Life — January 3, 1884 — page 12: what you’re looking at

Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.

12 popularity as a winter resort must necessarily dwindle. Besides, this doctrine is radically opposed to the Monsignor's declaration in favor of the mariage de convenance. If, according to Monsignor’s law, matches are to be made by parents and not by that underclothed, mythical and obsolete small-boy Cupmp, we certainly would have fewer of those horrible matches between our daughters and poor men, or between our noble sons and penniless girls. Under the present system, we find it sometimes difficult to keep our children’s affections from entanglements out of which no addition to our own bank account or social position can possibly come. could pick our millionaire, and, provided he were willing, force our daughter into an alliance with him, Then, if he were consumptive, paralytic, imbecile or apoplectic, as he probably | would be, we could soon gather in our daughter and the profits of the investment, and set her again. An experiment similar to this is still in a Bostonian state of progress, and has yielded enormously with but little exertion. Now if this system could be synchronized with a light and automatic divorce law, it would be of incalculable benefit to some of us poor swells. Suppose, for example, that divorce was made a Sacrament, just as marriage is now, and that for from $2.50 to $3,000, according to alimony and other trimmings, it could be ob- tained in the Church, weddings at one cathedral door and a tide of divorced persons at the other, both equally happy, and dear old Mother Church would be so proud and rich and gay, you couldn't think. There are some antiquated fools who hold that no woman should marry a man unless she loves him with the noblest love of her nature, allow herself to be offered for sale, as a chattel, for so many dol- Jars and cents, but that the union should be prompted and sancti- fied by that affection and respect which alone can make married life endurable. They see in the French system only a brutal sacrifice of youth and innocence to gold and passion—a sacrifice which too often justifies the victim in private infractions of laws which should be inviolable. They desire to keep some things beyond the grasp of gold, and believe with Richelieu that the mate for beauty should be a man and not a money chest. They concede the fact that the wisdom of upright parents should be consulted, but not the will of such as would counsel a match made for purely selfish and worldly ends. These imbeciles of course do not belong to the Church of Rome, where marriage is a Sacrament and a—business proceed- ing. They should be brought within the range of the magnetic batteries of Monsignor BUNTHORNE CATESBY-CAPON, for if there | is one thing which our Society needs more than another, it is a more frugal eye in matrimony, The act is so delightful, the moral effect so excellent and the future of the couple so happy, that a mercenary marriage should be the aim of every young girl who has the least spark of womanhood within her, But this divorce question? The Monsignor says we may swear to a lie at the altar and marry for gold, but we cannot be di vorced. That is bad. He should change his system. It will never work in this land of easy laws and feathery vows. What we want most is a still easier method of divorce—one which will enable a man or a woman to resort to the mariage de convenance often enough to accumulate a real fortune, and not sell oneself merely once, and perhaps for a pittance. By the French system we | Why, the ineffable benefit to both Church | and people would be incalculable; there would be a stream of | They hold that she should not offer herself or | | and spirited impersonation of Hamlet. - LIFE: MR. BOOTH. R. EDWIN BOOTH'S performances at the Star Theatre have naturally attracted a great deal of attention. Out- side of Mr. Booth's own work, there has been little in these per- formances to command praise or interest. Years ago Mr. Booth gave a remarkable series of Shakespearian representations at Booth’s Theatre—that splendid edifice which is now being made into a dry goods store. Those representations were as brilliant in their way as Mr, Irving’s performances are, in quite another manner, to-day. Mr. Booth, however, was unfortunate as a manager. Ruined and disheartened, he went out of Booth’s Theatre. From that moment he has been industrious at making money, and he has taken pains to do nothing for the stage. He has continued to act, and that is, without doubt, something. But he has not produced a new play, not made a great revival, not created a fresh character, not organized a respectable company, not presented plays respectably. He has acquired money. He could easily, at this hour, place himself at the head of a fine and well-paying company, and give performances which might be com- pared, for completeness of illusion and character, with those given by Mr. Irving. But Mr. Booth is not inclined, evidently, to move from his old nest. Brilliant success has not effaced that first failure of years ago. And so Mr. Booth offers Shakespeare with- out an adequate company, with no stage effects, and with poor scenery, conventionally and tiresomely. During his present en- gagement, moreover, he has established a curious indifference to his business. It is well known that he avoids rehearsals, and is perfectly satisfied, for example, when a complicated drama like Othello is merely pitchforked upon the stage. The other night Mr. Booth and Mr. Sheridan appeared together as Iago and Othello. Their performance was a rough rehearsal. Mr. Booth had not been willing to rehearse his part privately with Mr. Sheridan. Surely, all this goes to prove that Mr. Booth, great artist as he is undoubtedly, has a strange lack of conscientiousness. This is the hour, nevertheless, when Mr. Booth should act with his best zeal and strength. He followed Mr. Irving. That should mean everything for him—the American actor. Mr, Booth has been seen as Richelien, Lear, Hamlet, Bertuccio, Othelloand Iago. He began well with Richelieu, a performance marked by delightful finesse and lucid method. His Lear passed muster, without being a remarkable performance. The Hamlet was carelessly done, though Mr. Booth is able to give a very beautiful His Bertuccio was vig- orous and picturesque, and quite devoid of pathos. His Othello was wooden—a ridiculous Othello. His Iago is not matched to- | day upon the stage; yet Mr. Booth appeared to take slight inter- est even in his performance of Iago ; he rattled off words as though he lacked sense of color and expression ; he lounged through the part, and was only awakened at great moments to the spirit of the character. Plain speaking is, it seems to us, called for by Mr. Booth. It may be expedient not to ** lecture” Mr. Booth, since this actor is apparently, in the judgment of his friends, too high