MR. TENNYSON’S “QUEEN MARY" AND THE ENGLISH STAGE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4553, 23 October 1875, Page 1 (Supplement)

MR. TENNYSON’S “QUEEN MARY" AND THE ENGLISH STAGE.

The chorus of praise which has already greeted Mr. Tennyson’s first venture in the field of the drama proper was so unanimous and so unmixed with anything approaching criticism that, when the book itself found its way into their hands, many people doubtless felt, so to speak, prepared for a disappointment. Few, however, can rise from its perusal without feeling that, for once, newspaper raptures have proved in the main wellfounded, and that the Laureate has added a fresh leaf to his laurels by his latest effort. The strophe of perhaps exaggerated laudation will probably be answered by an anti-strophe of exaggerated detraction; but when the echoes of both have died away, “Queen Mary” will take its place in English literature as a drama worthy to be ranked along with, if not above, the noblest of its land which the last two centuries have produced. In it we have a living argument against the literary pessimists, who look upon English poetry as a thing of the past; but it is to be feared that in it dramatic pessimists, who hold that English dramatic art, in the highest sense of the word, is dead, have an equally unanswerable argument on their side of the question. We propose to consider briefly its fitness for representation, first on the stage as it should be, second on the stage as it at present exists in this country. In the first place, then, it must be at once apparent to the most casual reader that it has not been constructed with a view to representation, or at least that no special pains have been taken to render it immediately available for that purpose. It would have to be materially altered before it could possibly be put on the stage, even in a model theatre. There are more than fifty “ speaking parts,” of which only four or five are totally unimportant ; while ten or twelve (including Mary, Philip, Elizabeth, Pole, Gardiner, and Cranmer) are of such importance that they could only be trusted to actors of the greatest ability. Of the remaining characters, almost all have at least one difficult and trying scene alloted to them, so that, for its representation as it stands, ten great and from twenty to thirty thoroughly competent artists would be required—a company such as no one theatre can, or perhaps should, be able to collect. The first step, then, towards its representation, would have to be a sweeping reduction of its dramatis persona ■, which could, however, be effected by a skilful manipulator, with moderate ease and with comparatively little injury to the piece. This done, and after several minor changes in the body of the work, it might, we believe, be put on the boards with unparalleled success and effect. It presents glorious opportunities for a display of skill to all concerned in its production. What scene painter would not revel in the task of mounting the magnificent “sets” for which it affords scope—Guildhall, Whitehall, London Bridge, St. Mary’s Church at Oxford, and, to crown all, the moonlit room in the palace upon which the curtain finally descends ? What costumier would not lavish all the resources of his art on the dresses of the gay and gorgeous lords and ladies that throng the scene ? What musician would not feel himself inspired by the two exquisite lyrics it contains, to say nothing of the musical “setting” which would be requisite to its perfection? And finally, what actor would not strive to find n place in the “ cast” of a piece in which scarcely a single character is ineffective, while that of Mary herself will, we believe, be found to be one of the most difficult, and consequently most honorable roles in the whole list of English heroines ? We now turn to the second part of our consideration, which suggests a series of interrogatories very different from the preceding. Where is there a theatre in which this great work could possibly be adequately represented without entailing ruin on all concerned ? Where is there a company capable of representing it, and a series of audiences capable of appreciating it ? Echo answers “ Where To which we again reply, “ Perhaps in Franco or Germany—certainly not in England.” Seldom before has the want of a subsidised theatre, whose existence does not depend upon its “paying,” come home so forcibly to us. Here we see a work of genius capable of affording the highest esthetic pleasure to the cultivated, and of contributing largely and healthfully to the education of the masses, comparatively thrown away because the richest nation in the world in wealth and in dramatic literature does not possess a theatre which can afford to produce great national dramas in a respectable fashion. Truly a melancholy spectacle ! The materials for its representation are scattered profusely around if they could only be collected. Indeed, we could at the present moment name actors and actresses who, could they only be brought together, would be capable of representing it insurpassably—yet none but an enthusiast can dream for an instant of such a consummation being within the range of human possibility. While the present order of things lasts, its adequate representation is out of the question, and it is to be hoped that no rash manager will attempt its production on his own resources—for while, if well played, it would be a triumph of theatrical art, if badly played, it would prove such a failure as is never witnessed even in this era of failures, tor the stage management alone would, under ordinary circumstances, be an insuperable difficulty, and it is, from its very nature, totally lacking in that sensational interest of intrigue which so often carries down bad acting, bad setting, and bad management.