JOSEPH JEFFERSON

Joseph Jefferson has been seen again--and with all the enthusiasm of

many years ago--in _Rip Van Winkle_. The playbill which announces his

appearance makes no mention of Washington Irving, but claims the play

as ‘written by Dion Boucicault.’ It needs, however, no very profound

student to detect in that tender and graceful fancy of the story, a

quality not to be numbered among the useful talents of the versatile

dramatist who can give us anything that lies between _London Assurance_

and the _Shaughraun_. But I believe that, after all these years, the

work of three hands is really to be found in the play; Mr. Jefferson

himself having manipulated much of its action and business. He does not

act the piece: he lives in it. And he is only to be compared with Got,

in Balzac’s _Mercadet_. Both performances are restrained and reserved,

without the appearance of restraint and reserve. Both are quiet. There

are no dramatic outbursts, and no surprises. But in each case a

character, a career--one might almost say a life itself--is put before

the spectator. Greater things have undoubtedly been done upon the

stage--greater things have been done on the stage of our day by Irving,

and greater remain to be done by him--but nothing quite so complete has

been seen: nothing giving one the sense of so easy and unlaboured a

mastery. The pathos is very gentle: the humour has something of Charles

Lamb in it. Jefferson has a face of the utmost good-humour; very kindly

eyes, gentle ways, which win upon the children and the dumb things of

his village of Falling Waters. For it is certainly his village, this

Falling Waters; we cannot seriously separate the actor from the man.

And he has a voice of admirable quality and compass: an enunciation of

the utmost distinctness, with no perceptible mannerism, unless, indeed,

the studied quietness be itself a mannerism. The voice is capable of

what would be called an almost womanly tenderness, by those who have

never observed that the tenderness of a man--as here to children--may

be even a profounder thing.

In _Rip Van Winkle_ he plays a winning character. We have all of us a

weakness for the amiable ne’er-do-well, who begins by ruining himself,

and ends--much against his feeble inclination--by ruining his children

and his friends. Our sympathy is wholly with him, and not with his

irritated wife; and when he has drunk away his fortune, and all that

he can of hers, we think that if he sits quietly under her reproaches,

or makes but a gentle answer, he has atoned for everything. That is

the magnetism of the lovable. And that is the kind of character that

Mr. Jefferson embodies, in a manner so entirely natural that you are

constantly forgetting that it is a performance. He has learned nothing

by rote. He has an easy way of seeking for his words: a half-absorbed

repetition of part of a phrase, as in our everyday, unchosen speech. He

does not finish his sentence like an actor who has learned his lines

and counted the delivery of them, and measured them to the end. The

common actor winds up an address as Rossini and his school wind up a

finale--‘I have the honour to remain your humble and obedient servant,’

Schumann said of them. But Mr. Jefferson’s sentences die off sometimes,

or are changed a little, by a slight thing happening in his presence,

or by the swift occurrence of a fresh thought which you may read in his

face. It is the perfection of naturalness--the perfection of seeming

spontaneity.

And if his humour is as mild as Charles Lamb’s, his pathos is as gentle

as Hans Christian Andersen’s. There is the delicate suggestion, for

those who can seize it--the suggestion and nothing more. When Rip goes

out from the home from which his wife has at last banished him--goes

out pointing to the child, in answer to his wife’s reproach that he

has no part in this house: ‘You say I have no part in this house’--the

pathos is of a simple and suggested kind, comparable only to Hans

Andersen’s, in the _Story of a Mother_. And as there is nothing in

Literature like the one, there is little on the Stage like the other.

(_Academy_, 6th November 1875.)

On books and arts · 第 36 / 56 题