Jas. H. Hackett, 64 Reed Street, New York
Many such prize contests were the fashion of the day.
Mr. James K. Hackett, in reminiscence, writes: "My mother used to tell me that Joe Jefferson played the part like a German, whereas _Rip_ was a North River Dutchman, and in those days dialects were very marked in our country. But my father soon became identified with the part of _Falstaff_, and he used to say, 'Jefferson is a younger man than I, so I'll let him have _Rip_. I don't care to play against him'."
A stage version of the Irving story was made by one John H. Hewitt, of Baltimore, and during the season of 1833-34 was played in that city by William Isherwood. It was after this that Charles Burke (1822-1854) turned his attention to the play, and, as is shown in the text here reproduced, drew heavily upon Kerr. Winter says that he depended also upon the dramatic pieces used by Flynn and Parsons. The date of the first essayal of the part in New York was January 7, 1850, at the New National Theatre. But, during the previous year, he went with the play to the Philadelphia Arch Street Theatre, where his half-brother, Joseph, appeared with him in the r�le of _Seth_. Durang, however, disagrees with this date, giving it under the heading of the "Summer Season of 1850 at the Arch Street Theatre," and the specific time as August 19. In his short career Burke won an enviable position as an actor. "He had an eye and a face," wrote Joe Jefferson, "that told their meaning before he spoke, a voice that seemed to come from the heart itself, penetrating--but melodious." He was slender, emaciated, sensitive,--and full of lively response to things. Like all of the Jeffersons, he was a born comedian, and critics concede that W. E. Burton feared his rivalry. Between Burke and his half-brother, there was a profound attraction; they had "barn stormed" together, and through Burke's consideration it was that Joe was first encouraged and furthered in Philadelphia. Contrasting Burton and Burke, Jefferson wrote in his "Autobiography:"
Burton coloured highly, and laid on the effects with a liberal brush, while Burke was subtle, incisive and refined. Burton's features were strong and heavy, and his figure was portly and ungainly. Burke was lithe and graceful. His face was plain, but wonderfully expressive. The versatility of this rare actor was remarkable, his pathos being quite as striking a feature as his comedy. { ~HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS~} His dramatic effects sprung more from intuition than from study; and, as was said of Barton Booth, "the blind might have seen him in his voice, and the deaf have heard him in his visage."