New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-04-05
The Dukes Motto.

plausible air of justice, Just as sOphist can
pretentiously detect fallacies in PROPOSE
ton that he knows are non-existent. Gus
tom, too, has insinuated its influences into
the matter, and SO beguiled judgment as to
force it to discover errors. defects or dis
crepancies in every performance submitted
to its arbitrament, in order either to avoid
the imputation of tlattery or push the de-
gree of human perfectability farther beyond
the scope of individual effort. We think it
was Polybus of antique history who essayed
to demonstrate how every battle that Alex
ander lost might have been won, while 1t is
more than probable that had he substituted
in place of the great Macedonian, Darius
would not have been vanquished, nor Per
sepoiis furnished the theme Of splendid
triumph.
Especially is the poor actor who struts
and frets his hour on the stagesSZforced to
run severe and exacting gauntlet to please
the popular taste, and if he escapes the
'whips and scorns' of a censOrious judg-
ment he has touched an Gel Dorado as yet
unexp.ored in the wide domain of dramatic
art.
These comments are superinduced by
what we would consider hypercriticism in
any reflection on the merits Of the dukes
Motto" as presented at the Varieties. True,
the play is married by some crudities and in
constituencies portions of the groundwork
of the plot being unnatural, and hence the
mal-adjustment or fit Of corresponding parts
of the superstructure; but after all. 1t IS
only melO-drama, sensational, too, and
necessarily dashed with incidents and situa-
tons of an intensely transitional and ex-
citing character. The episodes are sudden,
and often divergent. but this element car
RES away the spectator in such sympathetic
accord with the character that although
their action is somewhat absorbed in the
fluctuations and vicisstudes Of events, an
intercourse is established between actor
and auditor of genial and reciprocal ma
ture. The prologue is distasteful-perad-
venture, only to tls-in its disjunction from
| the context, suggesting significantly the
| idea of patchwork, and might Just as we'll
| be Incorporated in the classification of the
| acts But this is a mere triviality, and for
the other dement's Of the piece Mr.. John
Brougham and not Mr. Barrett, is amena-
BILE.
| We claim that Henri De La3ardere is as
| fine and striking PRESERVATION as the cast
| admits, and while in a strictly dellneatory
| point of view there is not much scope for
the development of such high histrionic
| powers as are in Mr.. Barrett he rises to the
full sweep and compass of the role with a
mastery that enslaves the subject to his
command The acme of the mimetic ar,
can not go beyond thorough intelligence
and rendition of an assigned part, and where
the occasion is OppCrtune. MIR. Barrett,
strikes, as it were, the metal of his genius
and we have its sonorous and responsive
ring.
In Hamlet he is scholarly and erudite
untricked with specious by-play, and over
reaching the fnerles OF mere artistic ex
cellence. As Hure5eii, in the Man o'Airle.
he is as tender and pathetic as in his
Elliot Grey of .Rosedale" he is cunning
and complete, up to the very edge OF the
requisitional standard in both. and thu:
filing the measure OF dramatic characteri
zat:on.
If the author of the Dukes Motto
had made Captain Henri De Lagordere il
the duplicate mold Of Hamlet, or Richard
or Richelieu secondary and initiative a
best to these original conceptions1, Mr.
Barrett would doubtlessiy have displayed
the inherited grandeur Of the tragi
Thespis, and stirred the divinity within
US by his OWL godllke invCcations. Blu
Lagadere is a hero of another type am
the created form Brou CHAM left inanimat'
receives its full atftatus from the inductivt
attfngs Of NJ Barrett's vitaiizin
spirit.
CayYicbfergus is an admirable portraiture
and we purpose to be as gentle as tn
Lapulan tiapper when he reused his dream
ing lord in reminding Mr. Clarke of
little apathy, a mere adumbration of pas
sivity, possibly capric;ous or accidental OF
the occasion in question-maynap he wa
mot in the vein," like Richard whel
Buckingham annoyed HMM the dellnea
ton OF the character. Always correct ant
UP in his part, both conceptive and execr
tive. a modicum more OF dash and activit
: infused into Carrich feryss and we Wi
overlook what has been pointed 10 us a
} an eccentricity of make up or rathe
arachronsm il certain stages of tn
drama.
, Mr.. Ryer's DuLe Is good. and, as b
; warns up toward the finale OF the play
. evinces no uncomfortable power. Esq
too, is a clever rendition. intensified l
fidelity and naturalness, however. b
9 assimilation, as We may term it, from tn
r exactitude and identity of the DISCUS
l subsequen tly assumed by Mr. Barrett.
Miss Gordon, always pleasing, Is Yer
attractive in BLnacte dc Neeers, the ro!
: not being interspersed with much in
} FASHIONED acting, and only il the inc
dental love scenes discovering tervid sent
, | ment and touches of pataos.
The rest Of the casts are uiiciously al
pointed.
. But the browning glory Of the piece is il
scenic effect. The appliances are all chas'
: and eleg CANT, and although some OF tt
: views as has been indicated in colten
porary notices, are not novel, they hay
e been freshened by new appliances, and pa
G TALLY transformed by additional ador
i ments. Of the propreties of costumery "
r accept the guarantee OF Dir. Barretts tast'
r and experience. The duilness Of some
: the habits may be rather in keeping wit
I the 1eq,0,e of the times or the indyidualit
e of the character, if not the drift of tt
t authors election, than the paucity of tt
= stage properties or the slimness of the war;