The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-12-22
THE MODERN DRAMA.

forcible letter, In which he says: Having no
literary ability whatever, must decline your
hattering invitation" The few observations
which follow this modest decliner are so
full OF truth and wisdom that we feel assured
the public has lost most interesting paper
through Mr.. Booths self-depreciation. we
know Of no man, certainly Of none in his pro
fession, who has better right than himself
to speak as censor upon this SUD
ject, nor OF any to whom the
cultured public, at least, would listen with
more respect The whole history OF the
English drama does not present to us single
actor who has done more to preserve, alike,
the purity OF the drama and the dignity Of
his own profession. Mr.. Booth has consist
emily refused to descend In the slightest par
ticuar or under any circumstances, whether
allured by the hope OF gain or driven by dis
appointments, from the high standard upon
which he chose 10 model his professional
career or to, in any manner. contribute to the
degradation that has overcome the modern
stage.
Ia his letter declining to furnish tho article
asked OF him he says:
NY knowledge Of tho modern drama il 80
very meagre that never print my wife or
daughter to wl'noss LAY Without previously
pursue. can suggest no othor, unless u
might be- by means OF dramatic censor"
whose taste or Judgment might. however, be
If The management of theatres could be do
MED to spectators ana placed IN the hands O
actors who value their reputation Hnd resEert
their calling the stage would ut least afford
healthy recreation. II not, Indeed. q whnlesome
stimulus to the exercise of noble sentiments.
But while the theatre Is permitted 10 be mere
shop for gain -open to every huckHter OF I'm
moral GIN cracks there Is no other way to dis
through the experience OF others. Yours
truly.
Thege are strong words. and the fact that
they were spoken by Edwin Booth Is ample
assurance that they were based on conv1c-
tions equally as strong and well defined. 1T
Is to be seriously regretted that the public is
to be deprived Of these convictions. Even
were Mr.. Booth as deficient in literary capa-
city as he believes himself to be. whatever
observations SO eminent an actor might have
made In elaboration Of these views would GER
tanly subserve good purpose, and be read
by men Of letters, as well as the members OF
his own profession, with great interest.
We believe that he has struck the true secret
OF the decline OF the literature as well rs the
acting of the contemporary stage. That the
character of our public amusements. except.
perhaps, in music, have wofully detororated.
no true lover Of the drama can doubt. As for
the literature OF the stage. there is no such
thing. With the exception Of Tcnnyson s
'Queen Mary" and perhaps in one or two
other instances. which we fail, however to re-
call, there has not been play written to be
read during the last decade All our modern
plays" are the work Of playwrighta, and not
OF dramatists. Situations, stage effects,
mere catches and plays upon words,
wit that depends solely upon what
might be called vulgar suggestiveness,
were 1t not so broad and papabe,
linked together by a thread OF Mandy PANTY
sickening sentimentalty. which tho strong
virilty OF the old English dramatists and
actors would shrink from, make up the plot
and dramatic interest of the modern society
play. Lust, and not love. Is its theme: ut
least not that love which Poe has described
rs 1.-THE true, the divine Eros the Uranian, rs
distinguished from the Dionman Venus
Paywrights, actors and audiences, all alike
have lost all love for that "eevating excite
ment OF the soul" which we all know is quite
Independent of that passion which is the in
toxication of the heart" and whose tendency
Is to degrade rather than TO elevate the soul. :
To barely suggest why this is, would re-
uuire a diagnosis shall not assume t.
make. The blame rests on the public moi
less than on the profession. As Mr.. Booth
says the trouble lies in the fact that oul
theatres are in the hands of "Specuators'
and not OF factors who value their reputation
and respect their calling" Whoever has
read lovingly the biography OF the old Eng
lish stage, and, in this department OF litera
ture, there is nothing comparable to 1t, cal
but have the truth and its melancholy conse
auences thrust upon him. When we read o.
the trials and triumphs Of Dick Burbage and
the other originals Of Shakspcare'B charac
ters of Dick Tareton and that most
comical and conceited cavallere, NJ. d.
Kempe, Jest monger and viceger
ent general to the ghost OF Dicl
Tarlcton," OF tho Cibbers and Davie
Garrick, OF Charles Maeklin. Peg" WofIing
ton and George Anne Bellamy, and, later, o.
Edmund Kean and Charles Young, we cal
but smile, in sorrow as well as dcrsion, al
the poor puppets who strut their day on on
boards through Boucicault rs those WORTH e
did through Shakespeare or Beaumont ant
Fletcher.
Yet. what do we know Of the private lives
OF those old actors AS has been observed
before, "there were no anecdotcmongers II
those days to pry into the jomesticitie
OF celebrated men, and to make note
Of every grecn-room scandal Q
tattIe, or to write their "reminiscences, an
take posthumous vengeance upon friends an
enemies alike" Yet we have what is far bet
ter-we have the "reminiscences OF such me
as Charles Lamb and Hazlitt to make us low
and revere the memories Of that old line G
actors who devoted their lives to the rend
ton of a dramatic literature entirely worth
of their noble zeal and splendid abilities
And when we read the kindly and genia
pages of such writers we can but see that II
such pens are inspired In these latter days
that no such hearts are won, no such soul
are ravished by the modern drama Q