Gisippus is a chapter of untoward accidents, making one feel
un- comfortable, but exciting no deep sympathy : the plot is puzzling, the action makes but a limping progress, the characters are inconsistent,
and the dialogue is undramatic. The author sets out with the evident intention of making Gisippus miserable ; and he succeeds in bringing him to the depths of degradation, but by a succession of mischances and misunderstandings too trivial and artificial to sustain the weight of a powerful interest. Gisippus, a noble Athenian, on the eve of marriage with the wealthy and beautiful Sophronia, voluntarily resigns his betrothed bride to his Roman friend Fulvius, on discovering that an old attachment, broken off through some caprice, still exists between them.
This act of generosity seals the fate of Gisippns : his creditors seize upon him and sell him for a slave, to satisfy their demands. Fulvius is ignorant of these misfortunes ; having been compelled to set out for Rome without keeping the appointment at which Gisippus intended to
ask his aid. After a lapse of time, Gisippus reaches Rome, a famishing outcast ; and puts himself in the way of Fulvius, to see if his former
friend will recognize him. Fulvius, now become Prmtor, not knowing Gisippus in his changed condition, orders his lictors to beat him back. Stung by this insult, Gisippns seeks the tombs to die ; where he is the witness of a murder, and allows himself to be taken and condemned as the murderer. At this point the tide of fortune turns : by some lucky chance Fulvius learns that the Greek condemned to die is in- nocent, and no other than Gisippus ; he rushes in before the axe falls, and, overjoyed, greets his long-lost friend : but Gisippus, deaf to his professions and entreaties, spurns him as an ingrate, until, softened by the sight of Sophronia, the proud and misgiving man yields to a con- viction that Fulvius is blameless.
The discrepancies obvious in this brief outline of the plot become still more glaring from the maladroit way in which they are accounted for in the representation. The fate of Gisippns turns on an accidental breach of appointment, for which Fulvius is scarcely to blame, and cer- tainly does not deserve the reproaches thrown upon him. How it hap- pened that two such fast friends should have been unaware that they both loved the same lady, and that the reverses which befel Gisippus instantly after the departure of Fulvius should have remained unknown to him, is not explained. Calamity the result of fortuitous events alone is not a subject for the drama ; but when we feel that a concatenation of circumstances is planned for the sole purpose of placing a hero in a dilemma, we are apt to resent the attempt to entrap our sympathies, as a fraud. The giving up of Sophronia by Gisippus completes a pretty little drama, which ends with the second act ; but the rest is mere " piling up the agony ": we admire the Athenian's self-sacrificing generosity, but his unjust suspicions of his friend lessen the greatness of his character.
Fulvius is impetuous and rash ; as is shown by the sudden passion he conceives for a lady so completely veiled that neither her face nor per- son is visible. Sophronia, too, seems wayward and inconstant : but the author has left both characters so indistinct that no positive qualities can be predicated of them, to explain the doubts that perplex the audi- ence as to the degree in which they are accountable for the sufferings of their benefactor. The conclusion that most people come to, we sus- pect to be this—what a pity Gisippus did not ask his friend's assistance at the time, instead of putting it off till the evening! the moral of the play, therefore, is directed against the folly of procrastination, not against the sin of ingratitude, as the author seems to have intended.
There are a few striking passages in the course of the dialogue, but they are mostly descriptive : we discerned no evidences of the faculty for dramatic writing.
This is said to be a posthumous work of the late Dr. GERALD GRIT- Fix, author of "The Collegians" and other tales—one of four dramas written by him when he was about twenty years of age. Regarded as
a youthful effort, Gisippus is a work of promise ; but its merits are not of a kind to make us regret the loss of the other three, which the
author destroyed. But for the beautiful scenery its success might have been very doubtful : at the end the applause was vociferous, but be- stowed upon the scenery rather than on the play itself; as the scanty plaudits in the course of the performance, except at the exhibition of a new picture or a pageant, made evident.
The scene is laid in Athens during the first three acts, after which it changes to Rome. This gives occasion for a display of architectural grandeur of a classical character surpassing any thing the stage has seen ; in which MARSHALL eclipses his coadjutors Messrs. PHILLIPS and Toxin:Ns, and rivals STANFIELD himself. The opening-scene, a front- view of the Parthenon, is chaste and impressive—a little cold, perhaps ; but the next, in which the eye ranges over Athens looking towards the Acropolis, is a magnificent piece of painting. The principal scene in
the second act is a real interior of some ancient house, such as the ruins
of Pompeii exhibit : the apartments, lighted from above and open to the sky, surround a court with bath and fountain, and the sunlight streams in upon the painted walls covered with designs in Greek taste. One of the views in Rome struck us as exhibiting too much of the Greek cha- racter in the distant masses of building ; and another as having too modern an appearance ; but the scene of a street of tombs, with the moon just risen above a dark mass of cloud, affects the imagination by its impressive solemnity. The groupings in the last scene, the place of execution, and in the second scene, where the bridal-procession enters, are artistical in respect of colour, and the accessories throughout are in fine taste.
The acting is not very remarkable, because there is little opportunity for any thing beyond declamation ; in which the performers do not ex- cel. The two or three situations are not effective, owing to the faults of construction ; and there are no telling points. The costumes and attitudes of MACREADY, as Gisippus, are picturesque and classic ; he expresses the emotions of the character with feeling and energy ; and it is not the fault of his acting that he does not make it impressive. ANDERSON, in Fulcius, is too noisy and boisterous as the lover ; but he becomes the Roman soldier well ; and the vehemence of his anguish when he Buds the life of Gisippus in jeopardy drew down a burst of applause. Miss Fencer has an unsatisfactory part to play in Sophro- nia; nor does she rise superior to its disadvantages. Mr. Gasusx, from the Surrey Theatre, made his first appearance, in the subordinate part of Medon : his person appears to be his best qualification. Mr. Evrox mars his efforts by undue vehemence of speech and movement. Mr. HUDSON makes a bad comic part intolerable by the hard monotony of his forced vivacity. G. BENNETT looks a morose assassin to the life. Miss E. Prnimes plays the part of a page very nicely ; and speaks a few passages with distinct enunciation and propriety of feeling.
Previous page
