DRAMATIC NOTES.

THE most important theatrical event of the year 1878 took place immediately before its close. On the 30th of December the Lyceum was re-opened under the direction of Mr. Irving, and thus, for the first time since, some fifteen years ago, Mr. Phelps resigned the reins of management at Sadler's Wells, we have a theatre in London under the immediate rule of the most prominent Shakespearian actor of the day. Whether it is a wise thing for a conscientious actor of the most difficult characters in the drama to take upon himself the responsibility, the difficulties, and the onerous work of management, we do not care now to discuss. It is sufficient to say that Mr. Irving has commenced his enterprise under the fairest auspices. The crowds that gathered outside the theatre, unable to gain admittance, and the enthusiastic multitude inside, testified not only to the personal popularity of the actor, but also to the warm interest felt by the public in the noble work he has entered upon. It was fitting that Mr. Irving should begin his reign with Hamlet, both for the just pre-eminence held by the masterpiece of Shakespeare, and because it is in the character of the Prince of Denmark that Mr. Irving has achieved his greatest and most legitimate success. We have not been able to praise his Macbeth and Othello, and his Richard III. was open to hostile comment; but no such Hamlet has been seen by this or the last generation. It was a revelation, and neither rant nor stilted declamation, nor any conventional reading, found a place in it. That Mr. Irving's Hamlet of December, 1878, is quite equal to his Hamlet of November, 1874, we cannot assert. Occasional traces of that peculiar high toned utterance (which it would be wrong perhaps to call affectation) so prevalent with this actor of late years, were apparent, and it could be wished that Mr. Irving's Hamlet, in his serious conversations with Horatio and others, were a little more robust in style. But the lighter passages are as good as ever, and the soliloquies remain as before, fine specimens of unconventional intelligent and scholarly delivery; and in the magnificent third act Mr. Irving was able to display unusual force without losing his voice. In this act too, he had the advantage of an Ophelia worthy of his companionship. It will be remembered that Miss Isabel Bateman's Ophelia was the weak, the very weak, point of the revival of Hamlet in 1874, though the majority of the critics warmly admired her. In Miss Ellen Terry, Mr. Irving has now found a better associate, and her original and powerful rendering of Ophelia, a character not abounding in good points for an actress, made a strong impression on a house filled with real critics in every part. The general representation of the play showed also a marked improvement. Mr. Forrester as Claudius, Mr. Swinburne as Horatio, Mr. Cooper as Laertes, Mr. Beaumont as the Player, Messrs. Ellwood and Kyrle Bellew as Guilderstern and Osric, and Miss Pauncefort as the Queen, were one and all worthy of commendation, and we are glad to be able to say that distinctness of utterance was the rule, and not, as usual with the production of Shakspeare's plays, the exception. When we add that the decorations of the theatre, inside and outside, were much admired, we have said enough to show that this eventful night resulted in a triumph for the new manager. We trust that he may continue successful. If, as we believe, the stage has an influence on society, a theatre conducted on high principles, and with lofty aims, cannot but improve the public taste. Mr. Irving has begun well, and so long as he remains unspoilt by popular favour, may reckon upon the support of the enlightened portion of all classes of the play-going public.

The Lord of Misrule is once more in the ascendant at the theatres. That pantomime is a great and prosperous institution none can deny. The daily newspapers devote as much space to analysing what are called the plots of the various pantomimes, as they do at another time of the year to the libretti of hackneyed operas, and eulogise them in their reporting columns if they satirise them in leading articles; whilst periodicals, in their Christmas numbers, idealise Clown and Columbine in sentimental story. Those who have said that pantomime is decayed and degenerate are so far correct that the humourous entertainment known to a previous generation under the title is no longer procurable, but that the thing now called pantomime-a combined extract of the Alhambra and the music hall-flourishes and is exceedingly popular, facts and statistics abundantly prove. At this moment there are three in Central London, eleven at the theatres in the southern, eastern, and northern districts, and one each at the Crystal Palace, Alexandra Palace, and Aquarium; in all, seventeen, representing an outlay of about £50,000, and giving employment, direct or indirect, to some 3,000 persons, this last being the only result of pantomimes which can be regarded with anything like satisfaction. Managers are not to be blamed for the prevalence of pantomime, nor can it be set down to a degenerate age: for even the Kembles have been known to look forward to the Christmas pantomime to reimburse them for the failure of the legitimate season. The main cause of its popularity, and even of its existence, must be set down to the inconsistency of Christian humanity which has resolved to crowd its relaxation and pleasure into one corner of the year, and to take

this pleasure at a low standard. With the exception of the intelligent playgoer who feels himself out of place at pantomimes, all sorts and conditions of people are represented at the theatre at Christmas time. High and low, rich and poor, young and old, all visit pantomimes, and the poor and low in a greater degree than the high and rich, for whilst six of our seventeen pantomimes are common ground for both, the remaining eleven are almost exclusively dependent on the patronage of the lower classes. Youth and age go to pantomimes from mixed motives, youth being content to be bored through most part of the opening in expectation of the joys of the harlequinade, whilst for age, when not in reluctant atten lance on youth, for such unvenerable age as that represented by Mr. Joskin Tubbs of the Pink Dominos, the opening has, we regret to say, its attractions by reason of its ballets and the femoral developments of the scantily attired heroes and heroines of nursery story. The melancholy fact cannot be too often repeated that Respectability, which ignores and frequently denounces the theatre of Shakspeare, Sheridan. Byron, Gilbert, Wills, Sardou, and other dramatists, smiles complacently on pantomime, which is neither modest, nor refined, nor lively, nor witty, nor even in most cases intelligible. For what is pantomime but, as we have said, an imitation, and an inferior imitation, of the principal attraction of the Alhambra and the music halls? From the Alhambra are taken the long and tedious, but gorgeous, ballet scenes, and the processions of women dressed as pages, knights, peasants, or in any male costume which permits of a copious exhibition of their figures. From the music halls are taken the great part of the songs, the music of which is often pretty, but of which the words have usually to be revised or re-written, for even at Christmas time respectability would not always tolerate the gross vulgarity and worse which is characteristic of these songs in their original homes. From the music hall comes too the "topical song," without which, we venture to say, no pantomime has this season been produced, and which consists of a series of verses embodying the ideas of an ignorant and coarse "comique" on the political and social topics of the day. Not only are the attractions of the music halls borrowed by the the itres for Christmas, but also the persons who perform there, and “serio-comics," " duettists,” niggers, acrobats, ventriloquists, "variety artists," the brothers this, and the sisters that, find themselves for once in the year elevated in the professional scale. If the reader is inclined to regard this unpleasing picture of pantomime as somewhat exaggerated, let him visit, as an example, Covent Garden, an eminently respectable theatre, and we shall be much surprised if he does not confess that our strictures err, if at all, on the side of moderation. At Covent Garden, the dull ballets an 1 weary processions are presente I with amazing splendour, but for no conceivable purpose of amusement; the songs are from the music halls, and Messrs. Macdermott and Campbell, two celebrated "star artistes," are there to give them effect. Thus the first impressions of the stage are associated in the minds of youthful Respectability not with good plays well acted, such as Caste or Diplomacy, or even Our Boys, but with Messrs. Macdermott and Campbell and their refined effusions! This may be part of a Spartan system of education, the theory of which is to imbue the minds of children with a horror and dislike of the theatre by only taking them there when the entertainment is silly and offensive. After all, the stage is not singular in this respect. The Christmas number of a magazine is made up of stories not considered good enough for the monthly issue, and is yet perhaps more widely read than the best novel of the year. For is not this the silly season, and is not any rubbish considered good enough for Christmas ?

It remains to be seen whether the prevailing distress and depression of trade will materially affect the receipts at the theatres during this festive season, but they do not appear to have damped enterprise. There are, as we have said, seventeen pantomimes this Christmas, although four theatres open in January, 1878, are now closed. The Queen's, we believe, is no longer a theatre, the St. James' and Opera Comique are said to be under repair, and the manager of Her Majesty's found so little profit in giving a pantomime there last year, that he has wisely kept its doors shut. With these exceptions every theatre is open. The re-opening of the Lyceum Theatre. under the management of Mr. Irving will mark 1878, a year not otherwise prolific in matters of theatrical interest, but at least noteworthy for the deaths of Mr. Phelps, Mr. Charles Matthews, and Mr. Alfred Wigan. Mr. Irving, though of a different style and school from Mr. Phelps, continues the same work, and a successor to Mr. Wigan may be found, as refined in style and as subtle in characterisation. But of Mr. Matthews it may be said that he stood alone, for he belonged to no school, and was absolutely original. He has never yet had a rival and few successful imitators, and leaves therefore a vacant place that is not likely to be filled. But whilst doing honour to the illustrious dead, and acknowledging that there are no three men now on the stage competent to step into their shoes, it may be said without fear of contradiction that the general standard of acting is much higher at this moment than when these three were in their prime. Now that the impending visit of the Comédie Française to London is exciting the usual reflections on the alleged superiority of the French actors to ours, and to the advantages enjoyed by the former, it may be as well to point out that the English stage, which is in receipt of no subsidy, has no useful organisation and, above all, no training schools, can yet produce as numerous a body of good actors, taking them in the bulk, as the French stage. It is probable, therefore, that we should be able to beat the French if we had all, or some of the advantages and assistance they can secure, as well as a few dramatists, of whom, in spite of Mr. Burnand, we think there is a want. Putting aside State aid to theatres as a thing not absolutely necessary, and perhaps not desirable, is it too much to ask that the drama should be treated

in this country on the same footing as music? There is a professor of music at Cambridge, and there are degrees in music, we believe, at both universities. There is also an academy of music in London, with an adequate staff of professors, and, in fact, every encouragement is given to the students of the one art, whilst the other is totally neglected, and dramatic aspirants have to pick up their education how they can.

If, instead of vain

repining, the leaders of our stage will agitate for Government aid to a training school for the drama, or, failing that, enlist the sympathy of the public in its behalf, they will, in time, attain that prestige and support of fashion which, in this country at least, constitutes the chief success of the Comédie Française. Italian opera flourishes in this country by the support of fashion, and the French players will be probably successful, partly from the same cause, and partly by means of their excellent organisation and training. Mr. Irving will also, we trust, secure the support of fashion, as well as the favour of the general public, and perhaps be the means of originating an English academy of the drama, which ought not to languish whilst so much British gold is given to the foreigner.

The new and original drama No. 20, written in combination by Messrs. Albery and Hatton for the Princesses, collapsed after a short and inglorious career of about a fortnight. It had been heralded by an extensive change in titles, no less than three having been given to it before its production; and in inspired and communicated paragraphs to the press much was made of the wonderful combination of authors. The ignominious result should impress on these two eminent individuals that success in melo-drama is not attained by the mere collecting of old incidents and situations and cementing them together with new dialogue, but that the composition of this class of play is as much an art as that of a tragedy or comedy. A much greater success has attended Mr. Albery in his adaptation, under the title of The Crisis, of the French play Les Fourchambault. In this case Mr. Albery has a colleague superior to Mr. Hatton, if it is not an insult to the French author of the play to call an adaptor of his play into another language a colleague. But Mr. Albery has done something more than merely translate Les Fourchambault, for he has not only Anglicised the names of the characters and the scene of the play, but given an English tone and style to the dialogue. With all his cleverness, however, Mr. Albery has failed to Anglicise the plot, the chief serious interest of which is carried on by a mother and a son in a fashion undeniably French. The second and subordinate serious interest which treats of the loves of this son and a young American lady begins too suddenly and too late, and rests on most inadequate foundation-a foundation rendered less stable by discreet alterations introduced into the play since its first night. The mother is throughout made the central figure, as she would not be in this country, and French motherworship reaches a ridiculous climax in the last act of the Crisis, where the hero is seen embracing his mother, whilst his lady love proposes marriage to him! The girl not only has to make the offer, but she has to make it to mother and son. The young lady herself does not prepare us in the earlier acts for the prominence she assumes at the finish, and altogether the two serious interests do not dove-tail, but cause the play to assume the appearance of a separate history of two households-in short, to be two plays in one. The dialogue, however, is, as we have said, funny and clever, and the acting meritorious, that of Mrs. Wood being distinguished by great comic power. Indeed, the very excellence of Mrs. Wood's acting, which pleases the Haymarket audience more than the story of the play, tends to deaden the interest which ought to be felt in the doings of the serious characters. The scene between the brothers in the last act, which was the crowning of the edifice in Paris, fell flat on the night of our visit, in spite of the excellent acting of Messrs. Kelly and Terriss, and the extremely clever and natural way in which Mr. Terriss gave Mr. Kelly a blow in the face; and the financial woes of Mr. Howe, which are, we suppose, the origin of the English title, did not interest the audience in the slightest degree. For all this the Crisis is a success, and this being so, and because it is so, a nice question arises as to the literary morality of adaptations of this kind. Is Mr. Albery or any other man justified in altering the title, the scene, the names of the characters, and in partly re-writing the dialogue of a French play, and so getting half the credit of authorship of a work, in the original creation of which he had not the smallest share? When a man simply translates a French play, without altering scene or dialogue, no credit of authorship is assumed, though, as we pointed out last month in the case of Proof and Mr. Burnand, the critics will occasionally mistake the translator for the author. With a picture or a book such a course of proceeding would not be tolerated. Can we imagine an English artist copying a work of Meissonier with a few changes in colour, and calling the result his own work, or an English author remodelling a novel by Balzac, and taking the credit of having written it? And yet Mr. Albery is called the author of the Crisis, which is, as a matter of fact, Les Fourchambault by M. Augier. In addition to the doubtful morality of this practice, it amounts to a shocking confession of incapacity for invention on the part of our native dramatists, and we await with much interest the article to prove the contrary which Mr. Burnand writes to the Telegraph to say he is about to contribute to a monthly magazine.

ANSWERS TO

WHIST.

CORRESPONDENTS.

BAHAMAS. A B C and D sit down to play Whist, A and B play well, C and D only fairly. Instead therefore of cutting for partners in the usual way, C and D cut for the choice of A and B to prevent them playing together, C cuts the lowest and wins, and chooses A for his partner. He also claims the right of having the choice of cards, seats and the deal as if the four had cut. Is his claim right, or must the four players now cut to decide who shall have the choice of cards and the deal? -Ans. The usual plan is to have a second cut to make all the players on an equality, for otherwise, B gets the worst partner and has no chance of selecting the cards and seats.

CERCLE FRANCO.-The words used in the Bazaars of the East to denote Diamonds, Hearts, Spades and Clubs are:-Diner, Cupa, Baston, Spati. We do not vouch for the spelling.

SECRETARY.-We do not think it possible to get Hunt's cards into France at a price that would suit your club.

L. I G.-Revoke.-Take the score of three down from your adversaries, and being game by cards you mark a treble. They cannot mark honours, because tricks count before

honours.

G. L.-If you expose a card you are bound to leave it on the table. It is not right to take it up and leave it to your adversaries to tell you to put it down again. Why should you put yourself to so much trouble?

OLD FILE. We are not aware that there is any system recognised either in the Whist or swindling world whereby the size of the Peter tells the number of trumps the player holds.

LEX. It is a revoke. You add the tricks you take to your own tricks.

E. FALKBEER.-The Nos. will of course be sent. Very glad to hear from you always. Note our right address. B. M. NEILL.-Thanks for papers duly to hand. Please note our address in the Progress books.

BOOK RECEIVED.-"Chess Chips," by J. Paul Taylor. (Civil Service Printing and Publishing Co., 8, Salisbury-court, Fleet-street, London, E.C.)

"AMERICAN CHESS JOURNAL." Please note our right address G. REICHHELM.-The numbers were sent regularly. Duplicates follow by this post, as requested.

JNO. WRIGHT (13A, Front-street.)-Your name does not appear in our books. No number was ever sent from this office.

SCHACHMATNY LITOK, ST. PETERSBURGH.-Your number is returned marked "Refusé." We have written to the Russian Ambassador on the subject.

NOTICE TO CHESS EDITORS.

66

England."

Will these gentlemen be so good as to note the address beneath. We constantly receive papers directed Westminster Papers, "London," and This gives the Post Office authorities unnecessary trouble. All communications should be addressed Editor, Westminster Papers, Civil Service Printing and Publishing Company, 8 Salisbury Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C.

The Westminster Papers.

1st FEBRUARY, 1879.

THE CHESS WORLD.

"The whisperings of our petty burgh."

The Bristol and Clifton Chess Association has indeed been unfortunate during the past year, having lost no less than three first class players from their list of membership. First, on the list of honorary members, they have had to mourn the loss of the kind-hearted and ever welcome visitor to most of the Chess Clubs of the country, the world-wide, distinguished player, and indefatigable worker in the cause of Chess, the late Mr. J. Lowenthal, of London. The next, in the list of honorary members, but even more intimately connected with the Club (having for some years filled the office of President), is that of the late Captain H. A. Kennedy, the veteran of a thousand battles, and whose name was known throughout the Chess World as one who stood in the first rank of gentlemen amateurs. He was a great admirer of Mr. Lowenthal's play, and often received him as a guest, and was never happier than when engaged in a friendly encounter with the great Chess master; we are pleased to find the Committee of the Bristol Club have placed a befitting resolution on the minute book of their Society, of these fine players and old opponents. But the last name which they have had to remove from the list of living players, was even more intimately connected with Bristol than either of the above distinguished men, although not so well known in the Chess World as his great ability deserved. We refer to the recent death of Mr. William Thomson, for many years Vice-president of the Old Bristol Club, and also of the Bristol Chess Association. He would never accept the presidency, though often solicited to do so. Mr. Thomson was a Scotchman by birth, and was born in Dumfriesshire, in 1809. About forty years ago he came to Bristol, and shortly afterwards commenced business in the tea trade, and by dint of strict economy and indomitable perseverance soon established a prosperous wholesale business, at which he worked hard, until about five years ago. He retired from this in 1877, having amassed a good fortune, entirely by his own making, of nearly £25,000. He was never married, but was most devoted to business, at the same time found time to spend several hours daily in reading and studies of various kinds. At one time he attained some local distinction as a phrenologist, at which study for about three years he devoted all his energies to master, often not retiring to rest till three or four o'clock in the morning. At another time he took up the game of "Draughts" as a study, and so thoroughly mastered it, that he was victorious in matches over some of the first champions of the day. But it was to Chess, as a pastime, that he devoted the best energies of his mind. When he first became initiated into its mysteries, which was by an old member of the Club, Mr. J. Withers, now resident at Boulogne, and was one of the most brilliant players in the West of England. Under his skilful training Mr. Thomson made rapid strides, the odds having constantly to be reduced. So rapidly did he progress, until he caught up to his master; and some desperate encounters over the bloodless battle-field was the result, and in the end became Champion of Bristol, which position he maintained for many years. As a player, Mr. Thomson had not the brilliancy of a Thorold or a Withers. This, perhaps, might be accounted for from the fact of his having to act so mnch on the defence against such a skilful and attacking master. It always made him extremely cautious and sound; he was profound to a degree, had a very extensive knowledge of the openings-especially the "Scotch Gambit." Perhaps it is not too much to say "He was one of the very best Pawn players living." Often have we watched him pull off games from distinguished players, when everyone thought it must end in the inevitable "draw." A great deal of his success in this particular line of play was doubtless owing to his skill at Draughts He was always pleased to meet with a "Foeman worthy of his steel," and could nearly always hold his own against the most formidable, who considered themselves fortunate if they escaped with even games. We are speaking now of Mr. Thomson in his best days, and in the days of the old Bristol worthies, such as Elijah Williams, J. Withers, Henderson, Revs. Rowley and Brice, George Phillips, R. P. Meeker, and others. For the last few years he had retired from strong play, on the advice of his medical attendent, but he could not resist temptation of entering in the first class on the occasion of the recent visit of the Counties Chess Association to Clifton, when he displayed most of his old skill and wonderful resource. In the Handicap Tournament for first-class players, including Mr. J. Wither, then champion of England, and McDonnell (Rev. Mr.), and other distinguished players. He was pitted against McDonnell, one of the first English players, on even terms, and succeeded in drawing the two first games, and only resigned the third after some hours of hard fighting. We must now take leave of this veteran player, which we do with feelings of deep regret; he had always been looked upon as the "Father of Chess, in Bristol," one we could look up to with the greatest confidence whenever a "great gun" made an appearance among us, feeling sure that he would worthily represent the club in every