The chief merit in the play of Feudal Times, produced
at Sadler's Wellty is the great skill with which the author, Mr. White, has drawn his charac- ters. He has taken a single incident out of the history of Scodand,a—an' incident so simple that it scarcely affords material sufficient for a plot.; bin - he has well weighed the position in which, on this occasion, several his. toricaLpersonages are placed, and has forcibly displayed that collision of' principles which the incident may be supposed to represent.
The struggle between birth and talent exists at the present day ; is AS nothing compared with what it was in times .when military profioienmy-
and a long list of fighting ancestors constituted the sole glory of mankind. The proud-Scottish nobility of the time of James. the Third could not bear the favour which their King showed to an accomplished architect, Walter Cochrane, and were particularly indignant that the Earldom of Mar should be bestowed upon such a " chiul" They therefore formed a conspiracy, of which Archibald Douglas, Karr of Angus, (so well known as "old Bell- the-Cat,") was at the head, and destroyed the hated plebeian. In this event Mr. White has perceived the contest between feudal roughness and dawning civilization, and on this account he has placed it in a dramatic form: the historical personages being Douglas, as the representative of rude nobility; Cochrane, as the representative of talent without birth; and James the Third, patron of the arts, too exclusively devoted to the ele- gaucies of peace to command the respect of a rude arid turbulent aristo- cracy. The language in which these personages are made to declare their several peculiarities is clear, forcible, and characteristic. When a drama- tist makes his personages spak according to the different points of view at which they are supposed to stand, he has taken an important step in his art. The author has happily remembered the personal courage of Cochrane, as a quality which even the Douglas must he forced to respect. Had Cochrane been a mere effeminate artist, he would have been too contemp- tible for a decided struggle with the uncouth Northern warrior, and would not have answered the purpose of the drama. He is therefore a warrior also, but of the class which is trained by chivalric events and appliances, not that which is based on mere animal courage. To borrow Sir Lucius O'Trigger's expression, his valour is as keen, but at the same time as polished, as his sword. The most determined hostility is, with this sort of character, no excuse for an absence of courtesy. The Douglas insults Cochrane; so Cochraue challenges him, fights him, conquers him, but all the while honours him as a brave, honest adversary, and, hearing him ad- mire his horse, generously makes him a present of it.
This is the sort of conduct which is a puzzle to the Douglas. That the "mason" should have vanquished the bearer of the "bleeding heart," is bad enough; but that the latter should owe his life to the forbearance of the former—that the Douglas should stalk about Douglas-dale with a sort of permissive existence—is absolutely unbearable.
This man, This Cochrane, having use at mercy, spared me! Cochmne spared Douglas! Would to God the helm Had been of tin or paper, and I had died! 'T had been no shame to die; but now to live, To live in Cochrane's grace to owe my breath, Ely pitiful breath, to mortal man that lives!"
The manner in which the respect for Cochrane is made to display itself in such an unwilling soil as the mind of Douglas, is finely contrived. He would despise Cochrane, and himself for having been vanquished by Coch- rane; but the truth, that the " mason " was no despicable person after all, will force itself upon him. Gairlies, one of the malecontent lords, persists in ignoring the fact that Cochrane is ennobled, and, calls him "Master Cochrane "; when Douglas breaks out- " Call him Lord Mar! he's worthy of the belt, That held a Douglas under his sword-point." King James, hating all war and exclusively devoted to the arts of' peace, is another well-delineated character. We are aware of the objection that his weakness borders on imbecility; but this is necessary to call out the noble qualities of Cochrane. The "1118,8011" would strengthen him to a firmer course of life; and on this account we are made to feel more strongly that the nobles ought to respect lUni, and that he is completely a victim to the prejudice of his age.
As the play proceeds towards its close, the slightness of the plot begins to manifest itself; a defect which had been concealed by the interest at- taching to the first introduction of the characters. Nor is this slightness the only fault. We begin to perceive that the subject is not very well chosen to exhibit that collision which is in fact the essence of the play. The conduct of Douglas towards the King is treacherous and despicable. He is no longer the representative of a sort of brutal honesty, but has about him more of the tricky Italian than his adversary, who has studied under Buonaroti. If a work of art is to portray a collision, each element of that collision should be truly represented. It would be a sorry way of symbolizing the great theological crash of the sixteenth century, to place a sincere Protestant on one side and a Catholic " humbug " on the other. Great social questions should be contested by men each deeply impressed with the truth of his own position: and it is not every event in history that will furnish that requisite. We cannot help wishing that a love-story were not considered such a
requisite in the modern drama. Without going back to the Greeks, we may remind the world that Shakspere did not always feel this necessity; and we would ask, what does the play of Feudal Times gain in significance by the character of Margaret Randolph? She is the ward of the Douglas, and in love with Cochrane; and therefore in some measure blends the two contending principles. But really she represents no position at all; and her love-scenes with Cochrane seem to dangle loosely about the main plot. Let us not be understood to say, that in point of expediency the part might be omitted. We have too distinct a recollection of the plaudits which the heroic young lady received, not to be aware of her value with the audience. We only mention with regret an exigency of the modern stage, to which Mr. White has been obliged to conform.
Cochrane and Margaret are well played by Mr. Phelps and Miss Ad- dison,—though the lady should correct her fault of perpetual emphasis. But the most characteristic performance of the whole is the Douglas of Mr. George Bennett. The impatient pride and surly contemptuousness, indicated by the restless attitude and curling lip, are perfect.
Previous page
