The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-11-16

Forrest uses is undoubtedly one OF the very worst
mutilatioDs OF Shakespeare that was ever perpe-
trated. The character OF the 'Fool"-one OF Shake
speares masterpieces, and absolutely essential to
the proper development OF the poets idea-is elml-
mated altogether, and the great mad scene in the
third act, especially loses much OF its significance
through the absence of this important foil to the
tragic rage OF the mad old king The manner in
which the scarcely less important part OF edgar"
was represented, however, last evening by Mr.
William Harris, so far from making the
loss of the ''Foor matter for
regret, rather eXcites wish that the
"adapter" while he was about it had sent
Edgar to Keep him company. Mr.. Harris may, by
dint OF hard study and constant practice become a
moderately good actor I'm the course OF
years So but at the present writing he certainly
does not understand the first principles OF his art
Mr.. Forrest may imagine that by surrounding him
self with incapables his own effects are thereby
heightened, but this Is a serious mistake and his
''King Lear would be in every way improved by
being placed in juXtaposition with competent repre-
sentatives OF the "FOolr and edgar"
1t is OF the great evils of the star system that
single actor is obliged to carry the entire weight OF
great drama like King Lear upon his
own shoulders, and that he becomes so
jealous of his honors tsat he IS not willing to share
his applause with O subordinate. It NAV
he difficult to find competent representatives OF such
characters as the Fool" and Edgar but this diff
Guilty is in great measure due to d vicious system
that crushes out the energies Of the stock actors In
stead OF melting their ambition and encouraging
them to put forth all their powers It is disgracefu
to see such a tragedy as King Lear turned into
hideous buresque, but we are far more disposed to
blame such men as Mr.. Forrest, who have ruled the
stage with rod OF iron for their own goridcation
rather than the actors who appear to be afraid to
act as well as they can when they are placed in lux
Imposition with popular "star." The best perform
ance by the support last night was the edmund" of
Mr.. Lewis Morrison. This gentleman is an intei-
gent actor and he probably could do this part in
very satisfactory manner, but he appeared to be
oppressed by the weight of his responsibilities and
afraid to trust himself.
Miss Lille, who assumed the character OF "Cor-
dela,' acts just as she did two years ago-neither
better nor wOrse-and she appears to have reached
the limits OF her capabilities in certain sng-song
style Of defamation and mechanical gesticulatlon
that is certainly not natural, and that cannot be
termed artistic, unless we include under that name
everything great and little, admirable and abomi-
nabe, that nature would scorn to own. II Mr. For
rest could give us ''Kng Lear" without any acces-
sories, it would be satisfactory, to certain extent
at least; but such a botched performance OF a
botched adaptation OF the play as was given last
mt at the Walnut is enough to make any admirer
Ol shakespeare forswear the theatre altogether, or
to limit himself TO occasional representation OF
Boucicault's pieces, where the actors are so much
superior to the material they work with that they
appear admirable even in their deficiencies solely by
contrast.