New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-10-14
SIR HENRY IRVING.

With the death of Sir Henry Irving there
passes away not only great artist but & great
tradition. He Of the true lineage OF those
puissant men who have made the annals OF ths
English stage part and parcel OF the annals Oh
English civilization. The sources of his pre-
eminence were threefold He had temporal
ment brains and character, and while IL is Gus
-omary to sum up the qualities OF an actor 81
his stamp in the one word genius, 1t Is pecul-
iarly important to remember at this time the
variety of his gifts. The stage has fallen upon
evil DAYS Men and women possessed Of the
right feeling for their profession still tread It's
boards but it is undenable that on both sides
Of the Atlantic the standard Illustrated in the
playhouse is far below what 1t ought to be- The
influence of Henry Irving was potent IN all
the relations of theatrical life, and now that he
$ gone there is, if anything, the more occasion
for dwelling upon all that was signihed In MS
memorable ministratiOns.
Some years ago, when representatives Of the
French stage were active III this country, there
was a recrudescence of the old argument as TO
the comparative merits Of the methods pre-
ferred in Paris and those preferred in London.
Students of the drama who were bewitched by
the brilliant technique OF NJ. Coquelin began to
wonder If there were not something about it
superior to the technique Of Henry Irving. It
was argued that since the Englishman lost
himself in his role, and the Frenchman re-
manned exquisitely conscious Of everything he
was doing the former could not equal the lat
ter in giving a faithful Interpretation of the
ext All the time the argument was really
very much in the air Whatever the merits OF
each method might have been. theoretically con-
sidered the actual results left no doubt in the
mind of the impartial spectator We remem-
Der especially comparing the performances Of
the two in the part Of Matthias in The
Bells" CoQuelin's effects were thrilling, but
Irving's were more than that The French
mans thrill was that Of consummate melo-
drama, but the Englishman's was that of tragic
romance itself. Irving had the soul OF poet
in him, and he invested the grisy theme not
simply with horror but with something of that
weird, uncanny quality of which Coleridge gives
you urid CLEANS or of which you are aware in
the masterpieces of Poe.
What Irving was In 'The Bells he was In all
of the many parts which he played in his long
career. No man better understood what we
may call the external glamour of the stage; no
man was shrewder in building up the scene or
in leading up to the climax which would tell
across the footlights upon miscellaneous as
semblage. But what made Irving great was
the fact that through his most elaborate stage
craft there shone the fire OF an authentic In
spiration; 1t nothing to him that the
spendor of his productions dazzled the ground
ling if at the same time he failed TO touch the
Imagination Of the most sensitive listener in the
house. He never failed. for his own magma
ton ever afame, carrying him triumphantly
over mannersms Of voice. gesture and gait,
and making him, while the curtain was lifted,
a figure no less magnetic than picturesque
The bare facts in the record of his career
show how wide was his range, how he could
illustrate Shakespeare or the modern drama
with equal facility and success. But to those
who for years watched and rejolced in his
achievements it seems as II TO call him merely
versatile were to underestimate the true mean
ing of his scope. He was much more than the
ready impersonator, quick to acquire the "bus!-
ness" of new part, quick to adjust himself to
a costume. Rather was he a richer and a
nobler force, a fiery spirit entering into a dra-
matte character and making it his own until
each role that he essayed seemed a positive
creation.
1t the poet in him, we say, that thus
bore him from triumph to triumph but his in
tellect was scarcely less active than was the
element to which we have given the first place
in his dramatic being. That he was a lifelong
student of the literature of the stage was only
one reason for his giving TO his Shakespearian
performances a scholarly elevation. He had
powerful mind and he brought to his tasks the
riches that only experience and reflection can
bring Men of letters reshed his work for #
was marked by the depth and the polish which
the love Of letters gives to man. No one could
behold his Vicar in the play based on Gold
smiths golden book. without feeling that he
had saturated himself in the spirit of that I'M
perishable piece of English prose. In fact |
Irving was born for the humanities; In his
library at one of those banquets on the stage
of the Lyceum to which he was wont TO sum-
mon his friends, he was happest In exchanging
Ideas with the finest representatives of his time
Poets. nOvelists, historians, scientists men dis
tingIIished in affairs-these were the chosen
companions OF his leisure, and this Is only an
other way of saying that both In public and in
private life he set his mind upon high ideals
Jaunty writer's on the arts will have It that
what a man does remains always independent
of what he is. Admitting that Irving was
great romantic actor. man OF temperament
and Of learning they insist that critical inquiry
into his genius should stop there. 1t cannot do
So Character may, no doubt, be suspended, as
1t we're in the case OF az artist Men Of evil
traits have been known to produce works OF
beauty But If we may admit this we may
admit also that with some men character is In
separabe from the work Of their hands or OF
their lips. Henry Irving had noble nature @nd