New-York tribune., 1876-12-06
The DRAMA-M USIC.
REVIVAL OF THE SCHOOL FOR SCANDAL"

REVIVAL OF 1.-THE SCHOOL FOR SCANDAL"
There are many reasons for the vitality OF
" The School for Scandal" The one that rose most
strongly I'm thought last night u presence OF the
pretty revival OF the comedy that then made IN the
Fifth Avenue Thcater its preservation and use Of tire
ideal element. Sheridan, the intellectual heir 0f Con
Teve knew how TO copy humanity, not as 1t actually s
best the fashion of his great exonpaf IN
this difficult and delicate art His clusters o persons are
brilliant beyond the usage of the world and yet In hDer
they II may be trte thought, but II s' per-
haps worth while reflect that II Sheridan had tried to
write ga comedy of cotemporaneons human interest"
he would not have paused at photography; he would
have been content to copy a circle Of Puritans
bandly consuming their bcars, nor knot 0f New
Workers. talking stocks at DemOnico's. The tyDcs OF
actual character would have been reproduced but they
would have been selected. frightened, elevated, ana
made luminous with meaning and wit. In that way
sheridan treated English society in his own time-and
"The school for Scandal" accordingly, win always en-
dure as a representative picture.
1t was framed in elaborate ch and snowy scenes, In
the Fifth Avenue Theater last night and II wrought an
effect such atested its lasting power 10
please. It's text. however found TO have been
marred by transpositons and in some passages to be
unknown 10 Its speakers and enjoyment OF 1t was les
sened through this sherdans great comedy Is
vastly better as It's author made 1t than 1t stands
as adapted for the Fifth Avenue Theater
There Is Of difference of opinion on this point
bat would be waste of words to argue upon H. lhere
will be greater difference Of opinion as to the manner In
which the piece Is acted Mr.. Fisher not In any re-
spect true TO his author, as Sir Peter TeGsie. lie
had no dignity, grace. no quaintness; and ms
drollery was often that OF the pantaoOn. AS
glance along the cast and recall the several persona
tiOns, indeed, mention only the Lazy Iedse OF
Miss Daveuportand this by means distinct and
poised-the Sr Uicer Of Mr.. Brougham, the Moses oil
Mr. Davdge. the Snake and Trip Of Mr.
Frank Bennett. and the Lady Snee1reH OF
Miss Mary Wells, consistently In the authors
vein Mr.. Haskins was OF course, correct IN ground
plan as joseph, but he was III at In the text Mr.
Coghlan who appeared Chayies Surface. pleased by
pictorial accuracy aud free and msnnr; but his
makeup of his head gave him startled aspect ana
he did not, the spirit Of the part, make it-what
certainly IL should be-Of fascinating nature. Mr.
Coghan acts ChGriess first In sort OF inclrnt
intoxcaiion; II may be litera-bu II is very UNPLEASANT
He was fer more winning In the dash and eyy incident
10 the screen scene We would not be unjust 10
a personation which ia said to have charmed
London for 400 nights. Enough tc say that the taste
centers Miss Davenports Lady Teasie. The serious
parts of tins persOuatlon much the best. Miss
JefreysI evils recitcd GardcGs tad prologue with neat
action, and Mrs Gilbert danced beautifully In the
minuet with which the first act Is dshgurcd
Much might be said the historical trappngs which
invest this revival They very fine But II would be
more satisfactory to see old piece ITSELF and to see
well acted than TO dite old furniture. There Il
hut little I'm the revival that Is worth eonmendaton-
aud IL may as well be dropped.