The sun., 1891-01-21
AMUsEsfENT'S.
~rhe sehoo, for Scandal" At Da,y.s.


The traditional usages Of Tho School for
Scandal" were generally disreGarded In tho
revival OF tho con edv at DAYS Theatre last
evening. The intention OF originality. 30 far
as respect for the language permitted
departures from the established man
nerisms. was unmstakahle throughout.
There was an abandonment OF many OF
the familiar accompanin' ents Of tho
words Of Sheridan. But thero was plenty Of
new devices OF action in the s,esd " the dis-
carded ones. This first act was mndn to con-
clude with minuet. which engaged the gos-
siys OF Lady Saer-relps parlor. In pic
tuiesdue ard stately measures. Much
was done. lavishy and ta.tefully to make
q brilliant exhibition. Thase characters
who were beaux and bellies wore resplendent
clothes in the fashion OF the period. and tho
rooms In which they appeared were like the
best London apartments Of the time. Admira-
tion for the general aspects OF this reproduce
tlon need not be stinted or qualified.
Sheridnns work had beon rearranEed by Mr.
DAILY and very slightly curtailed. but with no
wnnton purpose nor for the mere sake OF tam
pering. Ou. audiences do not like the old
fashioned front scenes. which inevita.
bly, imposed awkwardness upon the
actors and were . source OF d!sillu.
sion when changed to full-stage views with
the curtain ur. Mr. DAILY had trnnsposed
and readjusted the matter OF the comedy Just
enough to do away with that evil. and no
more He had excised the indecenies from the
scandal monRering. too. But all the essential
language OF Sheridan was spoken. and the
changes. werc not OF any consequence. except
IN their help To tho stage craft involved In the
Kda Fehans Lady 7sssle was central in the
interest OF tho occasion. There are bound to
be two opposed judgments fsgnrdinx Miss
deeessors in the role YIN eande'nn hsr a. q
s ssss ''ss Who osls ss 5 Gsf0sSa or.
noSsTH i sns VIII ss%s' thai sf h.s
The IN. q, dt;Ss,ssmsnt " q ogip9n WAS 9plts %sn
&C a shs se
nsS reen her IN ss % o The ae Heroine
4sseFiptye q. TINT hss trsst%snt q Lsdv
esoe Is 10 & sas maens sRH sto
She PLAYED the part with tie manner Ter Of a pam: am:
ssd pf % h eus and WrSanss S @ s bs
marked her aching IN modern farce There
wato ohs bsE eSGss asr wig and It'll es %
OF impressiveness had q bnd result. when.
In the screen scene, the pitfful disclosure
OF tho disgraced wife did not silence the
laughter. but Increased 1t rather. It was not
until Miss Rehan bad spoken sentence or
two Of the fearful seli- abasement that the au-
dience became serious. Considered wholly as
an innovation. however. this Lady Itdzle was q
fine revelation of the favorite condolences
detinnt and at last measurable successful do.
parture from dramatic custom.
The eeSt success was won by John DreW.
whose Charles Surface was buoyant humorous
and spirited within bounds. Next to him in
commenda,ion Harry Edwards should be
placed Tor q SIR Ol,uer which. more than any
other OF the person ages. was tmbued with the
spirit Of old comedy. John Gilbert has not
yet boon dead and gone long enough to
permit Rmediocre Sir Refer to be accepta-
BILE by q New York audience Mr.. Wheatley
was. faint shadow and echo of GIL
Gilbert was sal is,actory Mrs. Can,iour. and
Edith Crane was beautiful and incompetent as
Maria. George Clarke,s Joseph :s,u5ace was
correct and careful effort. lacking craftiness,
but the work OF very trustworthy James
Lewis was nothing like Moses in accent or de-
meanor. and even tho popularity Of this come
dian did not avert the verdict OF failure In his
case
Tho performance OF THE School for Scan
dal may b. rated ms better in looks than any
other within memory. but not remarkable for
stage. however. in any view to be taken Of it.