New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-07-03
AnglO-AmeriCan Memories
lIIIV-
IRvING-THE ARTIST,
Copyright 1910, by George W s-naneyD

Inc rSlduO0 between an dJor ana
! journalist can never be entirely unern-
barrassed- The journalist must speal
| his mind, and the actor Is apt to think
that criticism ought to take the form o,
eulogy- It cannot always, nor ought
| personal regard for the actor to affect
/ the critics judgment, though perhaps II
sometimes does Whether il does or not
a great artist expects and likes recog-
milton. and he is sensitive because he is
an artist Irving could afford, if any
body could. TO face the truth. He had q
great public behind him. But he had
men about him who sought to persuade
him to resent freedom Of speech don I
permanently
We all agree now that his acting was
unequal: that in some things he was
great, in others less great; and in some
Of the most famous parts he attempted,
such IS Macbeth. he was deplora BILE.
The most heroic. the most masculine,
the most tragic parts seemed TO be be
yond him He was an ideal Iago, but
OtheIJo was q sealed book to him. He
could not render the majesty, the no
bility, the childlike simplicity of the
Moor. And Lear was beyond him; is
perhaps beyond anybody.
So far as am concerned, the pro
duction Of Macbeth was the critical
moment in our relations, If there were
ever critical moment I saw il on the
first night, as I saw many other first
nights at the Lyceum, and cabled TO
The Tribune 2 column Of comments on
tie performance. They were not very
favorable. They were not meant to
please Irving, nor yet to displease him
The dispatch was q record of first night
impressions and opinions Probably
they were too blunt. The English some
times suggest that We Americans have
habit Of speaking our minds too freely;
in print and otherwise What they
soften here We say outright
But in Sir Thomas F-uIler's recent
Life of Cecil Rhodes''-an illuminating
and most human book-he tells this
story: There was an English Journalist.
now dead. Edmund Garrett. who was
editing at Cape Town a journal called. I
think The Cape Times" He was a
friend OF Cecil Rhodes. launching one
day AZ Rhodes's place, Groote Schur
Garrett found his host angry at an ar
ticle Of the day before which ran counter
to his views, and perhaps attacked him.
Rhodes told him such an article ought
never to have been published Said
Garrett:
Mr. Rhodes. it is a good thing for
you that your paper should be edited by
a man who doesn't care a damn whether
he pleases you or dispieases you
There was z silence. Then Rhodes
answered slowly:
1T may be you are right, and I am
sorry 70 have questioned it have never
tried 70 control your policy. but I think
you might at least have taken the trou-
bic TO find out the facts"
7 an quoting from memory. but the
illustration is too apt to omit Apt be-
cause here was one English journalist
and q distinguished one-vfo was as
downright as any American could be,
and another Englishman-the greatest of
his tire-to whom the soft answer which
turneth away wrath seemed all sufficient
Whatever the brutality Of ny crfti-
cism on Irving's Macbeth may have
been, II put no real strain, or no lasting
strain. on our relations He himself
preferred his Macbeth 70 all his other
creations or rather to any one Of them
Il the public cid not, he rested content,
I hope, with his own approval
The range Of his powers as ira gedian
was not very wide He was a comedian
Of the first order. The scenes with 70
sencrantz and GuiIdenstern in Hamlet
were proof enough Of that. In character
parts like Louis KI he was supreme
And We have seen what Nine. Sarah
Bernhard thought of him in such a
play as The Bells" But take him for
al in al, he was SO great that nice
criticism seems Intellectual He is g
haunting figure He had possession Of
the stage and Of the inaginations Of
men and women during q quarter Of a
century. He can no more be displaced
than Garrtck can be displaced. And
even Garrick could not play everything,
and in his pest parts he was unequal
G. W. S.