ANOTHER Volume in that very interesting series of books,'edited by Brander Matthews and Lawrence Hutton, and entitled, "Actors and Actresses of Great Britain and the United States, from the days of David Garrick to the present time," has just been published by Cassell & Co. The plan of the series has already been described in this journal. It is a good plan, practical, judicious and suggestive. As to the new volume, there are many reasons why it should be more interesting to us than those which preceded it. It comes nearer to our own time and own thoughts; it discusses questions and persons that we have our own frank opinions about, and it presents in a sharp, bright, brilliant group, fifteen of the most famous names that have been associated with the stage during the last three-quarters of a century.

The members of this group are as the title of the work undertaken so skilfully by Mr. Matthews and Mr. Hutton indicates - either British or American. They are: Edmund Kean, John Howard Payne, James W. Wallack, Mary Ann Duff, Junius Brutus Booth, Eliza L. Vestris, Henry Placide, James H. Wallack, Benjamin Webster, John B. Buckstone, Charles J. Mathews, William E. Burton, Frances Ann Kemble, Clara Fisher and John Brougham.

The articles are invariably brief, compact, and cautiously written. As the writers are all well known and expert, and as the labor assigned to them is comparatively light, the book could hardly fail to be a satisfactory one. The editors have, in this volume, supplemented the biographical and critical statements with copious notes touching the personality, the idiosyncrasy, the appearance, and also the art, of each actor.

The fact will not be overlooked by the reader that, whereas the majority of the actors who are mentioned have been closely identified with the American stage, and are even spoken of as Americans, few of them were born in this

country. Junius Brutus Booth, James W. Wallack, Mary Duff, William E. Burton, Clara Fisher, Fanny Kemble and John Brougham were British born. Payne, Hackett and Placide were born in this country.

It may be recalled that a large part of the very clever, correct and entertaining article on Charles Mathews, by Henry Gallup Paine, was printed several weeks ago in THE THEATRE.

There are two articles, however, to which the reader will turn most eagerly, and he will certainly find them the least conventional and most charming contributions to the volume. They are written by Edwin Booth, whose disinclination to put his thoughts on paper heretofore has been observed with regret. The ideas, the emotions, the convictions of an actor like Mr. Booth; his sagacious judgments and the conclusions evolved from his large experience; in fact, his self-analysis and his broader analysis of dramatic art- the value of these things expressed in criticism and comment would be invaluable. It may be said that we know what Mr. Booth thinks through his acting. Nevertheless, we should be glad to be brought into off-hand, friendly intimacy with him, to see the man beyond the actor, to pierce that mystery of the stage which surrounds great players. In his two brief articles, one relating to Edmund Kean, and the other to his distinguished father, Mr. Booth has, for the first time, made an effort to throw aside the mask of the actor and speak as a man, And, while he says little, that little will be keenly relished. Half unconsciously, perhaps, Mr. Booth defines the delicate kinship between the character of a man and the genius of an actor, between human nature and the nature that recreates itself in the theatre.

66

and

The word imitation," Mr. Booth writes, "seems to be used as a slur upon the actor alone. The painter and the sculptor go to Italy to study the old masters, and are praised for their good copies after this or that one. They are not censured for imitation, why may not the actor also have his preceptor, or model? Why should he be denounced for following the footsteps of his old master? . . . In the main, tradition to the actor is as true as that which the sculptor perceives in Angelo, the painter in Raphael, the musician in Beethoven; all of these artists having sight and sound to guide them. . . Kean knew without seeing Cooke, who in turn knew from Macklin, and so back to Betterton, just what to do and how to do it. Their great mother Nature, who reiterates her teaching and preserves her monotone in motion, form and sound, taught them there must be some similitude in all things that are true."

Of his father, the wonderful actor who, some English critics still persist, imitated Kean, in spite of the fact that Booth's methods were quite unlike those of Kean, the son writes with pathetic intimation: "Only those who have known the torture of severe mental tension, can appreciate the value of that one little step from the sublime to the ridiculous. My close acquaintance with so fantastic a temperament as was my father's, so accustomed me to that in him which appeared strange to others, that much of Hamlet's mystery seems to me no more than idiosyncrasy. It likewise taught me charity for those whose evil or imperfect genius sways them to the mood of what it likes or loathes.'

A PROGRESSIVE ART SCHOOL.

WE call the attention of young students who desire vigorous and sound instruction in the arts, to the prospectus for this season issued by the Art Schools of the Metropolitan Museum. These schools (which form together a strong academy) are now exceedingly popular, and are under competent management. Their standing is already high enough to command general respect, and the various teachers have been chosen with discretion and knowledge.

There are ten of these schools. The first is for color, free-hand drawing, and "the life," and is directed by Mr. John Ward Stimson, of the Paris School of Fine Arts. The second is for sculpture modeling, and is directed by Mr. Olin Warner, who is unquestionably one of the most gifted and original of our younger sculptors. The third is for architecturai draughtmanship, managed by Mr. Arthur Tuckerman. The fourth is for chasing and repoussé work in metals, managed by M. Julien Ramar, of Paris. The fifth is for perspective, construction and industrial design, managed by Mr. Lucas Baker, of Boston. The sixth is for anatomy, physiology, and expression, managed by Dr. Edward Ayers,of the New York Polyclinic. The seventh is for window and wall decoration, managed by Mr. P. V. Stiepeviech, of Florence. The eighth is for cabinet drawing, and interior designing, managed by Mr. Ernest J. Gilles, of Marcott & Co. The ninth is for decorative clay modeling, managed by Herr A. Loeher, of the Vienna School of Fine Arts. The tenth is a mechanical

class, managed by Mr. William E. Volz, of New York.

Some of these schools are open only at night; others are open on specified days. The school for chasing and repoussé work is open on two afternoons and three evenings of each week in the season.

The price for the entire school year in each department ranges from $10 to $15, a comparatively small sum to pay for excellent and thorough instruction. An extra charge of $5 is exacted for daily attendance in the life class. The school year extends from October 4 to May 1. The school rooms are at 214 East 34th Street, New York. Mr. John Ward Stimson is superintendent.

THE SCHOOL OF ACTING. MR. FRANKLIN H. SARGENT is to be congratulated on the progress he is making with the New York School of Acting. His programme for the present season is elaborate, clearly defined and admirably arranged. The special studies are Action, Diction, Stage Effect, Make-up, Elementary Dance and Ballet Steps, Fencing, and Lectures on all subjects relating to the culture and improvement of actors. The teachers are Franklin H. Sargent, David Belasco, Miss Abbie Whinnery, Miss Maria Porter Bruce, Mme. Malvina, Miss Ada Ward, Miss Mary Cameron, Lysander Thompson, M. Rondelle, Alfred Thompson, and a prominent actor whose name has not yet been announced. The rooms of the school are now in the Lyceum Theatre building. The school year extends from October 26 to May 1. An examination for entrance is made of every applicant. The tuition for the first year's course is $250 in advance; for the second year, $150.

GROWING BRIGHTER ALL THE TIME.

(Boston Beacon, September 25.)

With the number for last Saturday, THE THEATRE began its second volume. It has steadily grown handsomer, brighter and better, and the occasional digressions which it makes into literature and art, other than those of the stage, are harmonious with the general direction of its thought.

ORTHOEPY.

IN the theatres I have lately heard the following words mispronounced: During a performance of "The Merchant of Venice," at the Star:

Aversion. Miss Gale should not give the s the sound of z.

Actor. Mr. Barrett habitually mispronounces this word. The o is not the o of or, but the o

of major.

Troth. Miss Gale is admonished that the o of this word is not long, but short.

Peize. Miss Gale has, probably, not taken the trouble to look up the pronounciation of this word. The dictionaries tell us to pronounce it pize.

Sentence. Miss Gale's utterance of the unaccented vowels is frequently very faulty. For ence she gives us unce; for els, uls; for ed, ud, and so on. Miss Gale pronounces both German and French much more correctly than she does English.

In a representation of "Richelieu," at the Star:

Sagacious. There is no authority for saying sa-gash-us.

Dynasty. The best usage makes the first syllable of dy and not of dyn.

Menial. This word was pronounced in three syllables, according to authority; yet I should not hesitate to pronounce it in two, in accordance with popular usage, unless the measure demanded the additional syllable.

In a representation of "Hamlet" at the Star: Perusal. Miss Gale's u in the word, sounded very like long oo.

Leisure. Careful speakers in this country pronounce the word le-zhur. In England, however, lezh-ur is common, although not sanctioned by any modern orthoepist.

Further, the unaccented vowels in witness, gentlemen, speechless, blanket and a few other words were badly treated. This mangling of the unaccented vowels does more to vulgarize one's utterance than does the occasional misplacing of an accent. The more breath we give a word, the more care must be taken with the unaccented vowels- the nearer one must come to giving them their name sound.

In a representation of "The Scapegoat" at the Fourteenth Street Theatre:

Luxury. Mrs. Chanfrau errs in pronouncing the first syllable of this word as though it were written lugz. The first syllable of both the adjective and the adverb are so pronounced; not so, however, the first syllable of the noun. Legislator. If Miss Bancroft will turn to the dictionary she will find that the first syllable of this word receives the primary accent.

Genuine. The English are fond of making the of words with this termination long; in this country careful speakers commonly make it short.

Dishonest. The first s must be pronounced like z.

Immediate. The pronunciation im-me-jyate has a place in history, but for a generation, at least, it has not had a place in good usage. Patronage. Miss Bancroft errs in making the first a of this word long; it is short. The diction of the author of The Scapegoat" is often much more faulty than is the orthoepy of the players. For example, the author frequently uses perpetually when he should use continually. Perpetual means never-ceasing, continuing without intermission, uninterrupted; while continual means that that is constantly renewed and recurring, with perhaps frequent stops and interruptions. This misuse of perpetual is more frequent in England than with us. Alfred Ayres.

COMEDY.

Он, bitter life! insufferable task,
When some poor mime to earn his daily bread
Must play the clown, or don the Thespian mask,
And hide with rouge the tears he may have shed.
Some see their rival with a loved one, strain
Exulting eyes to watch their suffering,
And while swift jealousy fires every vein,
Repeat an odious rôle, or laugh and sing.
The favorite actor by the mass loved best,
Makes his entrée while thronged admirers cheer;
Alas, they see not Death in every jest,

His low, consumptive cough they cannot hear. The girl whose grace and art cause such delight, Praised for her charming ways and dainty tread, Smiles sweetly still, but know you how, last night, With tearful eyes she mourned her mother, dead? No, no, the very man you have preferred,

Whose tragic power among the best is styled, May think as Hamlet, Lear, or Richard Third, Of dismal garrets and his starving child. Yet proud, fault-finding critics of the play, Carelessly judging without heart or right, With flippant mien and drawling voice may say: "How badly so and so' performed to-night." F. S. Saltus.

BOTH SIDES OF THE CURTAIN.

I WONDER how many of the non-professional readers of THE THEATRE have a clear idea of the meaning of a theatrical "call." The Herald during the last few weeks has in its advertising columns printed a number of "calls," some of them in connection with city theatres and others for traveling companies. One would think that the "call," so explicitly printed requesting the presence of Mr. Wallack's company, for instance, on the stage of his theatre, on such a date, would explain itself. Nevertheless, I have received a number of inquiries as to the origin, meaning and effect of a theatrical call. About the origin I will not trouble myself, and its meaning should be obvious. The effect of a call is, however, somewhat interesting and cannot be better explained than by a glance at the stage of Wallack's Theatre last Monday morning, when the company of that famous house assembled in response to their manager's " call."

IT requires such an occasion as this or the production of some huge English melodrama like "Hoodman Blind" to appreciate the size and variety of Mr. Wallack's company. This year it is better than ever, and every line of business is duplicated. On Monday, when the roll was called, there were no absentees. John Gilbert arrived from Manchester-by-the-Sea, and his first greeting was offered to Madame Ponisi, whose husband he has been, on the mimic scene, for about six months of each of the last sixteen years. When the graceful ceremony was accomplished all the company surrounded Mr. Gilbert, and congratulated him on his buoyant appearance. The old members shook hands with him, and the new ones struggled for the chance of doing so. Miss Annie Robe, with her usually peach-blow complexion tanned by sea breezes almost beyond recognition, moved about with more than ordinary dignity as the undoubted leading lady of the first theatre in America. An old friend appears on the stage who has long been absent from Wallack's Theatre, and the old Wallackians rush in a body to greet her. This is Miss Katherine Rogers, who will relieve Miss Robe of the heavier and severer leading rôles. It is, by the way, exactly fourteen years since Miss Rogers made her début in this country, when at Wallack's old theatre, she introduced the

beautiful "Galatea" to America. Just a little after the appointed time, the "Governor," in the person of John Lester Wallack himself, appeared with a smile and a hand-shake for everybody. He introduces the new members to the old ones, and the stage soon presents the appearance of a conversazione held in a drawing room of vast dimensions and very peculiar furniture. By and by the stage

manager and prompter are found in consultation with Mr. Wallack, and then again, the "call-boy "is summoned, and to him are given certain type-written documents which he distributes among certain members of the company. These are the "parts" for the opening play of "Harvest," which, by the way, will only demand the services of about a dozen of Mr. Wallack's company, leaving another dozen to "walk about" for two or three months, should this " Harvest" be a profitable one. A date for the first rehearsal is now given, everybody says good morning to everybody else, and the call" is over. The new members may, perhaps, hover around, admiring the depth of the stage, or may go up stairs in search of their dressing-rooms. But the practical result of the "call is over, and to the players the fall and winter season of Wallack's has commenced.

WHILE Mr. Kyrle Bellew is the undisputed leading man of Wallack's Theatre, Mr. Herbert Kelcey will play such important rôles that a very determined rivalry is expected to develop itself between the two popular actors. Opinion is already divided about the relative attractiveness of the two gentlemen. Happily, no burning international question will arise through this rivalry, as both competitors for American favor are English. But it so happens that the two gentlemen represent two opposite types of manhood, the ascendency of either of which has long been in dispute. Mr. Bellew is frail, pale, picturesque and aesthetic. Mr. Kelcey is handsome, sturdy and athletic. Each will have his admirers as each had last season at different theatres. Who will come out ahead at the end of the season is a question which will probably be solved by the lady patrons of Wallack's Theatre. I am inclined to pin my faith to Mr. Bellew for two substantial reasons. He is the leading man, and will, therefore, always have the best parts, and, furthermore, he is not known to have any feminine affinity, whereas Mr. Kelcey is handicapped in romantic and womanly eyes, by his unconcealed devotion to his wife, Miss Caroline Hill. However the struggle may terminate, I trust Mr. Wallack will reap the reward of his comprehensive enterprise.

RECENT events have brought up a subject that used to be frequently and hotly discussed. This is the advisability of actresses getting married. One would suppose that the actress herself was the best judge in such a matter, yet their opinions, though interesting, are not valuable to those who wish to draw profitable conclusions. When Mlle. Bernhardt was in this country she touched on this question in one of the numerous interviews printed for her profit, and she strongly and almost

66