Life — January 20, 1898 — page 10: what you’re looking at

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

“The Merry Wives.” "THAT a stock company ‘should be well balanced is an elementary principle. It does not fol- %< low, though, that mediocrity should characterize p> the leading parts. Falstaff is the foundation character of “The Merry Wives of Wind- sor,” but if no more were exacted of the others in the cast than of Mr. George Clarke in this rdle, Mr. Daly’s company would give a very poor perform- ance indeed. The trouble is that Mr. Daly relies too much on Mr. Clarke, He does nothing badly, but, on account of his physical and temperamental limitations, does nothing very well. He has absolutely none of the unctuous- ness of Sir John, and develops none of the latent humor of the part, He does it intelligently, but adds nothing from his own per- sonality to the lines and situations which Shakespeare provides, Miss Rehan’s Mistress Page is as arch and coquettish as it needs to be, but it is not a part which makes much draft on her powers. Mr. Herbert elaborated the Dr, Caius to an unusually amusing extent, and Mr. Gresham provided a sufficiently humorous coun- terfoil in his Sir Hugh. Mr. Daly should be commended for his courage in giving Shakespeare at all. It cannot truly be said, though, that, outside of the excellence of the setting, the performance of “The Merry Wives” is at all an adequate one. * * * HIS week Thursday sees the third of the series of “break- fasts” at the Astoria in aid of Lrre’s Fresh-Air Fund, The entertainment which precedes the dejeuner a la fourchette will include, besides other dramatic features, the best act of ‘ Divor- cons,” with Mrs. Minnie Maddern Fiske’s wonderfully artistic rendering of Cyprienne, ig YP a ry * “C-TAHE Salt of the Earth,” at Wallack’s, is well acted, and broadly depicts a real phase of American life, but the scenes are too remote and too little recognized to make the play popular in New York. A JEWISH gentleman—and his own letter, both in tenor and manner, bears out his own contention that there are Jews who are gentlemen—writes to Lire ia complaint of the tone used in this column towards the people of his race. He holds that there are good Jews as well as bad Jews, in which Lire agrees with him perfectly. Failing all other, sufficient evidence of the existence of good Jews would be found in the magnificently patriotic speech made a few days since by Mrs, Esther Herrman, a Jewess, before an assemblage of Jews gathered to dedicate the new building of the Young Men’s Hebrew Association. Unfor- tunately, Jews like our correspondent and Jewesses like Mrs. * * “THAT IS A GOOD BICYCLE BELL, BUT I ““wHat's yours?” HAVE A BETTER.” “I LUNCHED THE OTHER DAY ON WHAT PROVES TO BE A SELF-WINDING ALARM CLOCK.” Herrman are less in evidence in any walk of life than the bad and vulgar Jews against whom we write. Our friend states that we ridicule and criticise Jews on account of their religion when we would not treat Episcopalians, Method- ists or Unitarians in the same way. Here we differ. When there exists any especial brand of Episcopalian vulgarity, or when there exists a Methodist race which has its own distinct manners and morality, or when there exists a peculiarly Unitarian method of doing business with the banks, fire insurance companies and theatres, those religions will receive the same ridicule and criti- cisms now accorded to the Jewish race. Our correspondent thinks we attack the Jews on account of their religion; not so; we attack the race whose bad members keep themselves so prom- inently in the public view that they establish the position of all its members. This column treats of matters theatrical, and has considered Jews simply as theatre-goers and in their relation to dramatic art. To Mr. Daniel Frohman, who is a Jew, we have given every credit for the good things he has done to maintain theatricals on a high plane. To Mr. Charles Frohman and his associates in the Theatri- cal Trust, who are also Jews, we have sought to mete out justice. We would call to the attention of our correspondent that it is to Jewish ascendancy in theatrical affairs we owe that crowning dis- grace of the American stage, “The Conquerors.” It is to Jewish greed alone that we can attribute this filthy play, enhanced by all the filthiness of production that a Semitic mind could suggest. That play and its manner of production answer fully our corre- spondent’s complaint. Let him see it, and he will understand why Lire fights strenuously against Jewish control of the American stage. Metcatfe,