Star.
London, England, 1829-11-04 00:00:00

THE NEW PLAY.

Long unaccustomed to behold any new Comedy con-
tributed to our modern stage of pure and legitimate cha-
racter, we were not much disappointed at the failure,
last evening, at Drury-Lane Theatre. Yet we were
sorry—very sorry—to behold a subject, so justly the
property of genuine Comedy, botched front the
license and unmanageable fancy of the author, who has
disfigured a theme, of the most happy selection, by cram-
ming situation upon situation—confusing his business
with unnecessary episode—and entangling himself in a
dedelium of embroglia, from which, of necessity, his
denouement scrambles scurvily out, at the expence of all
propriety and effect.
In a piece of two Acts, the interest should hinge upon
one crowning incident, towards which we should
arrive rapidly but without strained effort. The actors
should be few to preserve perspicuity and facility : the
dialogue should be tierce and neat ; and the author
should content himself with mere spirited sketches of
character—and not aspire to the importance of five-
act pictures. But all these irrefutable principles the
writer has, either through wilfulness or ignorance, totally
subverted in this new piece : the plot has too much ma-
terial for an Entertainment ; and is too little and too pre-'
cipitate for Comedy, on its high scale.
The subjects richly affords canvas for five acts. The
vice and weakness it would expose are prevalent pests of'
society : the characters of gossip mischief-makers, work-
ing on petty passion around them, afford excellent lati-
tude for just satire, and corrective inculcations ; and pre-
sent an object nobler to the stagewright than the mere
applause to be attained by unmeaning farce destitute
of moral lesson. But to attempt this with effect,
dignity should preside over the scene ; the characters
should be delineated with consistency and strength ; the
tendency made clearly manifest ; the incident gradually
developed—till the mind, through progressive reflection,
arrive at conviction with the conclusion ; and the lan-
guage, with all its comic gloss, should convey spirit and
thought. The subject of this piece demanded all this—
and, alas ! all this it wants.
LISTON made every effort, but without success. We
laughed indeed—but it was at LlSTON—rarely at the cha-
racter he personated. This gentleman is the spoiled child
of the public ; and has the privilege of abstracting himself
from the author's conception to make traits for himself.—
He appears—we applaud. He speaks—we titter.' He
moves—we roar. He grimaces—and we are convulsed.
But his author, all the time, might as well be POOLE as
SHEarRAN. Mrs. GLOW Elt acted with ease and pointed
intention ; but not, as one of our contemporaries has
it, " smooth and silky." It rather appeared to us like
hombazeen —solid and good. JONES, Miss Mon-
DAUNT, and HARLEY, were as unnecessary as
a naval combat or a fox chace. As to the
first, his conception of a military " Muscadin"
does no great honor to the army whose uniform
he wore on this occasion. We hope the character,
as he represents it, is merely a child of his own fancy.
Such a caricature in reality would raise a mob.—
The dramatic critics appear sorry that insignificant
parts were, in this piece, assigned to respectable
actors. But we cannot participate in their regret. Too
much use is made of subordinates to the destruction of
all minor interest in our plays ; and if the new piece
was unsupportable with the aid of good actors, what
would it have been if committed to the butchery of those
eternal sticks, nightly engaged to murder our nightly
pleasures.
• • • • •