Part 15 (1/2)
Kelly was incredulous however. ”But strange as it may appear,” he writes, ”I found it a fact that I could not get down a morsel. My embarra.s.sment was a great source of fun to Bannister and Suett, who were both gifted with the accommodating talent of stage feeding.
Whoever saw poor Suett as the lawyer in 'No Song no Supper,' tucking in his boiled leg of lamb, or in 'The Siege of Belgrade,' will be little disposed to question my testimony to the fact.” From this account, however, it is manifest that the difficulty of ”stage feeding,” as Kelly calls it, is not invariably felt by all actors alike. And probably, although the appet.i.tes of the superior players may often fail them, the supernumerary or the representative of minor characters could generally contrive to make a respectable meal if the circ.u.mstances of the case supplied the opportunity.
The difficulty that attends eating on the stage does not, it would seem, extend to drinking, and sometimes the introduction of real and potent liquors during the performance has led to unfortunate results.
Thus Whincop, to whose tragedy called ”Scanderbeg,” published in 1747, added ”a List of all the Dramatic Authors, with some Account of their Lives,” &c., describes a curious occurrence at the Theatre Royal in 1693. A comedy ent.i.tled ”The Wary Widow, or Sir Noisy Parrot,” written by one Higden, and now a very scarce book, had been produced; but on the first representation, ”the author had contrived so much drinking of punch in the play that the actors almost all got drunk, and were unable to get through with it, so that the audience were dismissed at the end of the third act.” Upon subsequent performances of the comedy no doubt the management reduced the strength of the punch, or subst.i.tuted some harmless beverage, toast-and-water perhaps, imitative of that ardent compound so far as mere colour is concerned. There have been actors, however, who have refused to accept the innocent semblance of vinous liquor supplied by the management, and especially when, as part of their performance, they were required to simulate intoxication. A certain representative of Ca.s.sio was wont to carry to the theatre a bottle of claret from his own cellar, whenever he was called upon to sustain that character. It took possession of him too thoroughly, he said, with a plausible air, to allow of his affecting inebriety after holding an empty goblet to his lips, or swallowing mere toast-and-water or small beer. Still his precaution had its disadvantages. The real claret he consumed might make his intemperance somewhat too genuine and accurate; and his portrayal of Ca.s.sio's speedy return to sobriety might be in such wise very difficult of accomplishment. So there have been players of dainty taste, who, required to eat in the presence of the audience, have elected to bring their own provisions, from some suspicion of the quality of the food provided by the management. We have heard of a clown who, entering the theatre nightly to undertake the duties of his part, was observed to carry with him always a neat little paper parcel. What did it contain?
bystanders inquired of each other. Well, in the comic scenes of pantomime it is not unusual to see a very small child, dressed perhaps as a charity-boy, crossing the stage, bearing in his hands a slice of bread-and-b.u.t.ter. The clown steals this article of food and devours it; whereupon the child, crying aloud, pursues him hither and thither about the stage. The incident always excites much amus.e.m.e.nt; for in pantomimes the world is turned upside-down, and moral principles have no existence; cruelty is only comical, and outrageous crime the best of jokes. The paper parcel borne to the theatre by the clown under mention enclosed the bread-and-b.u.t.ter that was to figure in the harlequinade. ”You see I'm a particular feeder,” the performer explained. ”I can't eat bread-and-b.u.t.ter of anyone's cutting. Besides, I've tried it, and they only afford salt b.u.t.ter. I can't stand that.
So as I've got to eat it and no mistake, with all the house looking at me, I cut a slice when I'm having my own tea, at home, and bring it down with me.”
Rather among the refreshments of the side-wings than of the stage must be counted that reeking tumbler of ”very brown, very hot, and very strong brandy-and-water,” which, as Dr. Doran relates, was prepared for poor Edmund Kean, as, towards the close of his career, he was wont to stagger from before the foot-lights, and, overcome by his exertions and infirmities, to sink, ”a helpless, speechless, fainting, bent-up ma.s.s,” into the chair placed in readiness to receive the shattered, ruined actor. With Kean's prototype in acting and in excess, George Frederick Cooke, it was less a question of stage or side-wing refreshments than of the measure of preliminary potation he had indulged in. In what state would he come down to the theatre? Upon the answer to that inquiry the entertainments of the night greatly depended. ”I was drunk the night before last,” Cooke said on one occasion; ”still I acted, and they hissed me. Last night I was drunk again, and I didn't act; they hissed all the same. There's no knowing how to please the public.” A fine actor, Cooke was also a genuine humorist, and it must be said for him, although a like excuse has been perhaps too often pleaded for such failings as his, that his senses gave way, and his brain became affected after very slight indulgence.
From this, however, he could not be persuaded to abstain, and so made havoc of his genius, and terminated, prematurely and ign.o.bly enough, his professional career.
Many stories are extant as to performances being interrupted by the entry of innocent messengers bringing to the players, in the presence of the audience, refreshments they had designed to consume behind the scenes, or sheltered from observation between the wings. Thus it is told of one Walls, who was the prompter in a Scottish theatre, and occasionally appeared in minor parts, that he once directed a maid-of-all-work, employed in the wardrobe department of the theatre, to bring him a gill of whisky. The night was wet, so the girl, not caring to go out, intrusted the commission to a little boy who happened to be standing by. The play was ”Oth.e.l.lo,” and Walls played the Duke. The scene of the senate was in course of representation.
Brabantio had just stated:
My particular grief Is of so flood-gate and o'erbearing nature, That it engluts and swallows other sorrows, And it is still itself--
and the Duke, obedient to his cue, had inquired:
Why, what's the matter?
when the little boy appeared upon the stage, bearing a pewter measure, and explained: ”It's just the whisky, Mr. Walls; and I couldna git ony at fourpence, so yer awn the landlord a penny: and he says it's time you was payin' what's doon i' the book.” The senate broke up amidst the uproarious laughter of the audience.
Upon our early stage a kind of biscuit--a ”marchpane”--was consumed by the players when they required to eat upon the stage. In ”Romeo and Juliet” one of the servants says: ”Good thou, save me a piece of marchpane.” In Marston's ”What you Will” occurs the pa.s.sage:
Now work the cooks, the pastry sweats with slaves, The marchpanes glitter.
And in Brome's ”City Wit” Mrs. Pyannet tells Toby Sneakup: ”You have your kickshaws, your players' marchpanes--all show and no meat.”
Real macaroni in ”Masaniello,” and real champagne in ”Don Giovanni,”
in order that Leporello may have opportunities for ”comic business” in the supper scene, are demanded by the customs of the operatic stage.
Realism generally, indeed, is greatly affected in the modern theatre.
The audiences of to-day require not merely that real water shall be seen to flow from a pump, or to form a cataract, but that real wine shall proceed from real bottles, and be fairly swallowed by the performers. In Paris, a complaint was recently made that, in a scene representing an entertainment in modern fas.h.i.+onable society, the champagne supplied was only of a second-rate quality. Through powerful opera-gla.s.ses the bottle labels could be read, and the management's sacrifice of truthfulness to economy was severely criticised. The audience resented the introduction of the cheaper liquor as though they had themselves been constrained to drink it.
As part also of the modern regard for realism may be noted the ”cooking scenes” which have frequently figured in recent plays. The old conjuring trick of making a pudding in a hat never won more admiration than is now obtained by such simple expedients as frying bacon or sausages, or broiling chops or steaks, upon the stage in sight of the audience. The manufacture of paste for puddings or pies by one of the _dramatis personae_ has also been very favourably received, and the first glimpse of the real rolling-pin and the real flour to be thus employed has always been attended with applause. In a late production, the opening of a soda-water bottle by one of the characters was generally regarded as quite the most impressive effect of the representation.
At Christmas-time, when the shops are so copiously supplied with articles of food as to suggest a notion that the world is content to live upon half-rations at other seasons of the year, there is extraordinary storing of provisions at certain of the theatres. These are not edible, however; they are due to the art of the property-maker, and are designed for what are known as the ”spill and pelt” scenes of the pantomime. They represent juicy legs of mutton, brightly streaked with red and white, quartern loaves, trussed fowls, turnips, carrots, and cabbages, strings of sausages, fish of all kinds, sizes, and colours; they are to be stolen and pocketed by the clown, recaptured by the policeman, and afterwards wildly whirled in all directions in a general ”rally” of all the characters in the harlequinade. They are but adroitly painted canvas stuffed with straw or sawdust. No doubt the property-maker sometimes views from the wings with considerable dismay the severe usage to which his works of art are subjected. ”He's an excellent clown, sir,” one such was once heard to say, regarding from his own standpoint the performance of the jester in question; ”he don't destroy the properties as some do.”
Perhaps now and then, too, a minor actor or a supernumerary, who has derided ”the sham wine-parties of Macbeth and others,” may lament the scandalous waste of seeming good victuals in a pantomime. But, as a rule, these performers are not fanciful on this, or, indeed, on any other subject. They are not to be deceived by the illusions of the stage; they are themselves too much a part of its shams and artifices.
Property legs of mutton are to them not even food for reflection but simply ”properties,” and nothing more.
CHAPTER XXIII.
STAGE WIGS.
Wigs have claims to be considered amongst the most essential appliances of the actors; means at once of their disguise and their decoration. Without false hair the fictions of the stage could scarcely be set forth. How could the old look young, or the young look old, how could scanty locks be augmented, or baldness concealed, if the _coiffeur_ did not lend his aid to the costumier? Nay, oftentimes calvity has to be simulated, and fict.i.tious foreheads of canvas a.s.sumed. Hence the quaint advertis.e.m.e.nts of the theatrical hairdresser in professional organs, that he is prepared to vend ”old men's bald pates” at a remarkably cheap rate. King Lear has been known to appear without his beard--Mr. Garrick, as his portrait reveals, played the part with a clean-shaven face, and John Kemble followed his example; but could the ghost of Hamlet's father ever have defied the poet's portraiture of him, and walked the platform of Elsinore Castle without a ”sable-silvered” chin? Has an audience ever viewed tolerantly a bald Romeo, or a Juliet grown gray in learning how to impersonate that heroine to perfection? It is clear that at a very early date the players must have acquired the simple arts of altering and amending their personal appearance in these respects.
The accounts still extant of the revels at court during the reigns of Elizabeth and James contain many charges for wigs and beards. Thus a certain John Ogle is paid ”for four yeallowe heares for head-attires for women, twenty-six s.h.i.+llings and eightpence;” and ”for a pound of heare twelvepence.” Probably the auburn tresses of Elizabeth had made blonde wigs fas.h.i.+onable. John Owgle, who is no doubt the same trader, receives thirteen s.h.i.+llings and fourpence for ”eight long white berds at twenty pence the peece.” He has charges also on account of ”a black fyzician's berde,” ”berds white and black,” ”heares for palmers,”