In 1844, Mr. Macready visited the United States. He and Mr. Forrest had become intimate in England; and here, Mr. F. tendered him the courtesies due to so distinguished a professional brother; but it so happened, that in most of the cities where Macready was engaged, there were more theatres than one—and, of consequence, rival managers. Where one of these had secured Mr. Macready, the other was anxious to get the best talent to be found to run against him; and there was no one so available as Mr. Forrest—who is not the man to refuse a profitable engagement, nor did any rule of courtesy require that he should do so.
The result was, that the constant rivalry of Forrest, though carried on in the most friendly manner, could not fail to injure the success of Macready. A certain degree of partizanship was everywhere excited—for Forrest was everywhere placarded as the “American Tragedian,”—and the tour of Mr. Macready was comparatively a failure. A sensitive man could not but feel this; and whether he made any complaint or not, his friends saw what the difficulty was, and felt not a little chagrined about it; and when Mr. Forrest made his next and last professional visit to England, this feeling among the friends of Macready, in the theatrical press and the play-going public, found its vent. The opposition to him was, from the first, marked and fatal; and, so far as the metropolis was concerned, his tour was a failure. It was only in the provinces—away from London influence—that he met with any degree of success.
There was no need of Mr. Macready taking any active part in this matter; and there is no proof that he did so, but much to the contrary; but Mr. Forrest hastily and indignantly, and, we doubt not, sincerely, charged it upon Mr. Macready; and one night, when the latter was playing in “Hamlet,” at the Theatre in Edinburgh, Mr. Forrest, who was seated in a private box, had the bad taste, as well as bad feeling, to hiss a portion of his performance in the most marked and offensive manner.
The following letter from Mr. Forrest gives his own account of this affair, which differs somewhat from the statements of Mr. Macready’s friends, as will be seen hereafter.
To the Editor of the London Times,—Sir,—Having seen in your journal of the 12th instant, an article headed “Professional Jealousy,” a part of which originally appeared in The Scotsman published in Edinburgh, I beg leave, through the medium of your columns, to state, that at the time of its publication, I addressed a letter to the Editor of The Scotsman upon the subject, which, as I then was in Dumfries, I sent to a friend in Edinburgh, requesting him to obtain its insertion; but as I was informed, The Scotsman refused to receive any communication upon the subject. I need say nothing of the injustice of this refusal. Here then I was disposed to let the matter rest, as upon more mature reflection, I did not deem it worth further attention; but now, as the matter has assumed “a questionable shape” by the appearance of the article in your journal, I feel called upon, although reluctantly, to answer it.
There are two legitimate modes of evincing approbation and disapprobation in the theatre—one expressive of approbation, by the clapping of hands, and the other by hisses to mark dissent; and as well-timed and hearty applause, is the just meed of the actor who deserves well, so also is hissing, a salutary and wholesome corrective of the abuses of the stage; and it was against one of these abuses that my dissent was expressed, and not, as was stated, “with a view of expressing his (my) disapproval of the manner in which Mr. Macready gave effect to a particular passage.” The truth is, Mr. Macready thought fit to introduce a fancy dance into his performance of “Hamlet,” which I thought, and still think, a desecration of the scene, and at which I evinced that disapprobation, for which the pseudo-critic is pleased to term me an “offender,” and this was the only time during the performance that I did so, although the writer evidently seeks, in the article alluded to, to convey a different impression. It must be observed also, that I was by no means “solitary” in this expression of opinion.
That a man may manifest his pleasure or displeasure after the recognised mode, according to the best of his judgment, actuated by proper motives, and for justifiable ends, is a right, which, until now, I have never once heard questioned, and I contend, that right extends equally to an actor, in his capacity as a spectator, as to any other man; besides, from the nature of his studies, he is much more competent to judge of a theatrical performance than any soidisant critic, who has never himself been an actor. The writer of the article in The Scotsman, who has most unwarrantably singled me out for public animadversion, has carefully omitted to notice the fact, that I warmly applauded several points of Mr. Macready’s performance; and more than once I regretted that the audience did not second me in so doing. As to the pitiful charge of professional jealousy preferred against me, I dismiss it with the contempt it merits, confidently relying upon all those of the profession with whom I have been associated, for a refutation of this slander.
Yours, respectfully,
Edwin Forrest.
March, 1846.
—Times, 4th of April.
CHAPTER THIRD.
THE QUARREL RECOMMENCED IN AMERICA.
Mr. Forrest, chagrined by his failure in England, and maddened at what he imagined to be the malign influence of Macready, returned to the United States after a vain attempt to secure an engagement in Paris, in which he supposed the same influence had defeated him. He had publicly hissed Macready in Edinburgh, had avowed the act, and given his reasons. His friends here felt much as the friends of Mr. Macready had felt in England; and when the latter last year came on another professional visit to the United States, he found that a bitter feeling had been raised against him, which found its first expression, so far as we know, in the following article, that appeared in the Boston Mail on the morning of Mr. Macready’s appearance at the Howard Athenæum, Boston, Monday, Oct. 30th, 1848.
[Boston Mail, Oct. 30th, 1848.]
More about Macready—His abuse of Forrest in Europe—Endeavors to put him down in Paris, London and Edinburgh—His Intrigue with Bulwer to prevent Forrest playing in Bulwer’s Pieces—His Abuse of Americans.
Mr. Macready has at length arrived, and next to the grand water celebration, will create such excitement, as will emphatically mark the present epoch in time’s calendar. He plays this evening at the Howard Athenæum, and refuses to show himself for less than one dollar a ticket. This was his price in New York, and with the exception of the first night, resulted in a “beggarly account of empty boxes.” We repeat what we said in a former article, that Mr. Pelby, the enterprising manager of the National Theatre, deserves immortal honors for not acceding to the dictatorial terms of this actor autocrat. Although Macready saw fit on his opening night in New York, on being called out by some friends, to slur a “certain penny paper,” that had “dared” to express an opinion regarding his talents and conduct, we shall not by any means give him the retort churlish; we only pity his ignorance of the institutions of this country, and hope for his own credit’s sake that he will not, when he gets home, write a black book about American manners, &c., a la Trollope and others, but if he does, that he will spare us in the production of his brain. The reader will no doubt ask, what fault we find with Mr. Macready. Has he not the same right as other men have, to do as he pleases? We answer yes. He has a right to come to this country in the exercise of his profession; he has a right to demand a dollar from every person who witnesses his acting, and if managers of Theatres are willing to accede to his arbitrary proposals, he has certainly a right to make them. We complain not of any of these. Our charges against Macready are based upon more important grounds. It is his conduct in his own country in relation to Mr. Forrest, that we are about investigating; his inhospitality, his crushing influence, his vindictive opposition, and his steadfast determination to ruin the prospects of that gentleman in England, that we bring to his door. Let him deny them if he can. Every true American takes a pride in that which represents his country’s interests, industry, and enterprise, and from the smallest commodity gathered from his soil to the loftiest labors of his genius, his ambition goes with it, and the strong arm of his power will protect it in every clime. Mr. Edwin Forrest is titled the American Tragedian—he is justly entitled to that honor—he has acquired it by his own labors; from a poor boy in a circus, he has arisen to be a man of fame and wealth, all of which he has lastingly gained by enterprise and talent, and secured both by economy and TEMPERANCE.
Every American-born man is willing that Mr. Forrest should wear this title, and when he visited England they were anxiously interested in his success. Macready had previously been in this country, and played engagements in every city, and made a fortune. He was extolled by the press, and treated as a gentleman by the citizens of ever place visited. But instead of returning this kindness, he acted openly towards Mr. Forrest as his determined foe. We speak by card, and write upon the very best information, viz., the highest authority. In Paris Mr. Macready and Mr. Forrest met. The latter was anxious to [Pg 11] appear on the French boards; but Macready threw obstacles in the way, and this was the first time that the two parties were enemies. Mr. Mitchell, the enterprising lessee of St. James Theatre in London, took an English company of actors to the French capital, with Mr. Macready at the head of the list. Macready was to be the hero—the great attraction of Paris. He failed, however, to draw money to the treasury, and Mr. Mitchell lost a large sum by the speculation, or rather would have lost it, if Louis Philippe had not made him most liberal presents. Mr. Forrest had letters of introduction to Mr. Mitchell from his friends in London, but Macready was jealous, lest Forrest should prove to be the great star, and he cautioned Mitchell not to allow Forrest to appear. The result was that Mr. Mitchell refused to see Mr. Forrest.
The parties returned to London. The hypocrisy of Macready is apparent in his note of invitation to Mr. Forrest to dine with him. The latter, knowing the intrigue that had been carried on in Paris between Macready and Mitchell, refused, as every high-minded man should, to dine with him. This is a very different version to that recently given by some of Macready’s friends—if friends he have—that Forrest was offended because he was not invited to dine; as if such a man as Mr. Forrest could take offence at such a trifle, when at the same time he was invited to dine with many of the leading nobility of England, but especially of Scotland, where he passed several months as their guest.
The next mean act towards Forrest, brought about through the influence of Macready, was when Mr. F. appeared at the Princess’s Theatre in London. Mac had been endeavoring for a long time to effect an engagement with some London manager, but was unsuccessful. The success of Forrest stung him, and he resolved to “put him down.” It was said at the time that he or his friends actually hired men to visit the theatre, and hiss Forrest off the stage, and Forrest was consequently received with a shower of hisses before he was heard. This mean conduct was followed up by the press, by which Forrest was most outrageously assailed, and not Forrest alone, but his country, which is proud to own him as one of her sons.
Forrest and Macready next met in Edinburgh, and from this city were sent forth the grossest calumnies against Forrest. Macready was playing at the Theatre Royal in Hamlet—Forrest was present. During the beginning of the piece Mr. Forrest applauded several times, and, as we are informed by an eyewitness, he started the applause when some brilliant effect had been given to a passage, so that the whole house followed him. But now comes Forrest’s great sin—that giant sin which Mac will never forgive—the sin of hissing Macready for dancing and throwing up his handkerchief across the stage in the Pas de Mouchoir.
Mr. F. not only hissed, but the whole house hissed, and yet Macready dared to write to London, that Forrest had singly and alone attempted to hiss him from the stage.
To show that Mr. Forrest was not alone in this matter, we are able to state that two weeks afterwards Hamlet was repeated, when the whole house again hissed Macready’s dance across the stage.
Out of this simple incident Macready contrived to create a great deal of sympathy for himself. He is, or was, part proprietor of the London Examiner; or if not sole owner, he possesses the body and soul of its theatrical critic, Foster, who does all kinds of dirty work for his master. Macready gave the cue to Foster, and Forrest was denounced by the Examiner and other papers, in which Foster or Mac had any influence. A false coloring was put on this affair, and Mac appeared to the world as a persecuted man, whereas Forrest was the one who met with persecution at every corner—in Paris, in London, in Edinburgh, and in London a second time.
But Macready’s persecution did not stop here. Forrest wished to appear in London, in Bulwer’s Lady of Lyons and Richelieu. To do this, permission must be obtained of the author. Forrest addressed a note to Bulwer, asking his terms for the plays. After a long delay, Bulwer replied, that he should charge Forrest £2 per night for the use of them, and he must play 40 nights! Such terms for plays, that had in a great measure lost their interest, compelled Forrest to reject them. It was ascertained that Macready and Bulwer had been much [Pg 12] together, and that the former had prevailed on the latter not to allow Forrest the use of his compositions.
Forrest could not entertain any jealous feelings towards Mac, for he drew crowded houses during his engagement at the Princess’s Theatre, whereas Macready had very slim audiences; and on one occasion we know that our own charming actress, Mrs. Barrett, on one of the off-nights, at the time Mac was playing, actually drew more money to the treasury than Macready.
We have now given a plain statement of facts, and such as cannot be controverted. It proves that actors, like Macready, Anderson, and others, find it very hard scratching in their own country, and much better pickings here. It is to be hoped, however, that we Americans will finally become awakened to the mercenary motives of such artistes, and when we have any surplus of dollars to spend, that we will be generous and just to our own home genius.
Here is displayed the feeling of the friends of Mr. Forrest, and to a great extent of Mr. Forrest himself, for the writer of this article asserts that its statements are made on the “very highest authority.” On his part Mr. Macready unwisely alluded to this article in one of his before-the-curtain speeches, speaking contemptuously of the attacks of a certain penny paper. But the Bostonians are a quiet people, and Macready and Forrest played through their engagements without any popular demonstration. At New York Macready played at the Opera House, and Forrest at the Broadway Theatre. There were rumors of a disturbance, but they amounted to nothing. Both engagements were finished in peace, and both actors went to fulfil engagements at the rival theatres in Philadelphia.