In some cases
we may “ presump ” wrong, but that a man is “on the Stage ” is a
guarantee for nothing at all,—not even for his being able to act.
Again, when a man becomes a Barrister, or a Clergyman, or an Officer,
does he change his name, and appear as somebody else, for fear of
disgracing his family ? Yet this is the rule with those who adopt
the Stage as a profession, no matter to what social rank in life
they may have previously belonged. And to this rule there are only
i rare exceptions.
Bring the question home. Knowing what we do know about the
I Stage, wishing it well, and trying to make the best of it, how many
of us would choose the theatrical profession for our daughters as
their sole means of earning a livelihood; not, mind you, as future
i Stars,—for all have not the great artistic gifts of an Ellen Terry or
i Madge Bobertson,—but simply as ordinary Actresses in the rank
and file, getting from two to five pounds a week ? If she be a young
Lady by birth and education, pure in mind, and refined in taste,
then, what we will term the “ atmosphere of the theatre,”— not to
go into details familiar to all who do not regard everything through
rose-tinted spectacles,—will either utterly disgust her, and she will
quit the Stage at once and for ever, or she will rapidly and uncon-
sciously (that is. the worst of it) deteriorate—and then ?—histoire
banale !
Parental supervision, night after night, and day after day at
rehearsal, is impossible, unless the parents are in “the profession”
themselves, and then, as the girl will have been habituated to it all
from her earliest years, such strict supervision will, possibly, be
deemed unnecessary. A woman born and bred up in the profession,
an Actress from the first moment she toddled on in a Pantomime
opening at three years old, comes d son insu to accept as part of her
everyday life, manners, customs, and modes of expression that would
be revolting to an ordinary English home-bred girl. We should all
be indeed delighted were the case not so,—but so it is.
Mrs. Kendal blushes for the sort of pieces played at the Criterion,
where we are only to laugh at peccadilloes, be amused by such
absurdities as are just possibilities, and no more. Madame, “because
you are virtuous, are there to be no more cakes and ale ? ” Go to!
There are many Ladies who would rather take their daughters to
laugh at such farcical comedies, than to see the “ suggestive” Peril,
or to the St. James’s to see the termination of the Second Act of The
Squire, a situation which not all Mrs. Kendal’s admirable Art could
render delicate.
As for Actors advertising themselves, we object to it, and to the
beggarly Benefit system, as much as anybody, but it is an adver-
tising age; and what, we may ask, was 'Mrs. Kendal doing at the
Brummagem Social Science Meeting except advertising herself very
cheaply, and on a very extensive scale ? And is not her speech to be
published as a pamphlet, with a portrait of Mrs. Kendal, by way of
frontispiece ? What is this but a form of advertisement ?
Stop—we are wrong—she didn’t only advertise herself, but she
gave “ Parr’s Life Pills and Holloway’s Ointment” such an adver-
tisement as should be handsomely acknowledged by the grateful
proprietors of those patent remedies. Pears will send to Mrs.
Kendal to implore her to mention his Soap. It could, be done so
easily : just mention “ soft soap,” and so forth.
As to the Drama, Mrs. Kendal needn’t trouble her head about
that. Taking to-day’s published list at haphazard, we find, eighteen
Theatres mentioned where, including original Burlesques and Extra-
vaganzas [which have the merit of always being original, except a
few of the late Mr. Planche’s, which were French prose turned into
the neatest English rhyme], are being performed fifteen original
English pieces, exclusive of Farces.
Mrs. Kendal regrets the good old days of mirth-provoking Farces,
when Wright at the Adelphi, and Buckstone at the Haymarket
said and did things which no audience of to-day would tolerate.
For ourselves, we prefer real humour and genuine fun to coarseness.
Honi soit qui mat y pense. There is a humorous side to the most
serious intrigue, and the charge brought by the Critics, against our
Dramatic Authors who adapt French plays to English taste, is, that
the pieces lose their spice in the process, because the Englishman
ingeniously gives the essence of the comic plot and situations while
avoiding all suggestion of indecency. We only know one exception to
this rule, and then the fault was shared between the Author and
the Actor.
But what is the gist of Mrs. Kendal’s much ado about nothing ?
It is to claim for the Actor, qua Actor, a position in “ Society.” As
Miss Squeers exclaimed, “ Is this the hend ? ” Is this the aim and
object of the Actor’s art, to get into “ Sassiety ” ? If so, farewell
erratic genius, and welcome respectable jog-trot mediocrity. Are
there more Actors and Actresses received into “ Sassiety ” now than
in the time of Macready, Charles Kean, Miss Faucit, Charles
Mathews, and Mr. and Mrs. Alfred Wigan ? There ought to be,
for the number of theatres has been nearly doubled ; but if the pro-
portion is the same, the social position of the Stage is not one whit
better than it was a quarter of a century ago. Of course, young |
men who are Gentlemen by birth and education, and who have not
forfeited their position by misconduct, will be received as they were
before they “went on the Stage,”—though not everywhere; but ]
these are not received qua Actors, that is, as were Miss Helen
Faucit, Macready, and the others, with, perhaps, the exception of
Charles Kean,
quoted above.
Now we have done
—for the present. The
St. James’s Theatre
re-opens to -morrow
with the adaptation
from the French—
(those wicked French!)
— entitled The Iron-
master (“ le jeu ne
vaut pas la Kendal"),
and we give them this
gratis advertisement,
by singing, “The
Kendals are com-
ing ! ” But should
the talented Actress
feel inspired to step
before the Curtain
and address her sym-
pathetic audience, we
can only warn her off
this course, or this
discourse, with Mr.
Punch's historic ad
vice, “ Don’t! ”
The Best of Autumn Leaves.—Leave to pass the Franchise
Bill in October.
Cowper’s “ Task.”—Mediating between Lords and Commons.
Vol. 87.
6