Morning journal and courier., 1883-07-26

seEvedly defer to the actors suggestions on those points in regard to which the actor experience is necessarily superior to his own. This combination is rare, at least in our own country, because few English authors have studied the stage sufficiently to appreciate the importance of conforming their work to it's memorable conditions and not many Eng fish actors have sufficiently studied literature to appreciate the obligation of conforming their own art to the standard which the lite rary drama imposes on the performance of it. But such combination did. I think, ex- ist in the production of :Ricbelieu," and have therefore selected the genesis of that play to illustrate my previous remarks upon the conditions of 8 literary stage. ''Riche- lieu" it must here be observed, was not written merely for the sake of writing play, but expressly for the purpose of aiding Mir. Macready in an enterprise which enlisted the warm and disinterested sympathy Of It's au- thor The first idea of the play grew out of a conversation, or rather several converse tions, with Mr Macready on the prospects of that enterprise, which had ended in prom ise on my fathers part of some further eff fort, more elaborate than 'FThe Lady of Ly- ons," in support of Macreadys admirable endeavor to enlarge the acting repertoire of our modern literary drama. In the first con ception of the play the chief part appears to have been allotted to @ character whose name (Marillac) does not even appear in it's final list of dTd1lGtSs DefS07l6e, but whose relation to the other characters is more or less represented by that of De Mauprat. It was in the gradual evolution of this germ that the character of Riehelieu himself, little by little, assumed it's present proportions and dictated 8 complete reconstruction of the original sketch. An outline of the plot, as at first imagined. was submitted to Macready with the following remarks on it: ''Now, look well at this story. You will see that in- cident and position are good. But then there is one great objection. Who is to do Richelieu? Marillac has the principal part, and requires you. But a bad Richelieu would spoil all. On the other hand, if you took Richelieu there would be two acts with out you, which will never do; and the main interest of the plot would not fall on you. Tell me what you propose Must we give up this idea? The incidents are all histori- cal. Don't let me begin the thing if you don't think 1t will do, and decide about Ma rillac and Richelieu. Send me back the pa pers. You can consult Forster of course" In the result of the conference thus opened between author and actor, Marillao disap- peared, the despotism of Richelieu was es' tablished and the play tentatively finished on those lines but with considerable hesita- tion, as appears from the following letter: My Dear Macready-I ssnd you the play complete. Acts I. and III may require little shortening, but you are master at that. The rest average the length of the acts in The Lady of Lyons I hope the story is clear. The domestic interest is not so strong as in the Lady but I think the acting of Richelieu's part may counter bal ance this defect For the rest say of this. as of the Lady, if at all hazardous or nn- certain it must not be acted, and I must try again.