Imágenes de páginas

the French equivalent for crowsfeet; it is impossible even to conjecture what he means by les marches du palais.Surely Mr. Moore knows that marches du palais is a slang term for the furrows of the forehead ?

I cannot discuss Verlaine here, much as I should like to do so, or say all I want to say about a Théâtre Libre. But I must at least express my thanks to Mr. Moore for some of the very few sensible words that I have seen in print since I read Lemaitre's article upon the subject of Ibsen's Ghosts. Mr. Moore's words are the more timely, seeing that the great Ibsen Iliad has been newly stimulated by the performance of Ghosts at Mr. Grein's

Independent Theatre." A controversy which was animated over The Doll's House and sharp over Rosmersholm has become passionate, acrid, over Ghosts. Critic after critic has lifted up his voice to denounce, with no measured invective, first of all the crime of Ibsen in writing such a play, and next the crime of those who read, witness, and find interest in such a play. To this crime I must plead guilty. I have read Ghosts and found it interesting; I went to see Ghosts played, and found it more interesting still. It is a very terrible play, and it teaches a very terrible lesson—that old, old lesson of the sins of the fathers which the world is so slow to learn by heart. But it does not follow that, because a play is profoundly painful and teaches a painful lesson, it is therefore unworthy or unseeinly. I can quite understand the attitude of those who only ask for amusement from any dramatic entertainment. They say, reasonably enough, that life is sufficiently melancholy, that the business of the drama is to divert them, to dissipate melancholy. To them the play is what the fairy tale is to the child, or the pipe of opium to the Chinese, a stimulus, a drug, a delightful delusion. This is a logical position enough, but it is not the position of all playgoers. There are some students of the drama who desire more from the stage than the conventional comedy or the conventional tragedy of a hackneyed muse. These find in the plays of Henrik Ibsen a reality, a humanity, an actuality, which deeply interests them. This reality, which is to be found in a lesser degree in the plays of Henri Becque and in a different degree—with all apologies to M. Zola—in the plays of Dumas the younger, is to



them-let us not say more attractive, but-no less attractive than the stereotyped forms of drama which at present hold the stage. Surely on the stage, if anywhere, a catholicity of taste should prevail; surely on the stage, if anywhere, a welcome should be extended to all forms of the dramatic art. Ibsen is a great force; he has to be recognised, he will have to be accepted. The very vehemence with which his antagonists lash themselves into fury over Ghosts is the most significant proof of the importance of Ibsen's influence. Surely it is unreasonable for some of our ablest critics to devote columns to assailing Ibsen and yet at the same time to label him as dull, incapable, unimportant. They do not perceive that the very fact that the production of his plays rouses in them such a “ficrce indignation" is in itself one of the most

" significant proofs of the importance of the man and of the movement which he represents. Were he the mere unclean nonentity that they would fain have us believe that they believe him to be, it would not be worth their while, it would be worth no man's while, to make such a fuss about him.

I must say for my own poor part that the performance of Ghosts, so pluckily undertaken and so pluckily carried through by Mr. Grein, was an event of fuller significance for our stage than any of the recent important first night productions. What are these recent first night productions? First on the list comes Mr. Haddon Chambers's The Idler, at the St. James's Theatre. Next Lady Barter, by Mr. Coghlan, at the Princess's Theatre. Next Lady Bountiful, by Mr. Pinero, at the Garrick. Next The Volcano, by Mr. Lumley, at the Court. Next Diamond Deane, at the Vaudeville.

Here are five plays, four by authors of recognised ability, over no one of which could an artistic controversy, such as has been set going over Ghosts, be raised by any possibility. Three out of the five may be summarily dismissed. Lady Barter is a play which neither Mrs. Langtry's beauty nor Mrs. Langtry's conscientious earnestness could save. The Volcano is a play which neither Mrs. John Wood's well-handled humour nor Mr. Weedon Grossmith's dexterous caricature could save. Diamond Deane is a play which neither Miss Millward's art nor Mr. Thorne's ability could save. Each play starts with a good idea and promises well, each play comes ignominiously to grief from want of care, from want of work, from want of something more than a smart idea. The Idler and Lady Bountiful stand on a different plane. They are successes, and they deserve to be successes, for each play is in its own way logically worked out and does hold together from start to finish. But The Idler, if a clever play, is not an epoch-making play. It is not an advance upon Captain Swift, although it is, perhaps, on the whole as good as Captain Swift. A somewhat similar judgment has to be passed upon Lady Bountiful. It is not an epoch-making play ; it does not even mark an epoch in the history of Mr. Pinero's own artistic development. It is, of course, brilliantly written. It is a mere formality to say so much of any piece from Mr. Pinero's hands. But it is not dramatically up to the level of Mr. Pinero's best work. It gives the impression that Mr. Pinero, after being slightly stimulated by the new aim after the "unconventional” in dramatic work, had been seized by unexpected timidity and prevented from carrying out his determination to its true conclusion. In both these plays—The Idler and Lady Bountifulthe acting at its best is of rare excellence. Mr. Alexander has never been more convincing, more vital, more subtly human, than he is in the intensely difficult part of Mark Cross ; Mr. Hare has never been happier than in his rendering of Roderick Heron, the meaner, baser, less endurable Skimpole. And while the leaders of the two little dramatic armies are good the followers are good too. Each play has helped to make a dramatic reputation. The Idler has given us in Mr. James Mason an American actor of the best type, a peer of Mr. John Drew. Lady Bountiful has shown us that Miss Webster in the small part of the Dickens'-like servant Amelia is gifted with very remarkable powers of impersonation and creation.


This series of articles on the notable books and plays of the month will henceforth be contributed by various writers. Mr. L. F. Austin's papers, entitled “Folios and Footlights,” will be included in the series.

*.* The Editor of this Review does not undertake to return any dlanuscripts.



No. 24.—MAY, 1891.




HE lynching a few weeks ago of eleven Italians by a New

Orleans mob is an incident which has many aspects and suggests many reflections. That one of those secret societies which have long been a curse of Italy and Sicily should have taken root and become terribly powerful in the New World is of itself a singular phenomenon. That in a great and wealthy city like New Orleans it should be found practically impossible to bring notorious assassins to justice by the regular process of law is a still stranger and still more deplorable phenomenon. That the men who seized and slaughtered the acquitted Italian criminals should be the leading citizens of New Orleans; that they should have preferred this. method of protecting their community to that of improving the legal procedure and administration of the State of Louisiana; that their conduct should have met with far more sympathy than reprobation over the United States generally, are facts curiously illustrative of the history of the Southern States and of the condition of society there. It is of none of these points, however, that I am about to speak in these few pages, but of the legal and constitutional questions growing out of the demand for redress which the Italian Government promptly addressed to the Government of the United States, and which was emphasised, in a somewhat brusque and hasty fashion, by the withdrawal of the Italian Minister from Washington. These questions are of interest not only to American publicists, but also to Englishmen, for they are questions which may, Vol. IV.–No. 24.

2 C

in a different, but, perhaps, not less serious, form arise out of the anomalous position in which Britain now stands to her great selfgoverning Colonies.

The best way to treat these questions will be to deal, first, with the general subject of the liability of one State to another in respect of injuries inflicted in its territory upon the subjects of that other, and secondly, to inquire how far this general liability may be modified and limited by the internal constitution of the State in whose territory the injuries occur, or by any practical difficulties which it may find in enforcing its authority upon its own subjects.

The general question need not long detain us, because there is no great difference of opinion regarding it among international lawyers, nor much difference as regards the practice of civilised States. The well-admitted principle is that every civilised State is bound to secure to the subjects or citizens of another friendly State the same measure of personal liberty, personal security, and protection to property as it affords to its own subjects. A Frenchman is entitled in England to the same recourse to the civil and criminal courts as an Englishman has, and to be as fully cared for by the police. Particular disabilities may no doubt be imposed on an alien. He

may be required to produce a passport, though passports are not required from native subjects; or he may be unable to hold real estate ; or he may be required if plaintiff in an action to give security for costs which would not be demanded from a subject. Special reasons exist in these respects. But so far as regards the ordinary rights which are needed for the protection of person and property, he ought to receive just the treatment which the native subject has, no more and no less. If he does receive less, his Government has a primâ facie right to demand redress for him; and this redress may be either in the way of criminal proceedings against those who have injured him, or of pecuniary compensation from the authorities of the State which has permitted him to be injured without affording him due satisfaction by the methods which are open to its own citizens.

To this general statement we must make one addition. Injury to a foreigner may proceed either from the executive officials of the State in which he is residing, or from its judicial officers, or

« AnteriorContinuar »