The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-02-10

sense Of completeness in French performances
which is so rare in this country, though there
is q more visible aim at it now than there use1
TO be within my remembrance. The gOod
actors and actresses Of London are SO scattered
that IL 10 hardly possible to cast any full piece
completely; and their number, in proportion
to the theatres is so small that II is almost inn
possible to keep any sufficient body 9t them to-
gether against the temptation of high salaries
and the prospect of being ''oook Of the WALK"
in some rival establishment. Till a COM
pany Of actors have worked together
for some time they cannot act their
best. A body of even second rate
actors, by working in company under good
guidance, may come to give very oreditable
and satisfactory representations. In London
il is rare for a company to hold together
above few seasons. The Haymsrket com-
psny is a conspicuous example of the good
of working together, though it exemplifes,
perhaps, not less strikingly, the need of judi
cious ipfiltration Of more new blood rom time
to time, than its manager has found or
thought il desirable to infuse. 1t is not to be
lost sight Of that there may be a keeping
together of bad actors as well as good ones,
and steadiness in evil habits and confirmed
stinginess and slovenlness which is really
ruinous, while 1t is apt to pride itself on
being respectable.
The frequent migration of actors is con-
nected with another pregnant evil Of our
staRe-the unsatisfactory mutual relations OF
actors and manager. Instead Of body of
liege subjects under a paternal government,
or devoted and Obedient soldiers under
loved and trusted general, our theatrical
companies, with rare exceptions, are homes
of strife, pickering, and insubordination,
where the constant struggle seems to be on
the part of the manager to get the most he
can for the least out Of the actor, and on
- Of tha 70 ftrrr ba onart m
account, as exclusively as possible, for his
own gain and glory.
The sense of a common interest, OF duty Of
each to other, oheerfully rendered because
certain of acknowledgment and return, have
rarely seen govei ming the relations OF manager
and actors. Our theatres are eminently COM
bative and competitive as distinguished from
from cooperative associations. Hence the con-
slant difficulties about parts, and the interne-
cine struggles between the pretensions Of
actors, the frequent refusal of characters, and,
as a consequence, the impossibility for either
manager or dramatist of making the best of
even the poor materials supplied by our
''scratch" companies. For this state of things
the result of q chronic disease of the theatri-
cal system-actors and managers must share
the blame between them. It would, believe,
cease under my ideal manager.
believe this difficulty is not experienced in
France in anything like the same degree as
here. There the rule is that the actor en-
gagged as principal for line of character plays
in each piece, if it be the best part in the line
assigned TO him, whatever the absolute merit
of the part may be. The working of this rule
is helping by the system of what is called
"feux''-that is, payments made to the actor
on each night of performance, in addition to
weekly or monthly salary.
The inattention, slovenlinsss, and Insult
cience of rehearsals is another besetting sin ei
the English theatre which is not found in the
French. Our managers and actors seem NOT
to have even an idea Of the pains and thought
bestowed on this indispensable preliminary to
performance by French authors, managers,
and actors alike, thanks to which piece
sometimes undergoes almost complete Gre
modelling" in the progress Of rehearsals.
Here must conclude this paper, sensible
that it by no means exhausts the subject. As
far as it goes, it represents honestly some
results of long and varied experience.