Page images
PDF
EPUB

JOCULAR EPISTLE.

81

Jack Ban

"Jack Bannister has recovered his politeness; after all, what I fancied coolness might really have been fancy. Cumberland and myself have metwe chatted together last Friday behind the scenes very freely, upwards of an hour. He talked much about you; and be not angry, that I praised you highly as a good son and honest man. Last night I was behind the scenes, at Colman's. nister bowed again en passant, more coolly than he was wont to do. Perhaps he had heard of my attendance on you, and rooks will smell gunpowder. Charles Kemble asked very kindly after you; he seemed pleased to hear of your probable return this season. Waldron, the renowned Sir Walter Raleigh, rapped out some dozen oaths-swore by 'gad,' he could not have thought there was so much stuff in you that, 'by 'gad,' you had taken them all in; and that you were an astonishing young He talked of Garrick, of whom, to his teeth, he knows no more than I of Sanconiatho. He said, too, he had heard you were engaged at Covent Garden, at 20l. a week. Then came the Apollo of the house, (Colman,) who asked me if I had received a letter from you? 'Oh, the rogue !' he replied; how can he neglect me so, when he knows I am so impatient to hear from him?'

man.

In the front of the theatre I met Reynolds; he told me he had finished another comedy for Harris, in which Lewis is to play Harlequin- It is full of

G

[blocks in formation]

stale jokes,' said he; and the characters cast in the same mould as the former ones—and as for plot, even the lying critics can't accuse me of stealing them from other people, for my plays have no plots at all.' This isn't being too partial to one's own is it? There is much conversation stirring here on the death of Robert Burns; but honourable fame is imperishable. I cannot do better than dismiss my letter with a hint so useful."

On the 1st of August, Colman again wrote to Elliston, saying that he had actually announced him to appear at the Haymarket, in a few days. "Let us leave all terms to be arranged at our meeting," he observed; "I flatter myself you will not be dissatisfied with me."

It is clearly to be seen that Colman was extremely anxious Elliston should join him as soon as possible. In fact, he had a great and particular object at this moment in view-an object, which it was necessary for him at once to carry ; and one which, though Elliston was to become the chief instrument, was as yet a secret to the actor, and known only but in the wary councils of the manager.

The patronage which George the Third graciously extended to the drama, and to the benefit of meritorious actors, should never be forgotten. In this summer (1796) Quick played nine nights at Windsor, of which the King commanded six!

CHAPTER IV.

The Iron Chest"-Colman's" Preface"-Observations on his dispute with Kemble-Elliston studies Sir Edward Mortimer -Plays the part-His entire success-Reflections of the "Mirror" The widow Collins-An original Conservative— Her eccentric letter-Sheridan's application to our hero— Another letter from the widow-Elliston plays Philaster at Covent Garden - Colman's renewed applications Mrs. Elliston, a thriving wife-Elliston plays Walter with suc "Seeing the world"-" The Court of Comus"Club anecdotes-Cussans, a great oddity-Various anecdotes respecting him.

cess

Most of our readers are aware of the untoward circumstances which attended the production of Colman's drama of "The Iron Chest"-that the essential incidents of the piece were taken from Goodwin's novel ("Caleb Williams")—that it was first represented at Drury Lane Theatre, in March, 1796and that the event was disappointment and failure; on the cause of which, great diversity of public opinion was let loose, but on which the mind of the author was at least free from any embarrassment of doubt, as appeared by a " Preface" to the publica

84

'THE IRON CHEST."

tion of the above-a production which, at the time, excited very general and animated attention.

The genus irritabile vatum is a zoological classification much older than the days of Cuvier or Humboldt, and the delirium tremens which tracks the propensity to write, is as certain as that which follows on an abandonment to drink. It is inseparable from both diseases, and clearly shews how wary men should be in contracting either. There never was a beauty who more complaisantly assented to her own charms, than an author to his; and it is not surprising, therefore, that when any literary creation— a drama, for instance-should fall short of the palpitating presage of its sponsor, he will look for the cause of it on the shores of China, or in the philosophy of Ptolemy, rather than have the least suspicion so lengthy a journey was altogether unnecessary.

That Mr. Colman might have had many grounds for regret, and some for complaint, the very subsequent success of this drama is a sufficient proof; but nothing surely could justify an attack on Mr. Kemble, which, for loud invective and an impudicious use of "local" language, (for the first time, then, the weapons of a gentleman,) is certainly entitled to its distinction of the "memorable." That a rhapsody so furious should seize on public attention was no matter of surprise; but attention may be engaged without approbation

COLMAN'S PREFACE.

85

making one of the party. We are amused at the fury of the man, rather than admire the science of the combatant, and are not with great difficulty led to believe that he who penned so impotent a piece of reasoning, might possibly have written a play not worth the acting.

No one has a greater veneration for the memory of Mr. Colman than ourselves; we bear it, with thousands, towards him as a dramatist, and we cherish it with the comparative few who knew him the charm of social life; how completely, therefore, should the character and station of Mr. Kemble have protected him from an assault, which might have been pardoned in a class less accomplished than that of Mr. Colman, and in whose coarser perceptions such outpourings might have been accounted masterly!

At no epoch of the drama were writers more indebted to actors than the time at which Colman wrote, and none of them more so than Mr. Colman himself. We would detract nothing from the merits of " John Bull," or the "Heir at Law;" but we do mean to congratulate the reputation of the author that these plays were produced at this genial period-a time in which, when contracting a debt of gratitude to the talent of the profession generally, he should long have deliberated before offering a public insult to the first and greatest of the order.

The cause of the dispute itself we do not enter

« PreviousContinue »