A FATUOUS SHAKSPERIAN.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 24, 8 July 1871, Page 16

A FATUOUS SHAKSPERIAN.

A long-pending libel case, which promised to be of a very amusing character, and to throw some light on the art for making up the human form divine for stage purposes, has just been settled at Philadelphia. The case was founded on an article which, amongst other things, cast considerable doubt on the reality of the legs of Mr Edwin Foirest, the well-known American actor. The libellous criticisms appeared in November, 1867, in the <c Sunday Dispatch," and consisted in substance of two wildly grotesque imaginary conversations between the critic and the acior. Mr Forrest was made to express the most excruciating remorse for his "Jong and guilty career upon the stage," his " bloody murders of Shakespeare," and his "colossal crimes." At thought of his offences he " burst into tears, and his calves heaved and swelled with unfeigned agony." Mr Forrest was further made to give his idea of Hamlet as follows : —" I consider Hamlet to be a young prince about 60 years old, and rather stout for his age. He has a red face and wears a black moustache. His legs are modelled upon an original plan and when encased in black tights are calculated to startle and dismay the beholder. He walks with some difficulty, and prefers to sit down when a chair is handy." There was something about a glass of brandy taken as a restorative (" thereby meaning and intending")— to quote the language of the complainant—" that the plaintiff as an actor was addicted to the use of spirituous liquors ;' but the crowning aggravation was Mr Forrest's pretended confession that his legs were stuffed, " thereby meaning that plaintiff's reputation as an actor was the result of imposition and deceit." For all this Mr Forrest sued the " Sunday Dispatch," and laid his damages at the pretty figure of 50,000 dollars. " The case," says the " New York Tribune," " ought to have gone to trial. Then we should have known whether it is really libellous to charge ladies and gentlemen with employing the devices of a»:t to enhance the charms of nature. We should have learned whether pads, palpitators, plumpers, switches, glass eyes, and hair dye can be made, in a legal point of view, the subject matter of ' a false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory publication,' which is a very importantquestion,not only for dramatic critics and proprietors of newspapers, but likewise for society gossips and the loungers of watering places. And, finally, the great problem of the reality of Mr Forrest's calves might have been settled for all time if, as the " Philadelphia Post" suggests, the legs of the distinguished tragedian had been produced in court and properly prodded by an intelligent and high-minded jury of his countrymen. Instead of this, Mr Forrest withdraws his suit, and the " Dispatch " admits that ' the articles complained of were beyond the limits of dramatic criticism,' which anybody who knows what dramatic criticism is must admit to be an extremely handsome and unexpected acknowledgment."