EDWIN FORREST.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5197, 17 November 1877, Page 1 (Supplement)

EDWIN FORREST.

A SKETCH OF THE GREAT TRAGEDIAN BY A BROTHER ACTOR. (From tho San Francisco Bulletin, October 4.) An article on Edwin Forrest iu the forthcoming number of the Galaxy, from the pen of Lawrence Barrett, commands attention as tho opinion of ah intelligent actor and a friend of the famous tragedian. Mr. Barrett’s article is in a measure a review of Mr. Alger’s “ Life of Forrest,” with which lie expresses himself as disappointed. “ Tho most that can be claimed for this work,” says Mr. Barrett, “is tho endeavor of the biographer to maintain his hero upon the highest of human standards.” In this magazine article the writer does not attempt to review even the leading incidents in Forrest's life, but simply “ to pay a tribute of reverent affection for a great man and a lost friend.” After some general remarks on the drama, and Mr. Forrest as one of its best exponents, Mr. Barrett says : My own acquaintance with the great man began one winter’s evening twenty years ago. Corning to New York, a stranger and a youth, I saw Mr. Forrest announced as “ Lear ” at the old Broadway Theatre. The impression of that * performance has never been effaced by any subsequent effort of his, and has certainly never been disturbed by that of any other actor. His greatest Shaksperian parts were “ Lear,” “ Othello,” aud “ Ooriolauus.” The former grew mellow and rich as age came on, while it still retained much of its earlier force. His “ Othello ” suffered from the same causes, although his grand intellect was apparent to the last in ail his work. “ Coriolanus ” died with him—“the last of tho Romans.” He was greatest, however, in such parts as “ Virginia,” “William Toll,” and “Spartaous.” Here tho mannerisms of tho man were leas apparent than iu his Shaksperian performances, and were overlooked in the rugged massiveness of the whole creation. “ Hamlet, “ Richard,” and “ Macbeth ” were out of his temperament, and his performances of these were unworthy of hia fame. ... I can testify to tho warm interest which Mr. Forrest took in all young actors who seemed earnestly to desire advancement and were willing to labor for that end. While I was fulfilling an engagement at the Chestnut-street Theatre in Philadelphia many years ago, Mr. Forrest, then at home for hia vacation, occupied a box nearly

every eveuiug during my performances, and between the acts lie would send me in a fewlines upon a card of an encouraging character, o.‘ point out Homo error which he had detected. I was only too happy to be thus instructed, and felt deeply the compliment paid to me in this way. In all his suggestions and corrections 1 found him to be in the right. I never rebelled but once, and ho kindly referred mo to the authorities upon the subject, when I was taught humility, and my apology and thanks covered the shame of my rebellion. During the engagement I saw much of him socially, and rarely discovered any of those harsh features of character for which he was noted among men. Ho spoke invariably of his fellow actors with tenderness, and when ho had been deceived or his confidence had been abused be silently passed the offender by. In this respect, I presume, his conduct had undergone a change from his earlier habit. Success had made him egotistical,' certainly, and this egotism showed itself sometimes in ft humorous way, sometimes in a serious one. . . . My last days with him were passed in New Orleans, where ho was acting, and I was remaining to assist in the opening of the new theatre there there. Hia health was poor, and he rarely left his room till evening. He would send for me in the morning for breakfast, and it was a pleasure to me to know that I could assist him in mitigating the ennui of a sick room. Here I learned how extensive had been his reading and how much of his education he owed to his professional training. He often declared that to be a successful actor a man must have acquired a liberal education in the progress of his professional work. He certainly was an excellent illustration of hia own theory. He loved books keenly, and knew them, too. He was going through Texas on his way home, after finishing his engagement in New Orleans, and I sent him for his reading eu route a copy of Decky's “ Rationalism,” which he had never met. He wrote me a most flattering letter of thanks from Galveston, the last I ever had from his hands, and particularly dwelt upon the favor I had done him in calling to his knowledge an author who paid such a tribute to our profession, a fact which alone would have made him an admirer of Lecky. The impresssion he left upon me I have tried to tell in this brief sketch, and I am only paying a debt to a friend when I ask that when the faults of Mr. Eorfest are rehearsed justice may be done to his virtues, which would more than trim the balance. In summingupa lifelike this, where strength and weakness are in forcible contrast, it is impossible to deny that no man had appeared before his time who was destined to exercise so great an influence upon the drama as he did. He loved his art with all the fondness of woman, and he gave his life and fortune to it. Possessing the grandest qualifications for an actor, he omitted no labor to improve himself, scorning alike the evasions of the sluggard and the trickery of the charlatan.