Drgirtl... , E.,td en d Acct.
g33,702,593
Mr. Charles Kean, in bringing out Cibber's version of Richard the Third, has proceeded with all due caution. The extra leaf of his play-bill, usu- Mr. Charles Kean, in bringing out Cibber's version of Richard the Third, has proceeded with all due caution. The extra leaf of his play-bill, usu- ally devoted to the historical edification of his audience, now assumes an apologetic character ; and the public, while assured that on comparison the alteration of Cibber proves much more effective than the creation of Shakspere, is also reminded that it is with the former the names of all the great actors are associated. This last position is undeniably correct, while the question of relative effectiveness remains open to minute controversy. The fact is-what with its original, and what with its modified form- _Richard the Third is in a very anomalous condition. The older play has been found, it seems, not to answer, while the newer play is stamped with a sort of infamy as a profanation of Shakspere. Perhaps, as the character of Richard is not remarkably well adapted to Mr. C. Kean's peculiarities-although his performance is well studied throughout, and is marked by a knowledge of the popular "points "-the most judicious way of avoiding controversy would have been to leave this particular play untouched. Actors of late years have felt no dis- position to grapple with the difficulties imposed upon them by an assumption of the character of Richard ; and therefore a revival of the tragedy is not one of the things that are expected. However, so very well are all the scenic "effects" of the concluding portion managed, so gorgeous are the costumes, so well-arranged the groups, and so real
the conflicts, that we cannot wish undone what has been done so cleverly.
Previous page
