AT the written request of the leading actors and theatrical companies
of New York, Irving gave a “professional _matinée_” at the Star
Theatre. The play was “Louis XI.” It was the first time Irving had
appeared before an audience of actors in any country. The house was
packed from floor to ceiling. It was a singularly interesting and
interested audience. No actor, proud of his profession, could have
looked at it without a thrill of pleasure. Well-dressed, beaming with
intelligence and intellectuality, it was on good terms with itself, and
it settled down, in stalls, boxes, and dress-circle, with an air of
pleasant expectation that was refreshing to contemplate.[13]
Nothing could be more satisfactory to Mr. Irving and to his friends,
after the demonstrative applause of this very remarkable audience, than
the “Interviews” of many of the best-known actors and actresses which
appeared in the “Herald” on the following morning. Irving had no idea
that such a tribute was to be paid to him when, in talking with some
gentlemen of the press, at the close of the play, he said:—
“I never played before such an audience, so spontaneous in its
appreciation and applause, and it will remain with me as one of the
most interesting and most memorable events in my dramatic career. It is
very commonly said that actors are the worst judges of acting. But I
would ask why should actors be worse judges of their art than painters
of paintings or musicians of music?”
“Your audience was very enthusiastic, was it not?”
“It could not well have been more so. You see actors know well from
experience that an actor, to be stimulated, needs applause, and plenty
of it. Applause is as necessary to an actor as to an orator. The
greater the applause the more enthusiasm the actor puts into his work.
Therefore those who applaud most get most, and consequently my audience
of this afternoon”—
“Got the most out of your performance?”
“Well, they certainly excited me to feel the effect of their
appreciation on my own work. I felt an elation for them, and an elation
such as I have rarely experienced. I happened to walk into Mr. Millais’
studio, before leaving England. He had just finished a painting in
which I was interested,—in fact, it was a portrait of myself. I found
him in an extraordinarily cheerful mood. He clapped his hands with
delight, as he said, pointing to the portrait, ‘Watts has just been
here, and says it is the best thing I have ever done.’ Millais was
especially pleased, for this compliment came from a brother artist.
I dare say you will see the parallel in this my especial pleasure in
receiving the plaudits of my brother artists.”
“And how did the audience differ from the audiences you have been
playing to here?”
“This is the distinction, I think,—actors applaud all the touches
as you put them on; a general audience applaud the whole effect when
made. And so it was that all the little asides and touches of by-play
this afternoon were taken with as keen an appreciation of them as of
the whole effect of any scene or situation. I felt that my audience
thoroughly knew what they were applauding for. I felt that they
applauded myself and our company because they were really pleased; and
I will say again that my first professional _matinée_ has proved to be
one of the pleasantest events of my life.”
“It was a great performance,” said Mr. Edward Gilmore, one of the
managers of Niblo’s Garden.
“I have seen a good deal of acting,” said Mrs. Agnes Booth; “but I can
honestly say I have never seen anything that pleased me more: it was
simply perfect.”
“I have seen most of the performances in Europe of recent times,”
said Mme. Cottrelly, who had been a leading German actress and
manager before appearing on the Casino stage; “but I have never seen
anything that equalled Mr. Irving’s performance this afternoon. I
have never seen anything in the theatrical line that has been mounted
more correctly. It has not been surpassed in the finest German court
theatres that I have attended.”
“I think it is altogether one of the greatest performances the American
public and profession have ever seen,” said Mr. Dan Harkins. “The
wonderful perfection of detail and subtlety of by-play is, I think,
greater than I have seen in any other performance, excepting, perhaps,
Mr. Forrest’s ‘King Lear.’ Mr. Irving also is in a constant state of
activity; when he is not talking he is acting. He is making some clever
point all the time. The whole performance is great. It is great in the
leading character, great in all that is subordinate to it, which, by an
excellent stage management and a fine company, are brought into unusual
prominence.”
Mr. McCaull remarked: “It’s a long way the finest piece of
character-acting I have ever seen. Of course, I’m a young man, and
haven’t seen much; but I’ve seen Mr. Irving twice in this part, and
when I go to see a performance—out of my own theatre—twice, I can
tell you that, in my opinion, it must be a very fine one.”
“I am very familiar with ‘Louis XI.,’” said Mr. Harry Edwards,[14] “as
I have played in it myself a great deal. I appeared as Nemours with
Mr. Gustavus V. Brooke, and his performance of Louis XI. was a very
fine one. I then travelled for a year with Charles Kean, and played
Courtier, the Physician, in ‘Louis XI.,’ and once appeared with Kean
as Courtier. I also played Nemours with Charles Couldock. Well, I say
all this to show you that I am pretty familiar with the play, and with
great actors who have played ‘Louis XI.’ Mr. Irving’s Louis is one of
the greatest performances I have ever seen as a whole, and far superior
to that of any of his predecessors. He brings depth, more intensity,
and more variety, to the character than any of them. His facial action
is something wonderful. His performance stands on the highest plane of
dramatic excellence, and on the same plane as Macready’s famous Werner.
I may say that I am not an admirer of Mr. Irving in all parts, but his
Louis is unapproachable. I never enjoyed a performance so much in my
life, and I felt that I could sit it out for a week if I were given the
opportunity.”
“He is the greatest actor who speaks the English language,” said Mr.
Lewis Morrison. “I claim to know what good acting is. I have supported
Salvini, whom I regard as the greatest artist on the foreign stage, and
my preceptor was Edwin Booth. But even in Mr. Booth’s presence I must
say that I have been moved to-day as I never was before. I am not given
to gushing over an actor; but I never before saw a man’s soul, as I did
in King Louis this afternoon. It was simply perfection. It was not the
actor; it was Louis XI. that I saw. I must admit that I went to the
theatre with a little prejudice against Mr. Irving. I had never seen
him, and, from certain things which other actors had told me, I was
prepared to find an overrated man. But what a performance it was! It
was wonderful!—wonderful!”
Mr. W. A. McConnell, manager of Haverly’s Brooklyn Theatre, said: “He
is a great actor. I have never before seen such conscientious attention
to detail, such harmony in everything, from the people on the stage
with him, down to the smallest thing. It is a lesson for us all.”
“As a manager,” said Mr. Palmer, of the Union Square Theatre, “it was a
revelation to me to see such conscientious attention to detail. Every
little thing in which good stage management could have been exhibited
was shown by Mr. Irving’s company. They worked as one man. I have heard
but one opinion among members of our company,—everybody was delighted.”
“What can I say that is strong enough?” exclaimed Miss Cary, of the
Union Square Theatre Company. “I was delighted beyond measure. What
a wonderful teacher Irving must be, and what a master of his art in
every way! What impressed me particularly was the perfect harmony of
the entire performance. How carefully and patiently everybody must have
been drilled, and every detail which would add to the effect looked
after!”
Mr. Osmond Tearle said: “I had seen Mr. Irving in everything except
‘Louis XI.’ before to-day’s _matinée_, and I have always admired him
greatly as an actor. Now I have seen him as Louis XI. I admire him
still more. It is the greatest thing I have ever seen him do. His
business, as he warmed himself at the fire, was remarkable. When he
came on in the last act, he looked like one of the fine old royal
figures that stand outside Yorkminster in England; and when he took
his crown off he looked like the picture of Father Time. His facial
expression is astonishing, and in the wonderful death-scene his eyes
seem to have gone altogether. The whole performance was fine; there was
not a bad part in it.”
“I have only one word to say on this subject,” said Mr. John Gilbert,
“and that is, that it is wonderful; perhaps I, however, may supplement
that by saying that it is ‘extraordinary.’ I have seen Mr. Irving play
‘Louis XI.’ before to-day, and, in fact, I have attended nearly all
his performances at the Star Theatre; but this afternoon he exceeded
anything that he has done here before. He was clearly moved, in no
slight degree, by the almost incessant applause of his professional
brethren. I don’t know that I remember having seen a greater
performance by any actor, not even excepting Macready’s Werner. I am
not astonished at Mr. Irving’s great popularity in England. I am sure
he deserves it.”
“I had never seen Mr. Irving before this afternoon,” said Mr. James
Lewis, “and I was certainly not disappointed, although I had formed
the highest expectations of him as an actor. There was a young actor,
about nineteen years old, that sat by me, and he got on his seat
and yelled ‘Bravo!’ Now, I didn’t do that; but I was just as much
pleased and excited as the youngster. I think it was the greatest
performance I ever saw. You have, perhaps, heard the popular gag,
‘That man tires me.’ Well, that man, Mr. Irving, tired me; but it was
because he so wrought upon my feelings that when the play was over I
felt so exhausted I could hardly leave my seat. The stage setting and
management were good, but I have seen as good in this city before.”
Mrs. G. H. Gilbert, of Daly’s theatre, thought that it was the finest
performance within her experience. “In the confession scene,” she
said, “I thought him especially remarkable. I had seen him in ‘The
Lyons Mail’ in London, and, now that I have seen his ‘Louis XI.,’ I
want to see him in all his characters. The great applause that was
given him by the vast gathering of his profession was, I assure you,
not complimentary applause, but it was given in pure admiration of his
great achievements.”
“Mr. Irving’s Louis,” said Mr. Dan Frohman, “is a vivid and powerful
transcript from history. Once or twice, at the end of an act, he lapsed
into his natural voice; but this may be excused from the great draught
that such a character must make upon his strength. As a picture of
the subtle, crafty, and avaricious old monarch, his representation
was absolutely perfect. I think Mr. living’s ‘Louis XI.,’ in a word,
is a sort of dramatic liberal education. Every actor can learn
something from him. I wish our actors could keep the integrity of their
characters as perfectly as Mr. Irving does.”
“Mr. Irving is the greatest actor I have ever seen,” said Mr. Tony
Pastor. “I have been to see him several times, and this is my opinion.
It aint buncombe. It comes from the heart. I’ve seen all the greatest
actors, and have been a great deal to the theatres since I have
been in this business; but I have never seen any one as good as Mr.
Irving. This is a compliment I am paying to a man I am not personally
acquainted with, and perhaps we shall never meet. I don’t praise him so
because I had an invitation this afternoon; I would have admired and
applauded his performance just as much if I had paid a twenty-dollar
bill for it.”
“Mr. Irving’s Louis,” Mr. Colville said, “is superior beyond criticism.
It is the most perfect performance I have ever witnessed. I was acting
manager of the old Broadway Theatre when Charles Kean played there,
and, of course, saw him in the part.”