5

6

then took leave of Mr. Kean's decided and extreme manner, and became more mild and tractable. Such was his recitation of the soliloquy on his own ambitious projects,' and of that which occurs the night before the battle. In these he seemed to yield to the impulse of his own feelings, and to follow the natural tones and cadence of his voice. They were the best parts of his performance. The worst were those where he imitated, or rather caricatured Mr. Kean's hoarseness of delivery and violence of action, and affected an energy without seeming to feel it. Such were his repulse of Buckingham," his exclamation, "What does he in the north," etc., his telling the attendants to set down the corse of King Henry, etc. The scene with Lady Anne, on the contrary, which was of a softer and more insinuating kind, he was more successful in, and though still a palpable imitation of Mr. Kean, it had all the originality that imitation could have, for he seemed to feel it. His manner of saying "good night," and of answering, when he received the anonymous paper, "A weak invention of the enemy," we consider as mere tricks in the art, which no one but a professed mimic has a right to play. The dying scene was without effect.--The greatest drawback to Mr. Booth's acting is a perpetual strut, and unwieldy swagger in his ordinary gait and manner, which, though it may pass at Brighton for grand, gracious, and magnificent, even the lowest of the mob will laugh at in London. This is the third imitation of Mr. Kean we have seen attempted, and the only one that has not been a complete failure. The imitation of original genius is the forlorn hope of the candidates for fame:—its faults are so easily overdone, its graces are so hard to catch. A Kemble school we can understand: a Kean school is, we suspect, a

1 Richard III, 1, i.

3 Ibid., IV, ii.

5 Ibid., I, ii, 33, 36.

ד

7 Ibid., V, iv, acting version. 9 Ibid., V, x, acting version.

2 Ibid., v, iii.

4 Ibid., IV, iv, 485.

e Ibid., I, ii.

9

8 Ibid., v, vii, acting version.

contradiction in terms. Art may be taught, because it is learnt: Nature can neither be taught nor learnt. The secrets of Art may be said to have a common or pass key to unlock them; the secrets of Nature have but one master-key—the heart.

Drury-Lane.

THE charming afterpiece of Figaro, or the Follies of a Day, has been revived here, and revived with all its gloss and lustre. Miss Kelly, Mrs. Alsop, and Mrs. Orger, were all very happy in it. This play was written by a man who drank light French wines: in every line you see the brisk champagne frothing through green glasses. The beads rise sparkling to the surface, and then evaporate. There is nothing in it to remember, and absolutely nothing to criticize; but it is the triumph of animal spirits: while you see it, you seem to drink ether, or to inhale an atmosphere not bred of fogs or sea-coal fires. This is the secret of the charm of Figaro. It promotes the circulation of the blood, and assists digestion. We would by all means advise our readers to go and try the experiment. The best scene in it, is that in which the Page jumps from his concealment behind the arm-chair into the arm-chair itself. The beauty of this is in fact the perfect heartfelt indifference to detection; and so of the rest.—We never saw Mr. Rae play better.

MR. BOOTH'S IAGO.

Drury Lane, February 23, 1817.

THE managers of Covent-Garden Theatre, after having announced in the bills, that Mr. Booth's Richard the Third had

1 The Follies of a Day, by Thomas Holcroft, was revived February 12, and repeated the following evening. Mrs. Orger was the Countess; Mrs. Alsop, Susan; Miss Kelly, the Page (Cherubino); Harley, Figaro; and Rae, the Count Almaviva.

66

met with a success unprecedented in the annals of histrionic fame (which, to do them justice, was not the case), very disinterestedly declined engaging him at more than two pounds a week, as report speaks. Now we think they were wrong, either in puffing him so unmercifully, or in haggling with him so pitifully. It was either trifling with the public or with the actor. The consequence, as it has turned out, has been, that Mr. Booth, who was to start as the fell opposite" of Mr. Kean, has been taken by the hand by that gentleman, who was an old fellow-comedian of his in the country, and engaged at Drury-Lane at a salary of ten pounds per week.' So we hear. And it was in evident allusion to this circumstance, that when Mr. Booth, as Iago, said on Thursday night, "I know my price no less"-John Bull, who has very sympathetic pockets, gave a loud shout of triumph, which resounded along all the benches of the pit. We must say that Mr. Booth pleased us much more in Iago than in Richard. He was, it is true, well supported by Mr. Kean in Othello, but he also supported him better in that character than any one else we have seen play with him. The two rival actors hunt very well in couple. One thing which we did not expect, and which we think reconciled us to Mr. Booth's imitations, was, that they were here performed in the presence, and as it were with the permission of Mr. Kean. There is no fear of deception in the case. The original is there in person to answer for his identity, and "give the world assurance of himself." "3 The original and the copy go together, like the substance and the shadow. But then there neither is nor can be any idea of competition, and so far we are satisfied. In fact, Mr. Booth's Iago was a very close and spirited repetition of Mr. Kean's manner of doing that part. It was indeed the most spirited copy we ever saw upon the stage, considering at the same time the 1 Booth appeared at Drury Lane, February 20. The receipts amounted to £500-the largest of the season.

2

Othello, I, i, II; misquoted.

3 Hamlet, III, iv, 62.

1

scrupulous exactness with which he adhered to his model in the most trifling minutiæ. We need only mention as instances of similarity in the by-play, Mr. Booth's mode of delivering the lines, "My wit comes from my brains like birdlime," or his significant, and we think improper pointing to the dead bodies, as he goes out in the last scene. The same remarks apply to his delivery that we made last week. He has two voices; one his own, and the other Mr. Kean's. His delineation of Iago is more bustling and animated; Mr. Kean's is more close and cool. We suspect that Mr. Booth is not only a professed and deliberate imitator of Mr. Kean, but that he has in general the chameleon quality (we do not mean that of living upon air, as the Covent-Garden managers supposed, but) of reflecting all objects that come in contact with him. We occasionally caught the mellow tones of Mr. Macready rising out of the thorough-bass of Mr. Kean's guttural emphasis, and the flaunting, dégagé robe of Mr. Young's oriental manner, flying off from the tight vest and tunic of the little "bony prizer" of the Drury-Lane company. [The house was crowded to excess at an early hour, and the play was given out with every mark of approbation for Saturday 2 (last night).]

Of Mr. Kean's Othello3 we have not room to speak as it deserves, nor have we the power if we had the room: it is beyond all praise. Any one who has not seen him in the third act of Othello (and seen him near) cannot have an idea of perfect tragic acting.

1 Othello, II, i, 126-7, carelessly misquoted.

2 Booth was 66

'indisposed" on Saturday; Othello was given with Kean as Iago, and Rae as the Moor.

3 See ante, pp. 149-51.

MR. BOOTH'S RICHARD.

Covent-Garden, March 2, 1817.

2

THIS theatre was a scene of the greatest confusion and uproar we ever witnessed (not having been present at the O. P.1 rows) on Tuesday evening, in consequence of the re-appearance of Mr. Booth here, after he had entered into an engagement and performed at Drury-Lane. For our own parts, who are but simple diplomatists, either in theatricals or politics, the resentment and disapprobation of the audience appear to us to have been quite well-founded. The only fault we find with the expression of the public indignation is, that it was directed solely against Mr. Booth, whereas the managers of the theatre were entitled to the first and fullest share. Mr. Booth may have been only their dupe: they have wilfully trifled with the public, and tried to make a contemptible tool of a person belonging to a profession by which they exist, and from which they derive all their importance with the public. Their only excuse for inveigling an actor whom they refused to engage, from another theatre where he had been engaged in consequence of such refusal, is, that by the rules of theatrical proceeding, one theatre has no right to engage an actor who has been in treaty for an engagement at the other, within a year after the breaking off of such treaty, without leave of the managers. First, it ap pears that no such understanding exists, or is acted uponthat the pretext, as a mere pretext, is not true: secondly,

1 When the new Covent Garden Theatre-rebuilt after the fire of 1808 was opened, September 18, 1809, the prices were advanced. This led to clamorous opposition on the part of the public for a return to the "Old Prices." The riots continued until December 14.

2 Booth repeated his performance of Richard the Third at Covent Garden, February 25.