The New York herald., 1877-10-03
ADJUSTMENTS.
"MARRrA0E" AND IT'S MrpIrs.

London und Dr. Johnson and Garrick seemed to look
upon her q female Shakespeare. but where
they nowS They vanished from the stage and Miss
More devoted herself 10 the writing OF religious novels
In respect to Mr. Bouccauts comedy OF ..Marrage,n
1t certainly had an enthusiastic reception on
its first night fact which duly reported in these
columns. Notwithstanding Mr. Boucicaults asscr.
ton in his letter, elsewhere printed, that
critics never condescend TO give pubic
opinion, but only give their own, 1t is always n
particular point of the HERALD TO say In
what manner new drama IS received by the auden Co
II does not follow, however, that the applause of
friendly aud good natured house tho first
night of play indicates the ultimate judg-
ment OF the public. All plays by eminent writer's
and given by good actors com mpmentei
In our time by cordial welcome, and ''Mar-
riagc" is not IN exception to the rule. But tho
degree OF success cannot be measured by this
courtesy OF single night, and those Who are in
doubt MS to the permanent success of "Marrage"
found much support IN the falling OF OF tho laughter
and applause Tuesday night as Mr. Boucicault's
certainly had IN the hilarious compliment OF Monday.
If We wish try anticipate the final Judgment we
must look into the play and judge II by the standards
which the distinguished author has himself cs,ab-
lshod
ln his article in the Norh Ap.erican Reriew Mr.
Bouocault questions tho ability OF critic to reLder
a correct opnion ut once upon ucts newly presented
TO him, though bis speech assuming that .sMar.
riage IL established as successful legitimate comedy
because OF its arst nights reception he comedies that
faculty TO audience, but let tnat pass Admit
ting, however, that he IS right, havc mado
second examination OF the play lu his interview.
published In the HERALD the other day he sad he
welcomed udicous criticism, though he had been Sc.
verely handled though not as severely he deserved
Let US, therefore, take hm at his word and modestv
attempt to point out som" reasons why ''sIar-
rage" IS not the legitimate five act comedy
he holds II to be, ana not NJ to bis own standard of
ceencc and not likely to hold place either OH the
shelf or on the sta,e.
Sheridan and "rhe School for Scandal might as
we'll be lott out OF tho discussion, and Bouccaut DO
judged by Boucicaut. Let "London Assurance" be
accepted as legitimate five comedy, Tor certainly
II has endured tue test OF thirty seven yoars
and is stu one OF tho most popular rays
rage" in all important respects "London As
surance' has a single plot In the development
o which all tho characters have part. Marriage
has half dozen plots all TRIVIAL and almost entirely
disconnected with each other The story In tho ono is
clear and straightforward from irs, to last, aud is
interrupted by irrelevant episodes The story OF
the other is Tor the first Two acts unnelligibc, aud
us meaning only begins 10 appear TO the spectators
tho fourth act, wnilc scene after Is OF ad
and frequently OF much mpcdiment to the progress
the piece. Instances OF this are found III tho
funny scene winch the bridegroom has With Tho
maids and nearly all oil the first part OF
act third, up to the entrance Of Mr. Auldjo. when
the movement Is resumed. Then for the
characters ''Marr,age" will bear comparison
with "London Assurance Where is there
not in Mr. sllas Auldjo. Where is the Dazzes Walter
or IN Constant TIM Where Is the Mark Med
Where sr cnaros CourcyS no. % in Arcnnaa aees
Where Max Harkaway, spapker Coos
Where Is Lady Gay 50 spankcrs We DO
these characters in "Marragc,o but where are any
characters IN that pccc which give tho actors
oa. Out Clearly and effectively upon the stage
Nothing Of tho kind seems to exist in Marriage" !"
play than its present rival and apparently written
equal in briiancy to that OF Sir Harcoar.
effect with Lady Gay spankcr's description Of
tho stecplechasc. These are among the reasons
wo wa believe that viii had mos. Of It's Dssss pss
BRET honeymoon and not in long life OF years OF
secure happiness on the stage.
ON the NEW YORK AND PHILADELPHIA
PRESS.
New YORK, Oct ., 1877.
To THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD
Ia q recent article tho "Decliue OF the Drama -
and again In antintcrview published IN last Sunday s
HERALD, l attributed that decline partly 10 the mis-
chcvous influence Of tho press and especi ALLY 10 the
ignorance OF the critics, who. having accepted
standard OF excellence in literature or in art could
agree IN their views OF play actor there
fore the readers regarded their opinions with dstrusI
A very happy example OF this was afforded this
Ing which SO amusing you Will pardon Its intrusion
on your notice. Last night my comedy
Marriage" was produced simultaneously in Now York
and 10 Philadelphia. Tho leading journals in the two
cities exhibit the contrast referred to. The HERALD
pronounces tho comedy "a failure" having .no strong
or clear dramatic purpose and Will not stand com.
parison with ''London Assurance" The Phiiade phia
North American pronouLccs '.the new play is beyond
ques ton dramatic triumph, masterpiece OF con
easy and briliiant.n The New YORK Times says 'tno
work overloaded with detail to the extent weary
ing attention." Tho Pnla elphin Press declares
tncrc not dull SITUATION III tho wit sparkes IN
every scene. Mr. Bouclcauit hopes his work VIII rank
with London Assurance and II WILL lie thought IL
might be spoken oi Win the scnoo Tor
Scandap anu II Will The New York Su,.
assures It's readcrs that the whole thing -.
long ami somewhat tircsome performance; II Is
not interesting devoid OF plot and inexcusab o
mistakeh Whe the Philadelphia Inquirer says on
Lhe other nd-"Tho construction Is skiful, Tho
situations striking and original We have brilliant
dialogue, characters ably conce we'd well worked out
ana artlslcaliy contrasted Ii the eouedy has not
brilliant run Philadelphia does know good thing
when she nus H. From all TINS II appears that the
same play which appears white to the Philadelphia
press appears black IN New York. There Is an error
somewhere There Is as much unanmity oi .cnsurc IN
VI journalists AS there IL OF praise IN the
! the actors were concerned. must say the
critics addressed their attentions almost exru.
| sivoy to me and my work rEis morning 1 received
u call from represe ntativo OF one OF the lcadn
evening newspapers, wno inquired u had any reason
TO believe that tho New YORK critics III concert
TO avensc my late attacks upon them the NEW
York HERALD anu in the North American Recictc.
l iecl quito sure they are superior 10 any such
/ feeling. Mr. WaIack ana Mr.. Gilbert rcnai kcd
that production had ever been received at that
theatre by the pubic win such bursts OF applause
Laughter ara enthusiasm II the critics did not record
that II was al oversight aud perhaps they do
pretend 10 record pubic opinion, but sinpy to give
their own, " Is unnecessary to vmbarTass thcms
with irrelevant matter Indeed, tho question IL not
what the piblc think OF my play, that another
affair. The question Is that ART critics constantly
exhibit .alschicvous incapacity OF judgment. For
ethcr the Philadelphia press are utterly and unani-
mousy wrong IN sceiLg merit and amusement Ia this
play or the New York press are equally at iault Ia
| denying with that II has any merit at all
DION BUUcICAULr.
p. .S-whlc writing tho above a friend called IN.
| and be informed there Is an opinion abroad that
knew inc critics OF tnls city w.re resolved "so
for mel when they got chance; and, therefore with
malice prepsnse / produced the concuy Phill
delphia on tho same night, tnat might bring tho
journals Of ono city into conflict witn the other
n. I of uru