TAYLOR AND READL'S PLAYS. * WHAT with their own merits, and
what with the absence of com- petitors, Messrs. Tom Taylor and Charles Reade occupy a remark- able position in the history of the English stage. Their works are not only the types of the original drama for the last two years, but they form the corpus of successful dramatic productions during that period. The collector of plays might order his bookseller to send him the whole of the successful original dramas of the years 1.8.5324, or he might order the dramatic works of Messrs. Taylor and Reade; it would only be ,a variation of expression to denote the same demand. Be it understood, that when we speak of this theatrical supremacy, we refer to the works of Taylor solus, as well as those of Taylor and Reade. The plays of Beaumont and Fletcher are supposed to comprise emanations from Beaumont without Fletcher, from Fletcher without Beaumont, and from Beaumont and Fletcher both together. The analogy, however, is not complete: we have as yet no right to set down the works of Reade without Taylor as holding a share in the sovereignty over the modern stage. The praise sometimes awarded by old nurses, that their lovely charge is the best child in the parish, when all the rest are out of it, is, after all, but equivocal commendation. The unlimited mon- archy of Alexander Selkirk is never regarded as the result of poli- tical wisdom ; nor can a lonely horse, however swift, be said to win a race. When the only competition is between Taylor Bolus and the firm of Taylor and Reade, they will, unless they have an abnormally small quantity of the vanity proper to authors, desire souse other praise than. the mere record of supremacy for the last two years. Let us hasten, then, to express our belief, that even if competition had existed, the two best plays of Messrs. Taylor and Reade would have held an important place among the modern pro- ductions of the British stage. They form a happy medium be- tween the literary dramatists, who do not consult stage exigencies, and the practical playwrights, who have nothing to do with litera- ture. While they amuse the multitude by means essentially popu- lar, they also give that masonic sign of literary acquirement which is at once appreciated by cultivated men. Their dialogue is not formed on the principle that stage-conversation should be a con- stant flow of metaphor and repartee ; but it is always smart • Masks and Paces; a Comedy, ie two Acts. By Tom Taylor and Charles Reade. Two Loves soda Life; a Dratna„in tour Acts. By dm sauce. Tlso King's Rival; a Drama, in five Acts. By the same. Published by Bentley. and lively, and stands in striking contrast to the vulgarity 44 which even translators from the French are too much in the habit of overlaying their language. Their subjects are always such as to show" reading," and a determination to be familiar with persons and circumstances accessible through books alone. One must read to become acquainted with Peg Woffington—with the Duke of Cum- berland—with Nell Gwynne; especially when one intends not only to give names and facts, but character and local colouring also. So to use the literary tone as not to support it at the expense of popularity, is a delicate task. The authors are in this respect most felicitous in Masks and Faces, where, without a plot remarkable for interest, they nevertheless, by an amusing and intelligible mode of treatment, satisfy an audience to the bulk of whom the histori- cal names must be totally unknown. In The King's Rival, on the other hand, the historical importance of Simnel Pepys has led the authors astray, and they have put upon the stage a character which excites no general sympathy. Here popularity is sacrificed to support the literary tone. It is not, however' to Masks and Faces that we would refer as the best specimen of Messrs. Taylor and Reade's dramatic talent Two-act comedies' with a small allowance of plot, exhibiting the manners of a past time were not uncommon a few years ago ; and we doubt whether Maas and Faces could be brought into juxta- position with Mr. Jerrold's Nell Gwynne or Mr. Planche's Court Beauties without suffering by the comparison. But in Two Loves and a Life Messrs. Taylor and Reade did what had not been done before : they constructed for theEnglish stage an interesting " drame" in the French sense ante word ; and while they ac- commodated themselves to the most peculiar audience,in the world —to the audience of the Adelphi Theatre—they avoided all the conventional vulgarities which English prejudice has so long fos- tered. There was no change of scene obviously for the sake of convenience, or for the sake of introducing those comic interrup- tions the love of which has been for so many years the destrtictive poison of the English drama. The -piece was well marked out into distinct tableaux, all more or less important; at every pos- sible point the interest of the public received a new impulse' and while the melodramatic means of, excitement were brought into play, the sketching of the characters and the occasional elevation, of the langUage still kept the whole affair above .the level of mere melodrama. If we were to allow ourselves to grow sanguine as to the good, which Messrs.' Taylor, and Reade (as a firm) may confer on the London stage, it is to Two Loves and a Life that we should point as a reason for our belief. When two names are attached to one work, and that work has attracted some attention, the natural curiosity of Mankind will of course lead to many surmises as to the particular share or function of each author in the joint production. Did Messrs. Tay- lor and Reade write alternate scenes ? or did one find the sub- stance and the other the form? or did the judgment of one simply temper the exuberant imagination of the other? We will not risk a conjecture on this knotty point. Perhaps, some day, Mr. Tom Taylor or Mr. Charles Reade, with the example of St. Augustine before his eyes, will write his confessions, and in that case all hy- pothesis will probably be put to shame. Hegel wrote a treatise De orbit is planetarum, in which he pointed out the place which planets then to be discovered would necessarily hold in the solar system. New planets were discovered, but they were not in the places which the speculative philosopher had assigned to them. We will profit by the example of Hegel.
Previous page
