The herald., 1898-01-30

One of the most difficult things to ac-
romplish in the art Of writing is to use
expressions which shall be equally we'll
understood and similarly interpreted by
all classes of readers. 1t often happens
that the meaning of writer is construed
In sense very different to that which he
meant to convey, and this difficulty
arises sometimes by reason Of the writ
er's own carelessness or ignorance and
sometimes by reason of similar faults
OH the part of the reader. The best use
Of language Is not for the purpose of
concealing thought, but for revealing it.
Ironical compliments may easily be mis-
understood like that of the French critic
who wrote: II shall say very little
about this piece because 1 can say moth
ing but good But when either praise
or blame is intended to be conveyed, it
should be- done in unequivocal terms,
and when writer has the reputation of
being impartial he should be given the
benefit of fair Interpretation of the
language he uses.
I am led to these remarks by arather
profuse misunderstanding of just one
word used by me in a recent article in
which the prevailing tone of a certain
farce comedy" production was char
acterized as vulgar" the word being
used in its ordinary, well-known diction-
ary meaning, which is easily accessible
to all who will take the trouble to look
I, N
test from number of people, lovers of
fare-comedy entertainment, who de-
clared with one accord, and very truth
fully, too, that the piece contained
neither indecency nor obscenity, and ex-
pressed their surprise that such offenses
should be charged. When people get n
idea firmly rooted in their minds that
you have said such and such things it is
usually waste OF time to affirm that
you have not done so. Nevertheless,
am surprised that there is not better
Understanding as to what "vulgarty'
consists of. There was no indecency in
the piece revived-nor was such an i'm
putation Intended to be conveyed. Were
1t necessary to make such a charge about
any theatrical production 1t would be
set out in plain and direct terms. The
tendency of the stage in the line of farce
comedy entertainments especially, Is
towards the elimination of refinement
with a resultant element of vuIgarity,
but from that point to one which over
steps the bounds OF decency is quite a
long distance.
According to a correspondent of the
Mirror, the Broadway Theater Com
pany which recently closed long and
successful engagement at the Burbank
theater in this city, did not meet with the
success in "a Celestial Maiden" in Port
land, Ore. where they have been play
ing. The reason given for the failure is
that there are eight thousand Chinese
in Portland and the people know too
much about them to feel any interest in
Chinese play.
Among the numerous anecdotes Of the
late William Terriss, the murdered
actor, that are circulating in the English
papers here is one from the Daily Chron-
icle:
: "a little while ago." says Mr.. John
Hollingshead, II was at dinner with
number of friends, when the question
arose as to who was the wealthiest actor
in London. Why, Penley,' hazarded one
of the company, thinking, no doubt, of
the very large sum which Mr.. Penley
made out of 'Charley's Aunt No. was
the answer, "the richest actor in London
is William Terriss.' In support of this
statement Mr.. Hollingshead said Ter
riss was connected with a firm of stock
brokers, and had a taste for buying
property. He earned good salaries on
the stage and was not man who lived
extravagantly. He was not giver of
dinners, nor was he what Is popularity
called society actor. AS a matter of
fact, I remember that once when he was
in the witness box at trial he was, in
the usual form, asked what his occupa-
tion was and he answered, 'stockbrok-
err Are you not an actor?' was the
next question. YES replied Mr.. Terriss,
I'm considered to be one!'"
% O o
From the general tone of the criti-
cisms in the London press it seems prob
able, says an eastern journal, that the
new Lyceum play, peter the Great" is
the crude, violent and inartistic work
Of clever but undisciplned and mex
perienced youth. 1t is described as
rough in construction, conventional and
unreal in detail. tedious in some places
and self-contradictory in others, but
with passages here and there of un-
questionable power and imagination
Thus he writer says: with all its
faults the play, as we have said, is, not
withstanding. remarkable achieve
n,ent for u dramatist Of Mr.. Irvings
years. 1t is in many places long drawn
out tedious, and even brutal in its reve-
lation Of the lower passions that sway
mankind. Yet there is no gainsaying
the fact that the author possesses the
true dramatic instinct, albeit as yet in
a somewhat crude and imperfect state"