The Express.
London, England, 1846-10-15 00:00:00

MN Drama•

does
and
fast,

Macready played last night at this
house the part of Richelieu, in Sit E. Bulwer Lytton's play
of that name. Modern history presents no other character
essentially dramatic as the great Cardinal who concentrated
the whole power of France in the sovereign, and thereby
made tie King the state. His career as a minister was a
series of starting effects, unlooked for situations, and signi-
' ficant catastrophes, to the production of which even his ene-
mies and victims contributed as effectually as if the whole
matter had been previously crrsnged in the green-room of a
theatre. The reach of his foresight, the completeness of his
combination, the awe and grandeur that attended his pre-
sence, the terror and insecurity inspired by his very name,
his almost miraculous information of what every one else was
doing, were, in fact, such as now only are seen on the stage,
and submitted to by reason for the pleasure of the ima-
gination. Richelieu, however, is by no means the character
with which a dramatic writer would find it easy to deal. For
depicting him as he really was, a play is a thing far too
small. That of Sir Bulwer Lytton is but an apology for
him; and such, then, is not a genuine one. The justifica-
tion or palliation of evil deeds is to be found in the state of
the soul of him who does them at the time when they are
done ; any after-condition is a problem too vulgar for a great
dram; fist, and eessnelv worbv of e :west netor. PieWies
himself must have felt that 'be was a character eminently
tragic; he scarcely could have imagined that he was" a man
more sinned against than sinning." Such, however, he is
represented in this play. Hie opponents are not proud aris-
tocrats, intolerant of a master, but very common men,
anxious to get rid of an obstacle to their scheming. The
good man triumphs by means similar to those used
by the bad, but used by him more cleverly.
The consequence is, that the actor who plays
the part of Richelieu has to contend with the
tendencies of the character such as the author has
conceived it, and of the plot which the author has con-
structed. In effecting this the accomplished acting of Mr.
Macready was made manifest. By exhibiting, from the
first, a nature highly impassioned, served by a physical
frame which an insidious disease has undermined, and so
sub *t to alternations of fary and indifference, ho contrived,
in the more quiet scenes, to attract to the agent the interest
excited by the action. His moderation in the passage, sug-
gested by the question of Marius to the Cimbruin, in
which he refuses to believe that De Maupret dares
assassinate him, may be mentioned as one of these
instances. The most trying part of this pity is that
which c•ncludes the fourth act; fortune no longer

the bidding of Richelieu; checked, bewildered,
almost mosl4 the interest in him is wanine
when he suddenly assumes the churchman and
routs the anathema of the church over hie adversary.
Thu is one of those passages which must be played up 1.0
and prepared foe from the first, if it is not to degenerate into
one of those sallies, the value of which the audiences of this
theatre are now looming to appreciate. The menace was
projected with a momentum so impetuous as to produce for
the instant universal stillness. Mr. Cooper played the part
of Darudes with much care, and an evident desire to give
the character its importance. Mr. Murray as De Maupret,
and Mr. Fredericks as the King, also exhibited considerable
intelligence. We wish that it was in our power to praise the
lady who performed the part of Julie; her acting was so
little spontaneous as to be quite disassemble.