Individuality—Its Bearing Upon the Art of Utterance [pp. 302-304]

Individuality-Its Be(ring upon the Art of Utterance.
The gallant Martin and Vizitelly, congenial spirits among genial men, who wished
only to be happy and to make happiness
among their fellows, have both left hosts of
friends to mourn over their tragic and mysterious fates-the one with his grave in the
mighty deep, the other amid the shifting sands
of the Sahara, and each the victim of consummate villains, who selfishly and fiendishly
subordinated all the rights and interests of
others to their own overwhelming and unholy ambition.
It is, also, worth recalling in these reminiscences that another of the companions of
Martin and Vizitelly, on the trip of the "Lillian" here recited, was Captain Young, who,
with a band of Confederates that had escaped into Canada from Northern prisons,
soon afterwards spread consternation along
our Canadian borders, by his sudden raid on
St. Albans, Vermnont. Captain Young still
survives, and in these piping and prosperous
days of "white-winged Peace," when Northmen and Southmen are friends once more, he
is a prominent railroad man, in the good old
commonwealth of Kentucky.
May our goodly land never again know these
hazards, and pangs, and desolations of civil
war, and may the world's records never again
be blackened by the name of so hideous a
monster in human form as was Alexander
Keith.
j W. A. Wright.
INDIVIDUALITY-ITS BEARING UPON THE ART OF UTTERANCE.
As there is no dissent to the opinion that
the study of the art of utterance is a most
important one, the fact of the unpopularity
of that study in most of our higher institutions of learning is to be explained. Surely,
nothing more can be done than is done in
the way of systematic development of the
voice; and rules have been given to cover,
apparently, every phase of expression. What,
then, is the radical error on the part of the
teacher of elocution? To me it is indicated
by a persistent and vain effort to lose his individuality-to sink it entirely-in such impersonations as are required by recitation or
declamation, and in encouraging his pupils
to do likewise. Even upon the stage, where
every theatrical help is extended, the actor
often fails, because he does not grasp the essential truth that the individuality of the
performer can never be absolutely lost in the
character assumed. It may sound paradoxical, but I venture the assertion that the fiurther the actor gets away from himself, the
worse is his acting.
It must be borne in mind, that this whole
business of the theater is a compromise between actor and audience. The auditors
agree that Mr. Booth, or Mr. Irving, or Mr.
Barrett, as the case might be, shall attempt
a certain impersonation; but at the same
time, it is tacitly understood that the actor
is simply tickling the imagination, and the
hearers will permit that agreeable operation
only to a limited extent. What is called
over-acting is but another name for insulting
the imagination of the audience. In fact,
the highest enjoyment of the cultured listener
is not in being carried away by, we will say,
the Hamlet of Booth, but in watching just
how far Mr. Booth can thrust his individuality into the representation of Hamrnlet. And
so it is that every actor who has achieved
signal success has discovered that he is best
fitted for one part-the part in which he can
best portray himself. Booth would. have
failed as Hamlet, were he not in his very
personality, seemingly, the studious, reserved,
melancholy counterpart of the "dreamy
Dane."
There seems to me a solid philosophy at
the bottom of this theory. We all love truth
better than falsehood: so we enjoy the attempt to personate (which is a truth) more
than the personation itself (which is a falsity).
Take other theatrical modern instances. I
will designate but a few. Sothern on the
[March),
302