Page images
PDF
EPUB

longings, balked in his attempt at scientific investigation, and unappreciated in love, he dies an unhappy but not unworthy death in rescuing Uarda from a burning building.

The greatness of Nebsecht's mind is shown by his efforts. to free himself from the tyranny of minute details in religion, and to gain more freedom of thought and action. Raphael shows his strength in trying to free himself from the tyranny of irresponsible theorizing and in endeavoring to attach himself to some fixed belief. In the mind of each, religion was the source of doubt and disturbances; but each takes the other's starting point for his goal.

In the difference between the religious troubles of their two heroes one can clearly see the nature of the authors. One, a conservative Church of England clergyman, naturally makes his hero at last embrace Christianity; the other, bred in the midst of the sceptical and liberal spirit of the German universities, makes his hero break free from old traditions and de mand liberty as the highest good. How different is the con. duct of the two men in their loves! Nebsecht is willing to give up wealth and position for the sake of Uarda. Raphael here too, plays the egotistical aristocrat. He chooses exile and poverty rather than falling in love with a woman too nearly his intellectual equal. Her superiority he will not acknowledge, even after he is happily settled with submissive Victoria.

In short, in portraying a man of restless and powerful mind, the English author has drawn a gentlemanly egoist, the German, a devoted student.

I see the flickering motion of the trees,
Gold-lighted dove-tints of the evening skies,
I know the damp, soft touches of the breeze,
The twitter of the bird that homeward Hies,

And thou art in them all; I know not how
I make my world all thine, apart from thee!

Some day I may be lonely, only now

My love seems near-in the same world with me.

De Temporibus et Moribus.

In Othello, we find a character, wholly suggestive of bigness,-bigness of mind, bigness of body, a heart and soul, indeed, so big that he can not even interpret meanness. The Moor is a man schooled in war and personal adventure, and represents what is grandest and best in a noble southern nature, with all its daring and chivalry. The modest narration of his hardships and brave deeds wins for him the heart of a true and gentle woman. Finding an object upon which to lavish his affections, he cherishes her as he would a flower, until convinced of her infidelity, when he turns and tramples her under foot. The passionateness of his former love is now surpassed by the sense of outraged honor and trust. He earnestly loves Desdemona, but he loves honor more. He is slow to receive impressions; but, when once convinced, he is correspondingly determined, A creature so open, trusting, and resolute gives ample play to the wily deceits of a villain. The guileless Moor does not even suspect the wicked vengeance of Iago until he falls into his merciless grasp. When Othello once realizes the duplicity of his friend and the enormity of his own crime, then comes the awful spectacle of a powerful man's grief and remorse.

Frankness and honesty can not well be counterfeited. Therefore, for an actor to correctly interpret Othello, he must for the time, be Othello, in all his manliness, probity and grandeur. Almost every element of great acting is requisite for a correct portrayal of this character; but, first of all, the

actor must secure complete mastery over the delineation of the human passions. Few, even of the great actors, are perfectly adapted to the rôles they assume; yet the advantages of personal appearance can hardly be overestimated in rendering such a part. The two actors, in question, are unusually gifted in this respect.

Booth is a man tall of stature, whose figure is moulded with surprising symmetry. The limbs are tapering and well set, while each step and gesture reveal fresh grace and beauty. His shoulders are broad, giving an air of stateliness to his otherwise too slender figure. His head is comely, and over its Grecian shapeliness falls his dark brown hair. The face is oblong and the profile well defined. The mouth is flexible, but the habitual expression somewhat scornful. His broad, intellectual forehead and keen, searching eyes plainly mark the careful analyzer of character.

Salvini presents a picture of even more attractiveness. What is simple grace and beauty in one, in the other becomes boldness and majesty. Strong and muscular in development, tall, well proportioned and massive, he stands before us a perfect model of a Roman athlete. His very step is indicative of power. His face is large, full, and singularly expressive. The features are not sharply outlined, but their exceeding mobility gives play to every variety of emotion. At a glance he suggests the typical Moor of Venice.

Mere contrast in the rendition of a part can not always be criticised as a fault either in the one actor or the other; for it may arise from the difference of two equally good schools of acting or from comparison of physical advantages alone. Just so, in this instance, each interpretation merits especial attention and the real question becomes, the comparative excellence of two good actors with different ideals of their art, different conceptions of the same rôle, and with rare but opposite qualifications.

Neither the physique nor the education of Booth favor him

.

in rendering the part of Othello, while both nature and experience conspire to aid Salvini. Salvini, like the Moor, is acquainted with war and adventure, and this accident, together with his free and unhampered life, may have given him greater sympathy with the character. His voice even is of that deep, rich coloring peculiar to the warm climate in which Othello lived. Such is its rare quality, that some critics have ascribed to it more than to his dramatic power the wonderful spell in which he holds an audience. The two representations are in every way dissimilar. Booth's voice is smaller in compass, and exceedingly penetrating, yet in no degree harsh or unpleasant, showing, however, that its pleasing quality is greatly due to cultivation. Indeed, his whole deportment seems the refined product of long study. Even as an actor, he is never rash or impulsive, but always thoughtful and self-possessed. From the cradle, he has lived in the atmosphere of the stage, and, therefore, with living actors for models, he is the unconscious blending of the excellence of many good artists, rather than the development of a new and original ideal of acting. In consequence, Booth excels in parts where the action is carefully and methodically framed, rather than in such a passionate rôle as that of Othello. He may well be called the "princeliest Hamlet," for this character is admirably fitted to bring out the highest capacity of his intellectual and dramatic ability.

Booth's excellence lies in his studious mastery of detail and in the exquisite finish of his acting, varied by occasional flashes of powerful, nervous effort. Thus, being eminently an intellectual actor, he falls short of Salvini, who carries us along by the impetus of his great emotional force. Mere conscientiousness in observing stage directions can not alone secure success to an actor. Mechanically, a part may be rendered with the utmost nicety, and yet the effect prove inadequate. Intellectuality exercises its more potent influence upon the stage, but its full power is never felt unless accompanied by a strong development of feeling. Picture a simply

polished Romeo suing the warm, impulsive Juliet; or an unimpassioned Othello, striding back and forth across the stage to manifest all the terror of his would-be anguish, Let him assume any posture, however tragical, or resort to any expression, however pathetic, we secretly feel the absurdity of his wild ravings. For it is not grief at all, it is simply acting. But the higher grade of actors seem possessed of all the varied emotions which they portray with such delicacy and fineness. It is safe to say that, for the time-being, they are part and parcel of the people whom they characterize; though certainly not all, and, we sincerely hope, few actors endure trials comparable to the tragedies they delineate to the public. In order to accomplish this perfect identity, it follows that a person must possess strong sympathy, keen perception, and great depth of feeling. To this latter class of actors belong the illustrious names of Edwin Booth and Tommaso Salvini. Booth can never climb to that pinnacle of fame which Salvini has already reached. This disparity of position arises from no mental, moral or physical incapacity of the former, so much as from the overpowering magnetism with which Salvini is gifted. This quality is important to the highest success of an actor, and is more identified with the feelings than with the intellect. So the chief difference in the respective merits of these two actors lies in the comparative intensity of the possession of this trait. Booth possesses it to a far greater extent than most good actors, but in the same degree that he is removed from the generality of excellent artists, so far is Salvini removed from him. When Booth falls short of a part in natural adaptability, he supplies the deficiency with artificial and studied effects. T is, however, is accomplished with such consummate art, that the impression upon the mind is pleasing and delusive. Yet its artificial quality is readily perceived when brought into contrast with the powerful effects wrought by the same part under the masterly skill of Salvini, whose intenser sympathy renders it more possible for him to attain the

« PreviousContinue »