New-York tribune., 1895-10-19
THE PLAYHOUSE.
EPISODES OF THEATRICAL HISTORY.

ECHOES OF THE PLAYHOUSE. Remlniscenees &C..
of Some Past Glorles OF the English stage. ny
Edward Robins. jr. Pp vi. 3sl. G +. futham
Sons.
The writer OF this volume exhiDits INDUSTRY !" IRE
reading Of other mems books on the same or kindred
subjects rather than skill as critic or penetration
as a student on original lines. He retels anecdotes
amus,ngly when he does not quote them directly
from his authorities but when he tries to deduce
causes and conditions from recognized iac's MS COLI
cusions are not always warranted. III seems STAR
fling" ne says. In his very first sentence. mot 10
say amusing:y paradoxical to think that the Eng
lish and American drama Of to-day upon which
a well-meaning clergyman occasionally pours forth
a torrent OF righteous Indignation. and not always
without reason. IL the logical development OF that
most religious OF dramatic institutions. the miracle
PLAY" This assumption the principle OF post
hoe. ergo propter hoe. has seemed startling TO many
another student OF the school OF the philosophers
who worried themselves with theories about the
live and the dead fish in the basin. without any
thought OF inquiry to facts The fact In this case
OF course Is that the modern drama IL not the log
ical development OF the miracle play. Other ele-
have to be taken into consideration 'he re-
vival OF learning and the influence OF Italian ana
classical dramatic literature Loosely speaking the
modern drama did follow the miracle play. In point
OF time. though really the two overiapped the pre-
monitory examples of the modern drama covering
long before the end OF the miracle play and It's un-
doubted progeny The influence OF the older upon
the newer growth also doubtless large. but
when all the causes are known and considered the
modern drama begins TO look more like an awaken
Ing after the miracle play than development from
H. And in this light II is. not startling. In an
other place the author says that Shakespeare ap-
pears 10 have been a utility man. rather than a
leading one" and adds: Tradition has 1t that In
Hamlet the author merely played the Ghost. and
that in AS You Like II he chose the faithful Adam
rather than the attractive Orlando" Mr.. Robins.
who seems familiar with recent theatrical aHairs IN
America should remember that when Salvni ap-
peared in Hamlet" with Edwin Booth he merely
p.ayed the Ghost" and that Lawrence Barrett.
within Il few days of his DEATH merely played the
Ghost" Further on in his own book he relates that
Carrick acted the Ghost not far from the very time
when Pope said OF him: THAT young man never had
his equal actor, and he Will never nave a
rival" Adam too. has been performed by some
Of the best who have ever been on the stage.
men far above the grade of mere utility Shake
speare may not have been a leading actor but the
proposition is not proved by the fact that he played
the Ghost and Adam.
The most remarkable thing about this book is
that IL should be written al all With Dorans An
nails stll accessible. Colley Clbber's Apology
still in the libraries. Pepys's Diary as popular as
ever. The Spectator at hand and lives OF Gar
rick. Betterton. Qun and others OF their kind In ex-
istence the need OF such book Is not obvious. A
great part OF 1t consists OF quotations from these
and other works 1t serves as sort OF condensa-
ton of them and will perhaps save the superhciaI
reader the trouble of hunting out the quotations for
himself. The chief usefulness may lie In the con-
venience which II thus Offers To such readers, who
feel a disposition for a little British theatrical his
tory. but are dislncned to seek 1t in its principal
treasures because OF their very number. size and
richness, the book will convey as clear notion as
they have Il right TO expect Of what theatre and
actors were like century or two ago.
Uncomfortable enough the theatres must have
been and unsatisfactory enough the acting II it could
but have been viewed by one familiar with the
theatres OF to-day The fact that riot was caused
in a theatre by the managers daring to object 10 a
young aristocrat crossing the stage in full view OF
the audience while important scene was going
on does not to modern judgment so star
Ting revelation Of the state OF affairs as the fact
that the young aristccrat could dare to cross Inc
stage at all. With quarres more or less noisy GO
ing or in the pit with the occupants of boxes chat
ting with the occupants Of other boxes. not neces-
sarily the adjoining ones and with persons supposed
to belong 10 the audience and not 10 the company
standing about the stage 1t Is hard TO see now
there could have been any room for the artistic ef
feet Of acting which contemporary critics neverthe
less found in 1t. English players then must have
found az many and about the same difficulties in
their way as English yachtsmen complain Of now
English stage and to believe that II was better In
any respect than the stage of to-day.
The Engiishman always the Englishman,
fully convinced that English meant right and that
not English meant wrong. There Is no question
said Addison. in his bitter denunciation OF the
Italian opera. but great-grandchildren VIII be
very curious know the reason why their fore
fathers used sit together like an audience OF for
eigners ir their country, and to hear Whole
plays acted before them IN a tongue which they did
not understand" Such curiosity has not yet
been developed and Londoners to-day listen to
operas not only in Italian, but In German, along
with an occasional play in French. Englishmen
must have Innovations when the time for them
comes but they must also be permitted 10 grumble
about them
Mr. Robns's book adds nothing Of Importance Ia
the literature the theatre but 1t may well prove
dverting to the general reader and help to convince
him that on the whole the condition of the stage
at tha present time is good and as encouraging
II