Text: C. F. Briggs (?), Literary, Broadway Journal (New York), January 4, 1845, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 29

[page 30, column 1, continued:]

The Drama.

WE can afford but little space in our Journal to dramatic affairs. Indeed, we believe there are few things which the public cares so little about, as the gossip of the Theatres. Whether Miss Somerville was perfect in the character of Clara, or Mr. Stanley dressed becomingly in the part of Duke Aranza, cannot particularly concern any body but those important personages themselves. But we intend, nevertheless, to devote a portion of our columns to the amusements of this city, and the Theatres will, of course, be included among them. Whatever interests the people is the legitimate object of our study, and the less creditable the object may be, the greater is the necessity of its being looked after. Dramatic entertainments were never popular on this side the Atlantic. We frequently hear the palmy days of the Drama spoken of, but we should he at a loss to name them. The same, with a very slight qualification, may be said of England. In France it has always been different. The French have a love for dramatic representations, which the English have not. Since the days of Queen Elizabeth, the Theatre has always been in disrepute. Any species of amusement, which the professedly religious feel themselves compelled to avoid, can never be esteemed popular. It is the religious sentiment of a country which gives the key note to its morals; and whatever lacks the approval of the best minds in a nation, must at last come to naught. The Theatre has long, always rather, been under the ban of what the world calls good men. Though Doctor Johnson went to [column 2:] London with a play in his pocket, and with a player for a companion, yet he soon got himself clear from the Theatre, and began to teach morals. He felt that it was a disreputable connexion; and yet the Theatre was more respectable in his day, than it ever was before or since. Garrick was the greatest dramatic genius that the English stage ever possessed; and while he lived he helped to render it popular, but he had no sooner left it, than the stage began to fall. The Kembles did nothing towards supporting it, but rather helped to hasten its downward progress, by loading it with mummeries and machinery. Mere respectability of character adds nothing to the respectability of a profession. Nothing short of genius can do any thing for a calling which is not in itself respectable. A dolt-head and a genius are alike in the pulpit. It is the profession which confers respectability upon them. People go to hear one as readily as the other. Accordingly we find that the church remains the same, let its ministers be what they may. But the stage goes up or down with the characters of those who tread it. When Kean appeared, though a man of bad morals, yet, being a genius, the drama seemed to revive; and it sunk as soon as he was gone.

With us the stage has never been indigenous. There have been but few American actors, and not one American dramatist. The whole atmosphere of our Theatres is essentially English. All the plays present English scenes, English characters, English thoughts, delivered in English accents. The music, too, is all foreign, and when you enter the doors of one of our play-houses, you appear to have stepped into another country. If a cockney should fall asleep in the Haymarket and awake in the Park Theatre, he would be hardly conscious of a change. There are no greater difficulties attending success in the dramatic profession than in any other, and if it were popular or respectable, we should have an American stage, as we have an American bar, an American pulpit, and an American press. Mr. Forest has done well for himself, but he has done nothing for his profession in this country. If he were a man of genius, the stage would have been in better repute among us, since he appeared upon it. Instead of rising, it has gradually fallen in public estimation since his first appearance. We do not pretend to argue for or against the stage; but simply to give our views of its actual condition. Those who decry the Theatre most loudly, are generally persons who never visit one, and know nothing about it. There are four or five Theatres in New York, which, to exist at all, must be frequented by a great number of people; and these frequenters of the Theatre are generally young persons whose minds are in the fittest condition to receive impressions. It is very plain, then, that the professed philanthropist should look into this matter, and if he finds that the theatre cannot be abolished, it is his duty to strive to render it as little injurious as possible, and by sometimes visiting it, learn to counteract its influences. We shall hereafter give a report of the Theatres in their turn.