Tải bản đầy đủ - 0 (trang)
ANON., review of The Way of the World in The Public Advertiser, 1784

ANON., review of The Way of the World in The Public Advertiser, 1784

Tải bản đầy đủ - 0trang


of the manner of fashionable circles with the highest degree of merit in

her profession, restores the character all its original value. To enter

into the particulars of her performance would not be doing her justice.—

Fine acting, like fine writing, should be felt by general impressions; and

what these were throughout the Play, the warm applause of a very

brilliant audience fully testified.

Witwou’d and Petulant, though drawn as foils, have more wit than

half a dozen of our modern comedies can boast of. The first was very

well hit off by Mr. Lewis; but we do not think the change was made for

the better in substituting Bonnor in the room of Booth.

When Farren begins to familiarize his dialogue a little more, and

speak less declamatory, he will do better in Fainall; but Mrs. Bates has

only to hold her own to be more than respectable in Mrs. Marwood.

Though ’tis impossible not to recollect Yates in Sir Wilful to the

disadvantage of his successor, yet we must do this justice to Wilson,

that he is much more chastised in the part than when we saw him

last. The same improvement lately appeared in his Justice Shallow;

which, as it was much wanted, must be of use to himself as well as the


The rest of the characters were as well sustained as perhaps the

strength of the Company would admit of:—but where is the whole of

a Dramatis Personae that can do strict justice to the language of

Congreve? An author who is in some respect getting obsolete, from

our being so long used to other kind of writers.

78. Charles Este (?), reviews of Love for

Love and The Mourning Bride in The World


From (a) The World: Fashionable Advertiser, No. 40, Thursday

15 February 1787; (b) ibid., No. 121, Monday 21 May 1787.

These two reviews were probably written by Charles Este (1752–

1829), an Anglican clergyman whose enthusiasm for the theatre



led him to write dramatic reviews first for The Public Advertiser,

and from 1787 to 1790 in his own paper The World. The

unstinted praise of Kemble and Mrs Siddons is characteristic;

so too, is the hostility towards The Mourning Bride.




Tho’ it cannot easily be acknowledged with Addison, that Love for

Love is the best play in the world,1 and as such to be followed with equal

eagerness, by those who have seen it, and those who have not, yet so

many are its charms, in vivacity of dialogue, and strength of character,

that the representation is amusing, tho’ far from very safe.

With something more than abatement in the article of the moral

praise, for the ‘callida junctura’, and probability are no where visible.

We sat this comedy with much contentment!

In the acting there is abundant merit. The Valentine of Kemble, is

perfect in all its parts. The ease, the elegance, the strong sense, and

feeling of the character came up, as Congreve would let them. Parsons

in Foresight, is second to nothing, but Parsons in Corbacchio: he is the

only player in this cast, who boasts as sure acceptance, and the same

excessive applause, from the bottom, from the Stage Box to the Shilling

Gallery!—Dodd, in spite of hoarseness, as every true buff and blue

must be, was heard with pleasure. And Ben, never pleasant, and now

wrong, as out of all probable date, yet forced into something better

than sufferance, by the skill of King.

Miss Farren’s comedy yields to none—her dress, one mass of unrelieved white sattin, did not aid her triumph. Miss Pope and Mrs.

Jordan are not to be dismissed, but as the best representatives of Miss

Prue and Mrs. Frail.

The fall of Baddeley, was a means to rise into laughter and applause—

which, indeed, he deserved throughout.




To enquire what beauty is—must be the question of a man who

cannot see. He who can ask what dignity is, cannot have seen Zara



by Mrs. Siddons!—The dignity of empire, and personal charms;—

that is intrepid, and would be commanding.

And yet it is, in spite of all that astonishing acting can do for it,

signifying nothing. Sound without cause, and fury without effect. If

Zara’s passions outstrip the wind, they neither interest the mind, nor

impress the heart.

The play is very worthless. That it is a pantomime, is not its greatest

fault.2 Inasmuch as it offends manners no less than taste; and hurts

with ribaldry more than nonsense.

And yet, such is the force of talents—that against this obstacle and

others, with Farenheit at Summer heat, and all the acting about her,

below freezing—such is the force of talents—there was a full house

and much applause.—Lady Harcourt in one stage box—the St. John’s

in the other—Lord Harcourt, with Byng, in the orchestra—the Penns,

Soames, Adairs—Sir Charles and Lady Dorothy, &c. &c.

The operation of the poison was very well. It would be better perhaps,

if a shudder followed, upon the drinking of it.—The most finished

scene, was that of scorn, and suppressed rage, with Osmyn, in act 3.

As one hating to be obliged, &c.

[I, vi, 31]


—Then ’twas a whisper spread by some, &c.

[IV, v, 14]

These were brief passages, but very exquisite:

When Zara spoke this line,

Thou hast a heart—tho’ ’tis a savage one—

[II, ix, 38]

A gentleman behind Francis, called out bravo! What could that mean?




Addison makes a passing reference to Love for Love as ‘one of the finest

Comedies that ever appeared upon the English Stage’ in The Spectator,

No. 189, Saturday 6 October 1711.

On 7 January 1789, The World actually headed a brief review of a

performance at Drury Lane, ‘CONGREVE’S PANTOMIME’.


79. ‘Censor Dramaticus’ in The Thespian



From The Thespian Magazine and Literary Repository (1792),

1: 163–6.



A variety of opinion is so prevalent, amongst mankind, that it is not

at all wonderful to find the same object considered by different persons

in the opposite extremes of beauty and deformity; and if we attend to

the many circumstances that conduce to form this variety of opinion,

it will appear impossible that it should be otherwise: the prejudices of

education, despotism, and situation in the world, these amongst many

others, principally occasion it. It is universally acknowledged that

the primary object to be considered in the works of art, is nature; and

in this respect, we may be said to have a perfect standard; it requires

not a superiority of intellect to perceive the likeness of a fine piece of

mechanism to the object it is intended to represent; and this perception

carries along with it an idea of perfection in proportion to the degree

of resemblance: but by the prejudices above mentioned, even this

knowledge is often rendered useless; and by a strange inclination in

man to draw every thing within their own circumscribed circle of

opinion, they are rendered incapable of judging between a real likeness

and a false one. It must be evident that whilst these prejudices exist

it will be impossible to form a complete standard of taste, such an

one as might serve for a criterion of the works of art, yet we have

certain rules laid down by which we are in some measure enabled to

judge of their degrees of excellence; and by these rules we intend to

conduct our criticisms.

There is not perhaps any piece on the stage that has caused more

disputation than Congreve’s Mourning Bride. It has been its fate to

be extolled by its friends, and execrated by its enemies, beyond all



probability; and they have both proceeded upon a false principle:

the one party have converted its very errors into beauties, whilst

the other will not allow it to be any other than a combination of

absurdities. Regardless therefore of the praise of the many, and the

censure of the few, we shall proceed to examine it by the rules of the

Drama. The fable of this play is perfectly dramatic; it is the

representation of one, entire, action, conducing to a single object,

the happiness of Osmyn and Almeria; and out of which all the

incidents naturally arise. It is in its nature implex, for the situation

of the principal characters, is changed from misery to happiness,

and that in the most perfect manner, for the expectation is contrary,

and our surprise is concomitant with our wishes. With regard to the

unities, this is one of the most perfect pieces in our language, in the

fifth act only, the unity of place is broken by the prison scene. We

shall next consider the characters in which we think the author has

principally excelled: the character of Osmyn is eminently beautiful:

in him all the conspicuous virtues are represented in thair utmost

perfection; contrary to the generality of our writers, who make love

the controling passion of their heroes, he has made the amor patriæ

to predominate. How finely has he elucidated this in the speech of

Osmyn to Kali, beginning,

By heav’n thou ’ast rous’d me from my lethargy.—

It is allowed that a perfect character is not suited to the Drama, and

our author has very artfully avoided this: so we find the imprisonment

of Osmyn, and his principal distresses, are brought on him by his

own means; when after his shipwreck on the Moore’s territories, he

uses the love of Zara to prevail on her husband to undertake the war,

in which he is defeated, imprisoned and obliged to endure her

passionate importunity; yet though this sufficiently vindicates the

appointment of providence, it does not prevent our pity for his

sufferings, and satisfaction at their completion: since he was actuated

by the most virtuous principles, the love of his country and desire to

rescue his father. The rest of the characters are very happily drawn;

the tenderness of Almeria, and the passion of Zara, in their different

interviews with Osmyn, form an excellent contrast; and the effects of

obstinate hatred, and unlawful ambition, are powerfully exemplified

in the King and Gonsalez; the speech of the latter to his son, beginning,

‘O my son,’ is extremely beautiful and affecting. There is one



circumstance in this play which we regard as the utmost effort of

human ability; it is that of Osmyn’s finding the prayer of his father;

had Anselmo been introduced in each act, we could not have formed

a more adequate idea of his character than is presented to us in this

beautiful incident. We come now to the sentiments and the diction

which have been most reprehended, and not without some reason;

the sentiments are often unappropriate or trivial, and the diction is

sometimes too smooth for the language of passion; but these form

but a small part of the whole, and lose all comparison when opposed

to the number of beauties. The author particularly excelled in those

bold strokes of art, that delineate a character in its utmost force,

without seeming to intend it: we have already given two instances of

this, and another just now occurs to us equally striking: it is in one of

the interviews between Osmyn and Zara, when after upbraiding him

with his ingratitude, she ends with, ‘What then is Osmyn?’ in his

reply we behold the struggles of a great soul labouring under an

imputation which it is impossible to refute till reflecting on his

accumulated misfortunes he wonderfully exclaims.

A fatal wretch!—a huge stupendous ruin,

That tumbling on its prop, crush’d all beneath,

And bore contiguous palaces to earth.

[II, ix, 75–7]

This is surely something more than tuneful nonsense.«

We might enumerate many other exquisite passages, and likewise

some defective ones, but as we have already exceeded our bounds,

we shall close our remarks with an observation on the artful

commencement of this piece. The melody of the first six lines is

perhaps unequalled, and with the accompaniment of the music,

awake the soul to a perfect sympathy with the woes of the tender


We promised to say something of the performers in the Drama,

but we have so far extended this article, that we shall be very brief.

Mr. Kemble is undoubtedly the best Osmyn on the stage; the character

is suited to his forte; that firmness of sentiment and action that

characterises the unfortunate prince accords with the abilities of

the actor, it is in such parts as these that he displays his principal

excellence: we may say the same of Mrs. Siddons’ Zara, her



wonderful powers of declamation and feature in this cast of

characters, is well known and felt.




See Mr. Walpole’s preface to the Mysterious Mother. [Horace Walpole had

dismissed The Mourning Bride with this phrase in the preface to his own

tragedy The Mysterious Mother (1768).]





80. Anon., reviews of The Double-Dealer

and The Mourning Bride in The Monthly



From (a) The Monthly Mirror, 1802 (March), 13:202; (b) ibid.,

1807 (October), n.s., 2:288 (misnumbered 260) and 289.



Feb. 27-Double Dealer—This is one of those comedies which, with

the productions of Wycherly and many of the poets of King Charles’s

reign, ought never again to be revived. Its wit does not atone for its

indecency, and even its admirable plot, perfect as it is, may be

dispensed with, since it serves only to unfold scenes of grossness

too shocking for exhibition on a moral stage. It is unnecessary to

dwell on this subject, or to point out any of the offensive passages.

It is not merely the dialogue that is objectionable—the whole mass

is infectious, and defies any attempt at reform or qualification. Much

to the credit of the times, the audience was not numerous, so that a

repetition of this comedy is hardly to be apprehended. Should,

however, another representation be hazarded, we hope the public,

which with difficulty suppressed its indignation on this evening,

will testify the most decided reprobation of a play to which no

female can listen without emotions of shame, and which must excite

the utmost abhorrence in every virtuous mind. We shall not even



compliment the performers on this occasion, (for some of whom we

felt more than we can adequately express) because, to play the

scenes of the Double Dealer, with the effect intended by the author,

requires a degree of effrontery which we will not impute to any

actor, particularly to the females, by praising their performance.


Johnson has said that this single tragedy of Congreve contains ‘the

most poetical paragraph’ to be found in the whole mass of English

poetry, and he finds it in the speech of Almeria, beginning—‘No, all

is hush’d, and still as death.’—Admitting this, we may also boldly

claim admission to the fact, that the Mourning Bride displays as

much inflated language, or what Aristophanes calls prose on

horseback, as can be produced in any tragedy equally successful. The

Zara of Mrs. Siddons was excellent throughout, but in the scene with

Osmyn, in the prison, she was wonderfully fine. Mr. Kemble wore

his Moorish dress with all its advantage, and played with great ability;

but in tragedy Mrs. Siddons’s star has so much the ascendant, as to

eclipse every other within the sphere of its lustrous action. Her present

bulk certainly makes her seem unfit to perform a lover’s part, and for

a time, leaves us without surprise that her overtures should be rejected;

but we do not hear her long, before the defect is lost, and ‘Pritchard

is genteel’. Her very gaudy clothes seemed to us to trench on the

privilege of Queen Dolabella, in the farce which succeeded; and her

dying on a preparation of soft cushions, is only inferior in its whimsical

effect, and perhaps in softness, to the temporary death of King Arthur,

on the rump of his little queen. After her Imogen, we did not expect

so much cleverness as Miss Norton exhibited in Almeria. For tragedy,

however, she lacks dignity in her action, and expression in her

countenance. Manuel and Gonsalez, were acted by Mr. Murray and

Mr. Chapman. If these gentlemen would affect less ease, they would

appear more easy. The latter in simply stabbing such a good, easy

king as Mr. Murray, might be more seemly, and not return from the

deed with both hands dyed, as if he had been shelling walnuts.


Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về

ANON., review of The Way of the World in The Public Advertiser, 1784

Tải bản đầy đủ ngay(0 tr)