mr. george jean nathan presents - forgotten books

MR. GEORGE J EAN NA THAN

PRESENTS

NEW YORK ALFRED A . KNOPF MCMXVII

An After-Piece of Mo re o r L ess Cr itica l

Confiden ces and Mem o irs TouchingL ightly Upon the Va r ious Som e

things Which Go to Con sti

tute Wha t is Ca lled the

Am erican Thea tre

CONTENT S

THE PHILOSOPHY OF PHILISTIA (Sa luta to ry ) 1 1

THE HAWKSHAVIAN DRAMA. 23

THE AMERICAN MU SIC SHOW. 43

THE COMMERCIAL THEATRICAL MISMAN

ACER . 53LEGEND ’S END. 66

THE FOLLIES OE 19 1 7 , B . C. 86

SLAPSTICKS AND ROSEMARY . 94

PANTALOONS A-POSTURE . 108

THE BLACK ART. 1 15

THE CASE FOR BAD MANNERS. 1 22

THE VAUDEVILLES . 1 33A FEW PAGES OF DESTRUCTIVE DRAMATICCRITICISM . 140

WHY SCHMIDT LEFT HOME. 1 55

THE DRAMATIC CRITIC AND THE UNDRAMATICTHEATRE . 1 70

AMERICA ’S MOST INTELLECTUAL ACTRESS . 1 83

MYTHS OF MOMU S . 205REALISMU S. 2 1 1POLISH VERSUS SH INE . 220THE CUT-RATE MIND AND THE PREM IU MSEAT. 228

MISTS OF DELUSION . 239

CURTAIN-RAISERS AND HAIR-RAI SERS . 262

Con ten ts

THE CASE OF MR. WINTHROP AMEs. 278

A CLINICAL REPORT. 282

AUDIENCES,

ACTING AND SOME O THERFARCES . 293

STUPIDITY AS A FINE ART (Va ledicto ry) 303

The id ea l cr itic is p ictured by the créwd,

now as a m ileston e ‘sta nd ing up o n the a n tique

ways,’

n ow as a finger -p ost o n the‘high p r i o r i

’

r oad . I ha v e ta ken the less sta tely v iew of h imas a v aga bo nd , who a ccep ts h is im p r essions as

they com e, a nd cha nges h is m o ods w ith his

ho r izons. Hence, like o ther v agrom m en, I

ha v e ha d a n instin ctiv e r epugna nce f o r the m ethods o f the B en ch .

!

—ARTHUR B INGHAMWALKLEY, MDCCCXCII

MR. GEORGE J EAN NATHAN

PRESENTS

THE PHILOSOPHY OF PHILISTIA

(Sa luta to ry)

OTHING i s so essentia lly undram at ic a sclea r thinking. Variou s attem pts to devi se serious dram a o ut O f the thoughtful

figure s o f hi story— o ut , even , o f reflect ive figure so f the playwright ’ s fancy have fo r the m o st p artrolled the stone o f S i syphus . A play with JohnStuart Mill, Herbert Spencer or Renan for its central r61e would la st o ut probably one evening inthe theatre . The meditative man , when em ployedfo r purpose s of the playhouse , must, i f he would beused at all , be made the figure o f fa rce in nubibus

,

a s with Napoleon in Sans Gén e and “The Man

o f Destiny, ! or the figure o f cheap gi lt-furn i turecom edy, a s with Disra eli in the play o f Lou i s N.

Parker . Fo r the needs o f the stage , the thinkerm ust be opera ted upon , hi s hea rt placed in hi s head ,hi s mind placed in hi s bosom . I t i s , indeed, thefirst rule o f the a cting stage that the hero must notthink out the drama to i ts conclusion but that

, per1 1

1 2 Mr . Geo rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

co ntra,the drama must think out the hero to his

conclus ion .

In pla ine r phrase, the central figure o f a playmust be influenced not from within , but from without. If , for exam ple , on e were to write a p lay withFriedri ch Wilhelm Ni etzsche a s the hero , the dramawould needs be generated and carried on to i ts cl im acter ic consumm ation n o t by that gentleman’ s energetic mind and philosophie s , but rather by the Obj ection to tha t energeti c mind and phi losophie s onthe part of the leading lady. There can be no substan tia l thought in the drama of the Stage . Suchdram a i s crea ted rather out o f a contradiction andnegation o f thought : by proving e i ther tha t thethought in point, while sound up to eleven O ’ clock,i s then and finally impracti cable i f not, indeed , ridiculous (a s in the instance o f Mr . Shaw’ s Tanner ) or that, while the thought may have beenquite rationa l a round quarter a fte r ten o ’ clock inAct I I , i t had not yet at that time r eal i zed that itswife was in a family way or that its loved one wa sdying o f tuberculosi s, and so witnessed i ts own intrinsic vacu ity.

Drama in its entirety cons ists in the surr ender o faccurate and judi cious thinking to emot ionali sme ither to the emotions o f i ts central figure or to theemotions o f its second figure (symbolic o f the mobemotion ) operating upon that centra l figure andforcing him , breathless and beaten , to the wall . Forthe parti a l victory of an U ndersha ft o r a Tr igo rin ,

The Ph ilosophy of Ph ilistia 13

there are the thousand routs o f the Johannes Vo ckerats and G abri e l Schill ings . The clock strikeseleven and the Jule s Lem aitres of Révoltée 3’ and“L

’

Age Difficile ,” the Bri euxs of “ La Fo i ,

” theSuderm anns of “ Der Sturm geselle Sokrates , an

wsthetize the i r minds and deck the ir hearts wi thda isi e s . But, here I wander prob ably somewhatafield afield from the popular stage .The lo gic o f the popula r stage i s a logi c not offa cts , but o f sensations and sentiments .” WhenHam let and Iago , when Brand and O rgon spaketruth o r m ade to think, such thoughts were keptapart from the direct action o f the drama and fromthe ears o f such other characte rs a s m ight interposeObj ection to them , in soli loquie s and a si des . The

thoughts so spoken were m ere pourbo ir es tossed bydramati st to audience , mere re fractory golden pennies— the l iterary man trium phing mom entari lyOver the stage merchant . The imperturbable r a i

so nneurs o f such drama a s G eorg Hirschfeld ’ s “AtHome ,

” Ha rtleben’

s“Education for Marriage ,”

Andreyev ’ s Savva ,” Wedekind ’ s Pandora ’ s Box

even such drama a s Galsworthy ’ s “ Eldest So no r the Howard-Mi zner Only Law (a playgreatly underrated ) are not for the popularstalls .The heart must do the thinking in the mob drama .

The mind of the stage protagon i st must never bemore a lert, more deeply informed , more practi sed ,than the mind of the average man who pays hi s two

14. Mr . G eo rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

dollars for a cha i r in the auditorium . And I bego f m y dear reader that he remem ber thi s when ,upon concluding these rem arks , he will feel himsel fm oved to di spatch me a saucy letter on the dubietyO f my designation of certa in stage heroes a s thinkers. I use the word , of course , but comparativelyI am chari table , f o r argument

’ s sake , to the paradox.

Mar ivaux observed that he did not bel ieve theplaywright shou ld be prohibited from thinking.

The playwright, true enough , may not be prohib itedfrom thinking— up to hi s la st act ; but woe to him ,

popularly speaking, i f he keep hi s reason cool andcle a r to final falling curta in . I here allude , ofcourse , to the maker o f what the publi c knows a sserious drama , that is to say drama , good or bad,purged of humour. This i s why present day playwrights possessed o f even hal f-way valid idea s seekto p rotect the ir box offi ce revenue s by giving the i ridea s a fa rcica l garb and even so , a s witness theinstance o f Brieux and Les Hannetons (the ideao f which i s a haul from Flaubert ) , frequently in theAnglo-Saxon theatre fa il . Such p laywrights ap

precia te tha t i t i s e ssentia l , i f they would play Wi thidea s in the theatre , first to impress the audience(by pretending the play i s fa rce ) with the notionthat the idea s a re ridi culous , thus gaining the audien ce

’

s will ingness to l isten to op inions whi ch the audience has not heard be fore , and thus also fl atteringthe audience ’ s ignorance by a ssuring i t that the idea s .

The Philosophy of Ph ilistia 1 5

are mere non sense and with no foundation in philo sophy or fact. This , a s wel l known, is the methodof Shaw. G eorge B irm ingham , in hi s excellent“ John Regan ,” wa s les s successful than hi s Ir i shcolleague in c aptivating the yoke lry for the rea sonthat he perm itted his farce to be slightly too logicaland so ra i sed the yo kelry

’

s susp icions that, a fter all ,there might be a grain o f truth in hi s centra l idea .The sam e idea wa s used, several years be fore B irm ingham em ployed i t, in a fa rce manner more susceptible of box-Oflice ho spital ity by a Spanish dramatist. In order to avoid all danger Of fa ilure evenin more p ractised Berl in Schmidt, having a goodidea , wrote two enti re ly di ff erent endings to one o fhi s farces and exp erim ented publ i cly w ith both inorder to determine which was the le s s in accord withdispass ionate logi c and hence more likely to charmtrans-Channel and trans-Atlanti c auditor iums werehi s play to be produced a t a di stance .When the thoughtful man i s l i fted onto the i llu

m ina ted platform , the cautious playm aker exerci se sa care sedulously to e l iminate from the characte r a llsuspicion o f the mind tha t ha s identified him in hi story. For the cautious playm aking fellow appreci

ates that the conception o f theatri cal a rt a s the ex

plo ita tion o f popula r superstition and ignorance , a sthe thrilling of poor bumpkins with ghosts

'

andblood, exciting them with blows and stab s , dup ingthem with tawdry a flecta tio ns o f rank and rhetor i c,thriving paras it ically on the i r moral d isea ses in

16 Mr . G eorge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

stead of purging the i r souls and refining the i r sensesthi s i s the tradition that the theatre finds i t hard toget away from .

”And so , the playmaker presents

Cromwe ll (Charles Cartwright’ s “ Colonel Crom

well i n term s o f an ancestra l Chauncey O l cott,Dante (Sa rdo u

’

s) in terms o f a paleo-LaurenceHope , and Jesus Chr i st (

“ Ben Hur a s a spotl ight .The sober , ser ious figure s o f h i story, whendramati zed for the stalls , are box-o fliced into so

m any Ma sca rilles of “ Les Précieuses , Cri sp in s of“ Le Légata i re and Scapin s of

“Les Fourberi e s ,

”

with right hands inserted into the bo soms of the i rPrince Alberts and brows a -wrinkle with the weightyproblem s imparted by a brown l ining-pencil and atouch of masca ro .In the dram a o f yesterday, i t was r equ i s ite that

the hero ine ’ s body be compromised ; in the drama ofto-day, i t i s requi s i te tha t the hero ’ s mind be comprom i sed . However sub stantia l the thought whichthe playm aker cause s to m otivate hi s hero , the playm ak er mus t bea r in mind thi s e stabli shed AngloSaxon formula : Act I , the hero has a sound idea ;Act II , he becom es doubtful a s to the soundness o fhi s idea ; Act III , he i s convinced that hi s sound ideai s absurd . Whether the hero i s o f the J . RufusWall ingford order or of the ra rer order of the centra l personage o f Galsworthy’ s The Mob

(though i t must b e con fess ed tha t Gal sworthy i s ingeneral one of the exceptions ) , the thing holds true .

The Ph ilosophy of Ph ilistia 17

And i f to thi s there come interposed the contentiontha t, after a ll, i t is only nature that one ’ s philosophy,wha tever its strength and v i ta li ty, be r iddled in themany am buscade s on the gre a t highway of l i fe , onemay but answer with Sir Les l i e Stephen tha t henever saw the word “ nature ” without instinctivelyputting himse lf on hi s guard aga inst som e bi t o fslip shod cri tici sm or Sham philo sophy, and that heheartily wished the word could be turned out o f thelanguage . The truth of the matter, o f course , i sthat for the most part these la st a ct changes o fphilo sophy and viewpoint are brought about not byGod ’ s nature , but by the Shuberts ’ . The hero ’ s philo sophy i s influenced , in the contemporaneous Ahglo-Saxon dram a , less by the be aring upon his ownbrain of the force o f other bra ins than by the scento f a wom an ’ s ha i r, Chri stm a s bells , and the spectacle o f a sm a ll blonde chi ld creep ing down thesta i rs in a nightgown . For this drama , in the l ineo f the Maj or Barbara that was , declines to regardthat there are la rger love s and diviner dreams thanthe fires ide ones .ButTo blam e thi s condition o f a ffa i rs , a s our current-dri fting playmakers a re forever so a flectio n a te

in blam ing i t, enti rely upon the audi ence , seem s atrifl e short-S ighted even to o ne, l ike myself, who apprecia tes only to o wel l from long and intim ate contact the vulgari ty and opalescence o f the li stles sgroups o f bedizened pot-wallope rs who smell out


o f court by the i r very patronage all that may bebeauti ful and worth-while in drama . Why shouldsound thinking, thought that sparkl es and crackl e slike burn ing diamond dust, idea s that, l ike so m anyr ings o f sm oke , di ssolve into wistful smiles and musings— why should these be beli eved i rrevocably tob e not the food of which theatr ica l am usement andstimulation are m ade ? The notion that the em o

tions o f a group of p ersons gathered into a the atreauditorium to witne s s drama will respond onlyo r a t le a st chicfly— to a l ike set of em otions displayed upon the pla tform before them i s prettypoor p sychology. The notion that such an audience may be made to cry only by showing i t ana ctress sn iflling or be made to feel j oyful only byexhibi ting to i t an ingénue sti cking her nose gle efully into a bouquet o f sweet pea s and m eanwhilehopp ing on one foot, seems a sorry concei t. Andby audience , in thi s connection and by way of reassuran ce

,i s meant no t what Dryden , in another di

r ection , described a s souls o f the highest rank andtruest understanding, but tha t mob something whi chi s eve r given less to cavia r than to sausage .There are certa inly more audience te ars , speak

ing pract i cally from the standpoint o f the popula rtheatre , in such a refl ective , hard and unsentim entalphilosophy a s i s conta ined in Shaw’ s Cze sa r ’s replyto Shaw’ s Cleopatra , Shall i t be Mark Antony ?than there a re in a round dozen such artifici a l quas ithroat-lumps a s Mr . B r o adhurst

’

s Henry Maple

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

20 Mr . G eo rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

will inevitably respond la rgely, i f not only, to a l itera l p icturization upon the stage of those same em o

tions i s akin to the . theory that an im press ionablea rt lover will , upon entering the G lyptothek inMunich and beholding the statue of Me rcury, forthw ith fee l l ike undressing himself— o r , som ewhatmore pertinently, tha t the lusty laughter o f Festeand Falstaff will bring out an equally lusty laughtero n the part o f the i r spectators . The oppos ite i s ,o f course , true . The laughter o f the Merry Wive sdepresses one , as the tyranny of the tears o f Haddon Chambers ’ heroine exhilarate s one .The stage , tru e enough , i s intrinsi cally no t the

place for thought, but one may therefore n o morefa irly say tha t thought cannot, and success fully, beplaced there than one may say that Jam es Hunekershould not contribute to the pages o f Puck . I t i smuch like Huneker ’ s own retort to the solemn sa

vant o f the Ev en ing Po st who l amented that thecri ti c Should be writing ser ious article s in a funnyp ape r . “ I t doesn ’ t strike me a s any m ore inco ngruous, repl i ed our James ,

“ than your writ in gfunny a rti cle s in a seri ous pape r . Freud would b eFreud in the pages o f Fliegende B latter ; Bourgetwould be Bourget in the pages o f L e Rir e ; Havelock Ell i s would be Havelock Ell i s in the pages o fthe Pink ’Un

,

° a smart inte ll igence would still,de

spite the distractions o f gamesome lights and enamcled cheesecloths , be intell igible and remunerativein the theatre . I have sa id, in my first sentence .

The Philosophy of Philistia 21

that nothing i s so essenti ally undramatic a s clea rthinking. Had I n o t bette r have sa id that nothingi s so e ssentia lly undram ati c a s the theatre which believ es thi s to be true and practi ses , so rigorously,i ts fa ith ?

L’Env o i

Such a p iece , however , a s Shaw’ s fanta sti c Get

ting Marr i ed ,” presented for the first tim e in Ameri ca in the Booth under the au spice s o f Mr . Faversham a pi ece that com es more or less unde r thehead o f a play o f idea s— misses o f e ff ect in thetheatre fo r the simple rea son that i t was nevermeant seriously by the author for the theatre .G etting Ma rried i s no more a theatre play thanShenandoah ” i s a book play . The notion thatany piece o f writing i s su i ted to the theatre merelybecause the nam es o f i ts cha racters a re indented andthe ir physical movements i tal i ci zed i s , despite Mr .

Shaw ’ s cunn ing and not a ltogether unconvincing ca

j‘

o lery o f the notion , a l i ttle l ike beli eving drama tobe only a matter o f typography. The truth i s thatthi s manuscrip t o f Shaw’ s i s pretty uncomfortablegoing in the playhouse . In the l ibra ry, i t i s am using enough f o r the s imple rea son that there butthe eye , a s the vi aduct to the m ind, i s called upon toengage i t. In the theatre , i t mi sses fo r the equallysim ple rea son that n o t only the eye , but the ea r a swell— to say nothing, recalling vividly the hardnes s o f the cha i r in J 1 4 , o f the nether phys iology


a re called upon to attend and r ece ive i t . Where ,therefore , in the library the manuscript give s amplereturn for the exerci se of a S ingle o rgan , in the theatre i t seem s somehow to be overcharging the phys ica l e ffort o f its reception two -and-thre efold . For inthi s manuscript there i s no ca ll , a s there i s ca ll inother m anuscripts o f Shaw, for a p inchable wenchto charm the vis ion a s Cleopatra , for a Drury Lanel ion to anti c i ts way with phys i cal j inks into one ’ ssurfa ce hum ours , for the ea r- ti ckl ing furi e s andcussings o f a giant to the Russian court, fo r the hazeo f a Joseph Harker m oonl i t Ni le nor the fisticuflsof an a thleti c young mummer . And so there i ssmall call here to dim the reading lamp and ra is ethe footlights .

“G ett ing Marri ed i s Shaw at hi s weakest : the

grea t ballyhoo hard a t work be fore the tent whena ll the freaks are o ff , fo r the time be ing, havingthe i r lunch . There i s , of course , wit to the p ie cehere and there a liberal sprinkling— but the

res ident im press ion i s o f the characte r in The F01'

tune T el le r ” who had a good j oke and wanted t oget some one to write a musi ca l comedy around i t.The manuscript reminds one o f a Wilde epigramrewritten by Dosto i evski .

THE HAWKSHAVIAN DRAMA

HE melodrama of our youthhood was basedlargely upon the theory that the m o st m o

m ento us cr i se s in l i fe occurred always inthe vi cinity of ra ilroad tracks or at the foot o f Pie r30, North River. The melodrama o f present-daygen i ture is based to a s im i la r degree upon the theorythat the most important eventual iti es in l i fe comeo ff always in the v icini ty o f long writing table sstanding in the centre o f l ibra ries in private house sand having on them a push button.

Melodrama , in short, has be en moved indoors .And with thi s removal ha s departed, ala s , the bulko f its erstwhile gaudy bounce , i ts sometime l ive lywi tcheri es , i ts quondam naive charm . Fo r melodram a , surely, belongs indoors n o more than a Barnum

’

s ci rcu s belongs in Madi son Square Gardenor upon the stage o f the Hippodrome . Melodram a , above every other mould o f drama , is es

sentia lly a thing o f“ exteriors .” Move i t unde r a

roo f and into inter iors and i t becomes cflem inate , m a idenly a thing to cu rve the sp ine and benum b the puls e . The current importing of an a i r,o f a saucy poli tene ss , into the melodram a o f thedays o f ten and twenty and thirty, has rendered soul

23

24. Mr . G e o rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts’

le ss tha t antic and favouri te prank of other tim es ,aye , ha s cau sed i t f o r the most p art to die a s a di stinctiv e , i f forsooth pecul i a r , art form f rom theearth . And what ha s tak en i ts pla ce ? Melodram ain nam e on ly— a speci e s o f ha rlequinade ne i thergood melodrama (in the O ld and true st theatri csense ) nor good dram a . A cheap and pos turingsynthes i s , ra ther , of the lea st gay and stim ulatingportion s of the two plasm s .Wherea s melodram a fa ll s without the front ie rso f criti ca l appra i sal , wherea s i t is, very frankly, designed merely to toy in innocent manne r with theblood pressure of the youngster that i s a part st il land ever o f all o f us, i t follows tha t the only equitable estimate o f melodrama i s in terms o f what thetheatr ical j a rgon knows a s getting ove r,” to w i t,the m ea sure o f success with which the Show regi sters upon the audience i ts component p arts , s ep ar a tely and collectively. And i t i s by such standarda lon e that com pari sons a re to be brought about.And i t i s by such standard, there fore , that we mustpersuade ourselve s tha t with the poss ible exceptio nof the interior melodram as o f Mr . William G il lette ,the two interior m e lodram as o f Mr . Bayard Veille rand the la st act interior o f “ Mr . Wu (a si t was done in London ) , there ha s b een n o t a S ingleso -called interio r melodram a unfe i gnedly prom ul

gated under the designation in our more modernepoch that ha s bounced our l i ttl e om ega s o ff the o rchestra cha irs with one-hundredth the resi li ence im

TheHawhsha v ia n Dram a 25

parted by the infin itely cruder exterior thr i ll co n f ections of the era o f The Soudan ” and A cro ssthe Pacific,” “

The Span o f Life ” and Burmah,”“The Queen o f the White Sl aves ” and the i llus

tr ious“Op ium Ring ” cycle , The Bowery After

Dark and “Wedded and Parted ,” “Tracked

Round the World and the Lincoln J . Carter oper a ,the Edna ” and Nell i e and “ Bertha ” dramaturgy of cloak m odels , typewriters and s ewing machine girls , The Chinatown Trunk Mystery and“The Cherry Pickers ” and “

One o f the Fine st.”

In that era , too , were there of course successfulexceptions to the exter ior rule— p iece s in which,l ike “ Blue Jean s and Nobody

’

s Cla im ,

” the extr em est perturbat ion wa s of an inte rior genderbut in nine ca se s out o f ten the batteri e s o f suchpap a s o f the p eriod a s Hal Re id , Owen Davis , Theodore Kremer and I saa c Swi ft were tra ined upon thestall vertebra from outdoo r sets . And in the instance even o f severa l o f the exceptions , the reallygrand j ounce of the occa sion was derived fromsource s intrins ica lly somewhat exoti c to an interior—the driving, for example , o f a horse through ap ine frame and plate -glass w indow, a s in “ No

body’ s Cla im .

”

A tea r for these noble o ld rough-houses that a regone . No pr icely Jane Cowl delivering an Harvard oration on the poo r working-gi rl ’ s v irtue fromthe w i tness box o f a “

Common Clay ” can ever


bring half so much l’a llegr o a s the twenty-five-dollara -week hamfatter who in Chinatown Charlieclimbed up the backs o f half a dozen other hamsstanding on each other’ s shoulders and rescued thelovely one who wa s be ing held pri soner by somem a lefic fellow on the top floor of an obscene pensio n .

No glo ssy Courtenay a s an Ir i sh soldier who enl i sts ,fo r purpose o f e spionage , a s an o flicer in the G erman a rmy in an “

U nder Fire ” can bring to blushthe proud mom ent in The Ninety and Nine whenthe b rave chiclet ran the express locomotive throughthe raging forest fire in order to save the l i fe o f theproducer. And no dinner-j acketed B arrymore punetur ing an offi ce r o f the law into som nolence with ahypodermi c needle in a Kick In can ever comparewi th the human bridge a cross the yawn ing abyss in“The Span o f Li fe ,

” or the b ig race b e tween theautomobile and the expres s tra in to beat the villa into Denver in B edfo rd

’

s Hope ,” or the tunnel res

cue in A fte r D ark ,” o r the deep -sea divers’ fea t inAt the Bottom of the Sea ,

” or the race o f the locomotive to ge t to the switch in “

The Fastthe horse race in The Sporting DuchessBoys will be boys— and so will men be boys.

And no Ro i Mcgrue li tera t ure w i ll ever sati s fy thema s did Tom Taylor’ s

BRIERLY ! rapidly closing trap-door on the v illa ins a nd

sta nding on it] . NOW ’S the tim e ! ! Seizes pen a nd wr ites,

r eading as he d oes so .] To Mr . G ibson, Peckham . The

oflice w ill be entered to -night ; I’m in it to save the prop

28 Mr . Geo rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

DALTON . My daughter !HEROINE !firm ly] . I don’t believe it ! ! To kind o ld

gen tlem a n .] Daddy ! Y ou who have been a daddy to m eso long ! Say it ain ’t true ! Say it ain ’t true !

but none other than Mi s s Laura Cour tlandt ,heires s to the Cour tla ndt millions , in whose cradle aspuriou s child had been placed when she was ab

ducted a t the age of thre e m onths by old Eleanor,the blackm a i ling nurse .Those , a s I say, my f ri ends , were high days inthe playhouse . Where now in the m om ent ’ s moremodish melo-piece the paradise o f such a thrill a schurned our fif teen-year-old haem oglob in when theproud Lady Audley, forefinger to brow, ponderedso Once wa s I fool enough to wed for love .Now I have marri ed for wealth . What a changefrom the wife o f G eorge Ta lboys to the wi fe o f SirMi chael Audley l My fool o f a fi rst husband thinksme dead . Oh excellent schem e , oh cunning device ,how we l l you have served me ! Where can he benow? Sti ll in India , no doubt ! Ha , ha , ha ! Why,I have only j ust begun to live to ta ste the sweets o fwealth and power . If I am dead to G eorge Ta lboys , he i s de ad to me . Yes , I am well rid o f him ,

and on thi s earth we meet n o m ore ! And when ,in the midst o f the haughty j ade ’ s meditations , we beheld G eorge him sel f s teal ing noi sele s sly up from therear, a t the meet no more fl i ck ing the Lady uponthe shoulder with a tr iumphant “ Yes , my proudb eauty, we do !

TheHawksha v ia n Dram a 29

There wa s a moment for you ! There wa s nomiss ing of i t. No r that other mom ent in the Western blood-and-thunder l ibretto o f name forgotten ,where noble old U ncle Dave and the detestable Earlo f Ramsey bantered thu swi se :

THE EARL. Y ou Am ericans a re a sangu ine lo t o f peo

ple .

U NCLE DAVE . Oh, I see ! You ’re an Englishm an, ain ’tyou ? They never kin believe how fast we grow in thiscountry. They won ’t believe that Geo rge Washington everm ade ’

em get o ut o f it either , but he did !THE EARL. Ah, m y dear fellow,

our country has grownup ! Y ou get em igrants to help build up your countrybut what a re they ?U NCLE DAVE . That’s so ; they don’t am ount to no thinguntil they com e here and inhale the free and f resh a ir o f

liberty. Then they becom e Am erican citizens and theyam ount to a great deal. Fer we build up the West and feedthe wo rld.

THE EARL . Feed the wo rld ! O h, no ! Certainly no tEngland.

UNCLE DAVE . Oh, yes , we do ! We’ve fed England.

We gave you a warm breakfast in 1 776, a bo iling dinner in1 8 1 2, and we go t a red-ho t supper wa itin ’ fo r you any tim eyou want it !

No r sti l l tha t othe r moment a t the end whereU ncle Dave , facing the Earl , shouted : Thesepapers were stole from m e and the estate s were secured— by you ! With the Earl ’ s snicker “ Ha ,and who i s an idio t enough to bel ieve such a sto ry.

”

With Pietro Spaghetti , the e rstwhile dago com edian ,stepping forward and excla iming,

“I am ! I am a


fool enough to beli eve i t ! I am a l so a fool enoughto bel ieve tha t one Jack Mayburn , a l ia s the Earl o fRamsey, i s wanted in Mi chigan for ki ll ing a keeperto escap e from j a i l . I am fool enough to be l i eveRam sey i s wanted for m urder , robbery, tra in wrecking, arson, kidnapping, em b ezzl ing, counte rfe i ting,burgla ry and Sa fe-bre aking ! With the Earl ’ sYou Itali an dog, wha t do you me an ? Cu rse s onyou— who are you ? ” And with Pi etro ’ s rem ovalo f his m oustache and imp eria l , and exclam ation“B o b B r enham ,

U n ited S ta tes de tectiv e,a t yo ur

serv ice !

But was thi s all ? Was the l itte'rateur o f thathappy day content, a s now, a t thi s juncture to resthi s typewriter ? No t on your li fe . “ Here ’ s mywa rrant,” continued the U n i te d State s detective ,“ and here (pr oducing a r ev o lv er ) i s my persuader l

”

Imagine the p icture , all you who still have a soul !Then recall the heroine ’ s Oh , Bob ! Bob , i s i t you ?(em br a cing him ) . And to think I didn ’t knowyou ! And reca ll how the villa inous Earl , takipgadvantage of the U n i ted State s de te ctive ’ s tem poraryabstraction , w ith the words , one da sh now for l ibe rty ! sought to e scap e R . U . E. and found him s el fconfronted a t that po int o f egress by O tto Sn i tzpo on erko oker , the erstwhile Dutch com ique , with agun . No you do an ’dt l (we rem ember Otto

’ swords a s i f they were spok en , ah , but yesterday ) ,“n o you do an ’dt . I ’m a Cherman dete ctive in der

Th eHawksha v ia n Dram a 3 I

employ o f Bob Brenham — ha , ha , ha ! And t e

call how now the evil Earl turned and da shed for thele ft upp er entrance where he wa s stopped, a lso a tthe nozzle o f a gun , by Gee Ho , the erstwhile Chinese pantaloon , with the grinned No t m uchee , youv ellie b ad m a n . Thi s p istol , he will hurta l ike bellic .

(Dr opping dia lect ) I am a Norwegian dete ctive alsoin the em ploy o f Bob Brenham !O n e grows warm yet a t the mere recollection .

What, indeed, i f certa in flaws appeared in the logico r certa in discrepanci es with a bland conspi cui ty inthe coinciden ces ? The old , strict and authenti cdefinition o f m e lodrama (from the Greek mean ingsong plu s action ) has ebbed long s ince . The wordha s taken on , these years gone , anothe r and le ssexact theatrical trans la tion .

Melodrama i s to dram a a s musi ca l comedy i s togrand op era . And me lodrama and musi ca l com edyhave much in common . Each holds the back o f themirror up to nature . In its bottom sense

,in good

sooth , what i s m elodrama but .musica l com edy playedwith a stra ight fa ce ? Sub stitute Willa rd Ma ck fo rFrank Dan ie ls in The Idol ’ s Eye and you have aWilkie Coll ins thri ller . Substi tute Dougla s Fa i rbanks for Raymond Hitchcock in “

The Red

Widow ” and you have back your b as i c ta le o f Russ ian intrigue and adventure . Or, on the othe r hand ,to test the rule , sub stitute Mr . Hitchcock fo r Mr .

Fairbanks in Hawthorne o f the U . S. A . , and youhave mu s i ca l com edy. I he dividing line ’ twixt the


two fo rms i s o f a ha i r ’ s breadth . Henry Blo s somm ight make a servi ceable l ibretto out o f U nderFire ” without a ltering more than a l ine or two .

And Augustus Thomas m ight without m uch m oredi ffi culty make a servi ceable m e lodram a out o fEv a or “

Royalty Dance s Waltzes ” o r “The

Waltz Dream or “ The Purple Road ” o r“ Little

Johnny Jone s G eorge Coban’ s musical comedi es , indeed , are already but Harry Clay Blaneymelodrama s embelli shed with Harrigan and Hartmelodie s .The old melodramas , much like a country gi rl , in

tr igued even the we ari ed and sophisticated by virtueo f the i r frank crudeness , the i r charming lack o f litera ry l ip rouge and nose powder . Yet , j u st so ,

were the i r b anal i ti e s a t which now the superior sniff,quite so cheap and so raw a s some pro fe ss to bel i eve ? I f it was a lways Chri stm a s Ev e in pri sons cene s in the old ten-twenty-thi rty, i s i t n o t Chri stma s Ev e , to o , in the pri son o f John Galsworthy’ sJu sti ce ” ? I f we sn i cker a t Lady Audley’ s “ Letme pass ! a t Rob ert Audley’ s Never ! The law

sha ll have its own ! at the Lady’ s And who i s tob e my accuse r ? and at the brazenly opportune entrance a t thi s j uncture o f Luke Marks (who wa ssupposed to be dead ) with hi s I am ! i f we l i fta nostri l a t such nick-o f-time materi al i zations in le ftupper entrances , let u s remind ourselve s, too , tha tthey a re not entire ly fo reign to the drama of sucha s Tolsto i and Hauptmann . Where the great di f

TheHawksha v ia n Dram a 33

ference between the cross-examination o f C . H . Ha

zlewo o d’

s wom an with a p a st and the cross-exam ination of Henry Ar thur Jones ’ s Mrs. Dane ? Wherethe dim inu tion o f the obvious in the gay ga llantsp raying him self with eau-de-cologne in the th ird acto f The Gre at Lover and with Green Jone s Spraying himsel f with the eau-de-cologne in the thi rd acto f

“The T i cket-o f-Leave Man

” Compare“The Lion and the Mouse ” with “

The Power ofMoney.

” Com pare “The E arth ” with The

Power o f the Pre ss .” Compare “ The Lure withThe Queen o f the White Slave s o r “ The Queeno f the Highb inders .I miss them , the old You are my so n SO

you are the man who wrecked m y m other ’ s l i fe ”

miracle plays . Like ’ the l i ttle girl s in p igta ils andthe heart-Shap ed white p epp erm int candies with redcinnam on m ottoe s and the te lephone s fa shioned outo f an O ld baking-powder can and a p ie ce o f resinedstring and the ba seballs made by wrapping twinea round an ink era se r, they are gone but not forgotten . And nothing l ike them, no fancy imitations ,however improved , have seemed or prob ably everwill seem quite the same . Theodore Kremer diedwith Santa Clau s .And so , on beha l f o f the ete rna l youngster thenation over , I make a plea fo r the return to us o four old beloved gun and gore plays . We wantagain to see the Brooklyn Bridge by moonlight.We want back the ra ilroad station on the Northern

34. Mr . G eo rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

Pacific and the old sawmill (first the exterior, thenthe interior ) and the Tom bs Poli ce Court, and Jo eMorgan shouting, Villa in, your career o f ' landlordshall be short ; for here I swear, by the side o f mymurdered child, you shall di e the death of a dog !—with the professor a t the p iano manufacturingquive r musik. We want again to see the vi lla instealthily scull his boa t up to the end of the docka t midn ight with the sotto voce warn ing to his foulpartner in crime , “ I pulled down the river for aspell to throw any sp ie s o ff the track . I t wa s n ecessary a fter what you told me about the gi rl ’ s threatto blab about the Bo ston pier .” And to give ea rto Vi lla in II’S “We must get her out of the city !and Villa in I ’ s Do you think she ’ l l go easy, o r Shallwe drug her ? and Villa in II’S “ Just tell her it’ sto meet he r beau , o r give her some such re ason andshe ’ l l be a s mild as a lam b ,” and then Villa in I’sHa ! Just le t me get hold o f her and I ’ l l answerShe goes , rea son or n o rea son !We want, j u st once m ore b efore we shufll

’

e o ff , to

see the hero fastened by the villa in to the ra ilroa dtracks—“ And now, my fine fellow, I

’m going toput you to bed . You won’ t toss much, e ither . Inless than ten minute s you ’l l b e sound asleep . There ,how do you l ike i t ? You ’ l l ge t down to the Junction b e fore me , will you , Ralph Beaumont ? You

dog me and p lay the eavesdropper, eh ? Now do i ti f you can ! When you hea r the thunder o f thefa st mai l under your head and see the engine lights


pensive barbe r and gravely grunting specimens endo rsed by Pro fesso r G eorge Pierce Baker , can tickleu s a s we used in the old shi rt-Sleeve days be tickledwhen the r ich villa in breathed in the poor heroine ’ sea r,

“ You can be a lady ! Don ’ t go , but li sten tome for a moment ! I can make a lady o f yo u afine lady— you

'

sha ll be dre ssed like a queen andmove in socie ty , loved , honoured , and famous . Thi sa ll thi s I o fler you i f you will but become my

wi fe , and when then the spunky colleen tu rned uponthe presum ptuous fel low with a “ Your wi fe ! No t

i f a ll the gold o f the world were in your hands,and

yo u gave it to me . Your wi fe ! Never— nev er

—not even to become a lady ! Before I ’d be yourwi fe I ’d live in rags and be pr oud of my poverty !But the day of designating V i lla ins a s varmints

and o f “ unfolding ” plots , of“ I have only one

answer fo r such curs a s you this ! (bingo ) ando f At la s t I have you within me power ” i s gone ,a l a s— and maybe forever . Harvard College andthe a cto r, b etween them , have done the trick . Harvard ha s spoiled the old m elo-piece s by squirting intothem pseudo economic and social p roblem s , by aflectedly unsplitting the ir infin itiv es and by treating them ,

in general , to a dosage of sophomore fine writing.

And the acto r ha s done hi s share by spouting there sult with the gravity o f an Ibsen elocution i st.The hum our o f the old plays

,the i r pa ss ion and

the i r sauce the crém e-de-la -Krem er , i f the tawdryj est be overlooked have van i shed. And with the

TheHawksha v ia n Dra m a 37

humour and the pass ion and the sauce there havetrickled away, too , the old plays ’ chi c scen ic j u ice sand beamy propertie s .Twen ty ye ars ago

,the scene plot fo r any upright,

respectable four-act melodrama looked like thi s :

ACT I

w e.

we OW 1M ““ new

ACT I I


ACT II I

ACT IV

R .

To -day, the whole play is pulled o ff in a tameinterio r o r two ! Bookca ses are now where oncewere ra i lroad tracks . A mahogany e scri toi re standsnow where once buzzed sawmills .And the li st o f properti e s , or props . In theold days , even for a mea sly little three-acter , in smallpart :

TheHaw’

ksha v ia n Dram a 39

ACT I

Sm all rifle fo r soubrette lead. Revolvers and ca rbinesfo r juvenile lead and leading heavy. Dagger fo r characterheavy. Rifle fo r character lead. Wire acro ss stage to bedropped when telephone w ires a re cut down. Sm all telegraph instrum ent. B ludgeon fo r leading heavy. Blackjack fo r Irish com edy. Slug-sho t fo r negro com edy. Bago f nuggets and m oney-belt fo r juvenile lead. Brass kn ucklesfo r second heavy. .Red fire and flash- to rch fo r fire effect.Key to lock doo r. Axe. Thin boards to m ake doo r to bebattered in by axe. Half pail o f water behind water-tankto com e through p ip ing at clim ax. B race o f p istols and

rope fo r fem ale juvenile lead.

ACT I I

Ropes, boat-hook and axe fo r j uvenile lead and secondjuvenile. Bo lt to attach to doo r. Poniard fo r third heavy.Revo lver fo r utility and “

billy fo r soubrette lead. Sm okepo ts. Gong bell. Life-preserver and large crab. Fire

net. Im itat ion o f crying baby and nursing bo ttle with m ilkfo r eccentric character wom an . Package o f docum ents.Wallet. Six packages o f stage m oney. C ircular saw .

Machinery connected w ith saw. Revo lver fo r j uvenile lead.

Two sticks nailed together to m ake a loud no ise when usedto strike with : one fo r J ew com edy, one fo r Chinese com edy.A chicken and an egg negro com edy. Skyrocket. Two

stuffed clubs. Bo ttle m arked “chlo ro fo rm .

” Kerosenelamp m ade so it can be upset and sm ashed. Keg m arkeddynam ite and fuse. Wind m achine and sto rm eff ects.Ital ian disgu ise fo r j uvenile lead. Chair w ith legs sawedhalf-way through so they w ill break readily when crashedon leading heavy ’s back. Hook-and- ladder truck. Steamfire-engine.


ACT I I IBrace o f pistols fo r juvenile lead. Revo lver and quirt fo r

leading heavy. Musket fo r fem ale juvenile lead. Miningim plem ents. Wine a nd beer glasses , cigars. Peddler ’s d isguise fo r juvenile lead. Dice and dice-box. Pack o f playing cards containing fiv e aces. Searchlight. Two blood

hounds. Stiletto fo r fem ale heavy . T rick bo ttle to break.

Clasp-kn ife and gag fo r second heavy. Window panes covered w ith isinglass ; a box o f glass to m ake no ise when window is broken. Two im itation bricks fo r Ir ish com edy.Long rope w ith noo se. Ambulance gong. Warrant and t ev o lv ers for j uvenile lead. Co loured fire. Gun and handcuffs fo r second j uvenile. American flag.

To -day, a solitary revolve r (unloaded ) and a writing-desk set from Brentano ’ s !

Mincing equivoque ha s spread its pal ! over theboards where once Harold Trema ine , the ba rebosomed

,brawny-armed m agn ifico , s truck an atti tude

and , covering the low hound o f the them e with agun , boomed thus the curta in down : Stand wharyah are , Jake Dalton , or I ’ ll shove daylight cle anthrough yah ! And the love s cenes aren’ t a s the yused to be . For no more , ala s , does the li ttle RockyMounta in flower implore the manly hero in the prospecto r

’

s outfi t (in reality, the Earl o f Sutherland ,incog . ) to tel l me ’bout that thar big city whar yahcome from and no more , ala s , does the hero r e

tort, I much pre fer to speak o f the gloriou s Westand of you and no more , a fter the li ttle one ’ s

surpr ised Gee whiz ! What ya r see ’bout me to

TheHawksha v ia n Dra m a 4 1

talk ’bout ? do we hear the “ Li ttle gi rl, you a rethe brightest gem in the whole range o f the se mounta ins . When I came out he re e ight months ago tobu ry mysel f in the wilds o f na ture and forgetl ittle did I dream that amid these canyon s and primeva l forests I should discover so fa i r a bud growingwild with in the confines o f the rugged peaks ! O f

what interest i s the crowded, stifled ci ty to you ?To you , a mounta in maid, whose home is the finestgarden in nature ’ s paradi se ?

”

And no longe r does the perse cuted hero ine , inre sponse to the “

Then , what will you do ?” retort

with,“What thousands of othe r heartbroken and

despa ir ing women have done se ek fo r peace in thes ilence of the grave !And no longer , as we have lamented , are the poor

heroine s doubtful o f the i r origin s You a sk whomy parents were ? I don ’ t know . The furthestback that I can re collect i s when I was seven years oldI was with an old one-eyed woman who wa s nicknamed ‘

The Owl she made me sell flowers atthe co rne r o f the streets and sometimes I had tobeg, for i f I did not br ing home ten sous at le ast,she used to beat me inste ad o f giving me my suppe r .One day, I fl ed from the house . I have earned awretched livel ihood by s inging ball ads in the grea tstreets I have associated w ith characters the wors tand most depraved . Sti ll I have neve r stolen andhave never forgotten that there is a Heaven above

(kneels) eve r watching over our acts and ever ready

42 Mr . George Jea n Na tha n Presen ts

to admin i ste r comfort and happiness to the afllictedand deserving.

”

No more are these , our old friends , the booncomrades o f our nonage , with us . An d a sadder,albe i t a m ore knowing world i t i s , bel ieve me , f o rthe ir going.

Mr . G eo rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

tled into the aura l cavity and with the elements inthe Smith libretto let u s cons ider also , by way o fapprecia ting the staging o f a libretto a t the handso f the p robably no t untyp i ca l Mr . George Mar ion ,the manner in which such elements are , on the ave rage , boiled into ,

the fini shed whole de s ignated genera lly a s mus ical comedy.

At ri se , discovered : The O’Ma lley Vi lla ,

Newport,” with a view of the B ay o f Naples on the

back-drop . Enter Freddy Sands , denominated onthe b ill o f the play a s a l ittle brother o f the ri ch .

”

A modish Newporter, Freddy . And thus , therefore , he to a lady o f fa shion standing near

“ I ’mthe only guy around here , kid , who knows where(indica ting a beer gla ss of noble height with his

ha nds ) to get a tall one .” Freddy then pretends

hi s walking sti ck i s a mus i cal instrument and fingersi t drolly, a s i f p laying a tune upon it . This done ,he step s to the footlights and s ings a lyric pertinentto Newport about a gi rl named Anna from Savannahwho met a man from Havana .Ente r now a young miss and her young man . The

l atte r beseeches a kiss . “ But kisse s , pouts theyoung miss ,

“ a re intoxicating.

” Whereupon he ryoung man , Then let’ s get soused .

” Follows aduet, Ma rry Me and See , in which the young manurge s the young miss to fly away with him and nestl ike a turtle dove , true love , skies fa i r above .From the le ft entrance comes now Dan O ’Ma l

ley, a whole-hearted I rishman, whose wife , Mrs.

The Am er ica nMusic S how

Prunella O ’Ma lley, has social a sp irations . Mrs.

O’Ma lley, we are informed , is called Prunellabe cause he r husband wa s instrumenta l in forming aprune trust. Mr . O

’Ma lley has been forced by hi sspouse to dress up and i s in comic di stres s becausehi s p atent leathe r shoe s p inch hi s corns , to whichnow and aga in he dolorou sly a lludes . (Later , Mr .

O’Ma lley sneaks o ff and reappears in a pai r o f carpet slippers , thus amu s ing the audi ence greatly. )Freddy now aga in expose s himsel f to V i ew and therefollows a colloquy between him and O ’Ma lley, thethree most te ll ing points in which are a query a s tohow O ’Ma lley keeps the peas from rolling o ff hi skn i fe

,a suggestion a s to the noi sele ss ea ting o f soup ,

and an allus ion to Kankakee . Freddy then re fersfacetiously to Mrs. O

’Ma lley’

s diamonds a s “ i ce ”

and enter the tenor in the un i form o f an huzza rand follows a song on the ease wi th which a manmay tell the r ight l ittle gi rl when the right l ittlegi rl come s a long .

The huzza r , i t develops , i s to marry Molly, theniece o f the opulent O ’Malleys, who , a fte r a quipto the e ffect that ki sse s are not round , but eliptica l

(a -l ip-ti ckle ) , com e s down and s ings tha t love i s anart

,to warm the heart, oh Cup id

’ s dart. The irr esistible Freddy now approaches and , grasp ing thehuzza r by the hand, tear fully congr a tulate s him onhi s com ing marriage to which he (Fr eddy ) ki ll inglyallude s a s an execution .

Thi s done , Freddy com e s down and , walking back

Mr . G eo rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

and forth , s ings about the girl who wins my hea rt,she m ust not be too stout, I know what I’m about,she must have a figure , which is de r igueur . Forbusiness ,

” Freddy jumps over a low b ench and thechorus girls , playing follow-the-leader, imi tate hi sant i c.Re-enter O ’Ma lley and Mrs. O

’Ma lley. Whenyou marri ed me ,

” observes Mr s. O’Ma lley, som e

what irom ca lly, I thought you were well o ff .”

“ When I marri ed you ,” retorts Mr . O

’Ma lley,

somewhat more i ron i ca lly, I was way o ff ! Thena m o t about the m arri age knot being a noo se , an

othe r about Ev e and the figlea f and Molly com e sout aga in and , in wa ltz time , s ings When FortuneSmile s ,” taking the high note s wi th her eye-brows .Freddy, having in some inscrutable manner insinu

ated himsel f once aga in into the surroundings , presently begins a conversation with the huzza r in whichhe (Freddy ) re fers to the forthcom ing wedding andp layfully observes tha t he will b e at the ring- s ide .Do you drink anything ? some one a sks Freddy .

Yes , anything,” retorts Freddy.

A fter an interval , the young miss (descr ibed onthe b ill a s Josette , a Vi ennese artist ) reappears witha bunch o f flowers .

“What are those flowers ? ” questions Freddy.

They a re wild flowers ,” repl i es the young miss .

Freddy reache s for them .

Oh , no , no , s ays the young m i ss , shrinking back,you must not touch them .

”

The Am er ica nMusic S how 47

Ah , I see , retorts Freddy j ocularly,“ that’ s

what makes ’em wild .

”

The young mi ss ’ young man come s o n and thetrio execute a ditty styled O ne Way of Doing It,”

in which are de scr ibed the different ways to wo o awoman . Betwe en the verse and the chorus , the tri oillu strate the lyri c with “ bu s iness ” For instance ,Freddy pretends to ente r a j ewelry shop with . theyoung miss , the l a tte r

’ s young man posing a s theclerk .

That ’ s a nice necklace , deari e , says Freddy tothe young miss ; put i t o n ; you can have i t .” Then ,to the clerk , How m uch is i t ? ”

Fourteen , repli e s the clerk .

Freddy proceeds to count out fourteen dollars .Fourteen thousa nd

,

” says the clerk . Whereupon Freddy pretends to fa int.A fte r anothe r verse , the tr io put heads close together and burlesque grand opera , during whichFreddy, his back turned, suddenly reverse s to ki ssthe girl and, her place meanwhile having been takenby the young man , much to his di smay ki sse s thelatter instead .

,The huzza r now discove rs tha t Molly believes hei s marrying her fo r her money and , his pride stungto the qui ck , the huzza r decide s to leave hi s brideimmediate ly the ceremony ha s been performed .

Afte r a short interval in which the modish Freddyemploys the expression ’

a t a boy ; go to it !” in

converse with the soci e ty leaders o f the environs ,

48 Mr ; G eo rge Jea nNa tha n Pr esen ts

the huzza r and his bride come on from the o ff-stagechurch , a messenger boy del ivers to the huzza r (theCount Von Walden ) a te legram which the counthuzza r has caused to be sent to himself and thecoun t-huzza r , bringing hi s palm up in salute o f themessenger boy, tears open the enve lope . Farewell ,fa rewell, s ings the huzza r ; Molly stagger s back‘ward ; the company move s forward a s i f to preventher from fall ing, and the curta in descends .The second portion o f the enterta inment finds

u s at a Students’ Ball , Vienna .” The care-freev elv etine students are group ed around dre ssed upl ike planked ste aks , singing m errily. The open ingchoru s done and the world b e ing a sm a ll place a ftera ll , gues s who should appea r in thi s out-o f -the -wayplace ? Right. Freddy. And who else ? Righ t.Mr . O

’Ma lley.

Why, where have you bean ? ej a culate s Freddy .

Bean ? ” retorts Mr . O’Ma lley. I ’ve bean in

Boston .

”

The conversation turns now to a rt .Do you knowMi chelangelo ? inqui re s ourJ ittle

scalawag.

“ Mik e , rej o ins Mr . O’Ma lley, old Mike

Angelo ? Sure I know Mike . Me and him usedto work on the ra i lroad together .Mrs. Kean , a Newport society matron whom we

have met bri efly in the first a ct, happen s in a t th isj uncture and interrupts the proceedings to s ing anappropriate song entitled fEsop Was a Very

The Am er ica nMusic S how 49

MoralMan ,” the chorus girls hopp ing around mean

while in im i tation o f dogs , wolves , rabb its , et cete ra .Mrs. O

’Ma lley then comes out wearing a small b lackmask and Mr . O

’Ma lley, utterly dece ived , m i stakesher f o r a b eauteous Spanish sefio r ita , so he informsus in an a side , and inaugurate s a fl ir tation .

“Sacramento fandango ? begins Mr . O

’Malley

archly .

“ Chiant i spaghetti , returns Mrs. O’Malley de

m urely.

And when subsequently Mrs. O’Ma lley unmasks

and roundly be rate s her amorous mate fo r fl i rtingwith a strange woman , Mr . O

’Ma lley blandly a ssures her that he knewwho it was a ll the time . Mrs.

O’Ma lley exi ts in a huff and there enters aga in o ur

favouri te , Freddy.

Freddy eyes the grote sque costume in which Mr .

O’Ma lley has adorned himsel f fo r the ball .“What do you represent ? he a sks Mr . O

’Mal

I ’m a Span ish humidor , repl ie s the latte r .Humidor,

” says Freddy, yo u mean toreador !Well ,

” says Mr . O’Ma lley, i t’ s a ll the same

to me . What’ s a toreador ?“ A toreado r,

” says Freddy,“ i s a Spani sh bull

fighter .”

Well , says Mr . O’Ma lley, I feel l ike a Span

i sh onion .

Mr . O’Ma lley then a sks Freddy what a toreador

does .


A toreador, says Freddy, i s a man whothrows the bull .”

“ Well,” says Mr . O

’Ma lley,“ I ’ve thrown a lo t

o f bull myself.”

But a to reador throws the bull in the a rena ,says FreddyWell , saysMr . O

’Ma lley, I had some f -arenafo r breakfast .”

Our two fr iends now— to our great reluctancetake leave o f GS and the electri ci an in the gallery

throws a fl i ckering light upon the stage while severa lpersons dance , thus giving the dance the semblanceo f a motion p icture (a novel devi ce u sed in

“The

B illiona ire ” inMolly i s a lso a t the ball , dressed in boy’ s clothes .

So , too , a t the ball will surpri se s never ce a se ?is ou r hero , the huzza r . The la tter e sp i e s Molly.

And what, pray, might your name be ? inqui re sthe huzza r o f Molly.

It might be Smith , but i t isn ’t,” retorts Molly.

Molly then pretends to be he r own brother ’

and

ch ides the huzza r for the latte r ’ s treatment o f hi sbride The huzza r informs h i s companion thatMolly i s the only girl he ha s eve r lov ed— andMolly, her back turned to the huzza r , indicate s tothe audience her j oy a t learning that her husband sti lllove s he r. A fte r the j oke about having been marri edbut i t didn’ t take , the stage i s cleared for a speci altydance in whi ch a man dressed l ike Percy Mackayegrab s hold o f a lady in p ink tights and sw ings round


Do you think tha t gi rl had a pretty fa ce ? in

quire s the huzza r o f Mr . O’Malley.

“ I don ’ t know ; I wasn’ t looking at her face ,

responds Mr . O’Ma lley, making o ff a fter the disap

pearing hussy.

The three other songsters leave the scene . Mr .

O’Ma lley re app ears and commences to execute a

pa s seul. A S he i s dancing, Freddy comes on andp antomimes wi th hi s hands that a tall glass o f liquidre fre shment i s awa iting Mr . O

’Malley i n the wings .Mr . O

’Ma lley abruptly stop s dancing and, with agrimace o f anti cipation , makes a fter Freddy.Enters now aga in the plot . The huzza r has b id

for a masked model to pose for a p i cture hei s p a inting. Molly determine s to take the ma skedmodel ’ s place and so be once more near her husband,whom (she tell s us ) she finds She still loves with a l lh er heart and soul and every fibre of her b e ing. The

huzza r discovers Molly’ s identi ty and , with vo i ce sl i fted in song, all ends happ ily for the audiqnce.

And there you are !What ha s happened to the Harry B . Smi th o f adecade and a halt ago , the late Harry B . Smith o fRob in Hood ” and “

The Fortune Teller ,”

Rob

Roy and “The Highwayman,

” “The Fencing

Master ” and The Serenade ” And what, synchron ously, has happened to the e erie institutionknown a s the Amer ican m us ica l comedy libretto ? Is

i t poss ible that i t, too , ha s succum bed to the prevailing lack of pol iteness and taste in our theatre stall s ?

THE COMMERCIAL THEATRIGALMISMANAGER

HE exhib its di splayed in recent sea son s uponthe i llum ina ted steppes o f the Broadwaytheatre s are to the Corinthi an profoundly

les s interest ing a s specimens o f drama than a s specimens o f the ratiocination and cerebra l j igs o f theBroadway produce r. It is , o f course , the mode current to blame the theatrical manager for alm osteverything, j ust a s i t i s the mode to trim women

’ stransparent crep e-chi ffon sle eve s with fur , to callc inem a views o f the Itali an a rmy war p i ctures andto indulge in kindred contra ry heresi es . In point o ffact, much o f thi s blame i s without rea son . ,Theaverage commerci al thea trica l manager i s , frommany points o f view, a laudable fellow. Said whatthere be to the contrary, he generally produce s thebest plays he can lay hands on ; he i s l avi sh in theequipment which he a ffords his p resentation s ; hebuilds comfortable museums in which to house hi sexhib it ions . The one thing he may logically beblamed for, thi s commercia l theatri cal manager, i sthat, whateve r hi s a rt isti c a ims and artisti c aecomplishm en ts, whatever hi s brave and pra i seworthye fforts to do the be st there i s in him , he i s u sually aperfectly rotten bus ine ss man .

53


Tha t, very sim ply, i s the actual trouble with theaverage amusement caterer . The courts of bankruptcy to thi s o ff er up ample testimony. So , by wayo f prognosti cat ion, do the pre sently frequent Mo n

day pr em iér es and Saturday dern iér es o f plays ,which, though othe rwise amply bo shful, sti ll so

clearly mi ss the nece ssary flubdubber ies for box-otheesucce ss that one would imagine the deficienci e s wereapparent even to a bl ind man . Take , for cl in i c, ame lodram a , “ The Ware Case , lodged upon the incandescent pra irie o f the Maxine Ell io tt Theatre .Learn ing that the Show, originally produced in London , conta ined what they were happy to regard a s

an e lement o f commercial novelty— to wi t, a tria lscene where in the audi ence wa s enli sted to serve a sthe jury be fore which the ca se was be ing tri ed aposse o f native drama-drummers bes ieged the cableo ffi ce s and s izzled dumfounding off ers oversea s , oneagainst the other, fo r the Ameri can rights to themasqu e . And eventually the glowing vi ctor , tr

.em

bling with vi s ions o f golden reward , set out the p i eceupon the shel f named and , obv iously enough , beheldthe article score a shining fa ilure.

I f the commerci al gentleman who produced andendeavoured to sell TheWare Case to an American aud ience were to gaze into the crysta l o f anAvenue ciga r shop and see a window full o f cigarsti ed individually i n p ink ribbons with a l ithographo f Mr . Bert Will i ams adorn ing e ach , he woulddoubtle s s observe to himself that the manager of the

The Com m er cia l Thea tr ica lMism a nager 55

tobacco bazaar, i f he bel ieved thus to sell hi s cigar s ,wa s by way o f be ing something o f a j ackass. Yetthe cigar fellow

,gazing upon the manager ’ s melo

drama , would unqu e stionably be se ized with a likereflection . Consider. The manager realized thatthe me lodrama in point, be ing a usual melodramain every re spect, would have to offe r a s its s ellingqual ity but one thing and tha t, the p seudo-noveltyalre ady alluded to , the novelty, to wit, o f the audience be ing a sked to serve during the trial scene a s ajury. Now, a s is perfe ctly well known, i t i s thechie f a im , amb ition and dream o f nine out o f everyten Am eri can ci tizen s , whatever the i r race , colour o rprevious condition o f matrimony, by hook o r crook,by fa ir means or foul , to avoid j ury duty. The

Am eri can who i s e ager to se rve upon a j u ry— o r

who even views such a service w ithout dismay andalarm i s a s exoti c a cre ature a s one might expectto encounter on the day ’s march . Picture then bywhat process o f menta l Twilight Sle ep the produce rgave b irth to the theory that a body o f gentlemen ,seeking plea sure in a theatre , would welcome sucha service , albe i t imaginary, a s a source o f pa stimeand amusement.U pon the beamy pampas o f the Ga iety Theatre ,a l ike instance o f com m erci al manageri al obliqu ityo f computation has been vouchsa fed the onlooker .The pampas o f thi s parti cular playhouse was madethe scene o f enactment o f Mr . Avery Hopwood ’ sfarce ,

“Sadi e Love ,

” a dramatiza tion, a fter a fash


i on , o f the autho r ’s n o v el, A Full Honeym oon .

To any one with half an eye , i t wa s evident (a s Iobs erved when the novel appeared ) that were thematerials o f the book transplanted with l ittle alteration to the spotlight pasture and were the ca s tselected with reasonable sagaci ty , the success o f theresulting play would be an eminently sa fe haz ard .

The farce , in a word , seemed in the offing to bepossessed securely not only o f genuine intrinsi c meri t,hum our and smartness , but also o f all the quali ti e s ,such for exam ple a s naughtiness , a cunn ing sym

patheti c hero ine , a physi c o f s lapsti ck and the like ,nece ssary to insure i ts appeal to the yokel s o f thebox-o flice l ine . Thi s , then , was the commercial manager ’ s potentia l p roperty . But what now ?The commercia l manager, o n e Morosco , be ing,

l ike most persons who conse crate thei r l ive s to a rt,a bad bus ines s man, forthwith persuaded him sel f tob el i eve that the buying public would be off ended i fthe vi rgin fl apper o f Mr . Hopwood ’ s novel weremade the heroine , a s well, o fMr . Hopwood ’s far ce ;that the buyers would que stion the ta ste o f a younggirl manoeuver ing the ri squé Hopwood situations .And so the author permitted himself to be tempted— and the vestal fl apper became duly m etam o r

pho sed into a widow . And a success co incidentallybecame metamorphosed into a fa ilure .Every commerci al m anager in the land , includingMr . Morosco , has known from boyhood the ancien ttheatri cal stratagem o f making an audience laugh


by placing naughty line s in the mouth o f an ingénuewho i s supposed to be innocently unaware o f the irimport . Yet thi s Morosco , se eking to tone downthe tartness o f the Hopwood line and s ituation , delibera tely took a cours e oppos ite to that establi shedfrom time immemoria l by the box-o ffi ce mariners andso obta ined a result di rectly the reverse o f that whichhe sought . With the ca sting lesson o f one farcesuccess a fte r anothe r litera lly staring him in theface and with the correlated knowledge that suchri squé farces a s B aby Mine ,” Twin Beds , Mr .

Hopwood’ s own Fai r and Warmer and so on arebest to b e sold to an audience with a youthful andguile les s-looking little sweetie in the le ading réle ,

Mr . Moro sco then went a step further and ca st thewidow with a one-hundred-and-e ighty pounder who ,whatever her other mer its , still had cea sed to bel ievein Santa Claus a t lea st twenty-seven or twenty-e ightyears ago . Of course , aga inst the se Liverpools ,Mr . Hopwood , however good h i s farce might otherwise b e , could ride but va inly. A playwright ’ s linesmust eve r fight aga inst the phys ical personali ty o f

the a ctor reciting them . Flapper dialogue com ingfrom the l ip s o f a grown woman with feet firmlyupon the ground becomes not merely unconvincingbut entirely si lly. !The laugh so disappears fromthe dia logue and its place becomes usurped by unrulysp eculations a s to whether the lady rolls to reduce .A big woman cannot be risqué and funny at the sametime . The court o f Madame De Stale ! reflected ,


winked, quoted— bu t i t didn’ t gu ffaw . Imagine

Bertha Kali sh in B aby Mine ,” Ethel Barrym ore inTwin Beds ,” Sarah Bernhardt in the The Habit

o f a Lackey —Marj ori e Rambeau in “Sadi e

LoveThus do our comm erci al manager s lose thei rmoney. Thus do they put on Ro stand ’s “ La Princesse Lo inta ine ,” enchant the audience for the entirefirst act with dithyramb and lute procla iming the exquisite and amaz ing b eauty o f the le ading lady andthen hoi st the second act curta in on Madame S im one .Thus doe s Mrs. Fi ske permit herse l f to com e ou tupon the bulb-bordered m oor in The High Roada s a minx of e ighteen summers . Thus are youngleading men called upon to fight due ls for Mi s sBeulah Pief ace . Thus , in plays adapted fromthe French , does the heroine b eget a baby mere lybe cause the villa in has ki ssed her. Thus i s a sever eand sobe r Engli shm an ca s t for the rOle o f Max inAnatol Thus do they make a dress su i t playout o f “ The Fable o f the Wolf The PhantomRiva l ” ) and so delete the com po s iti on o f i ts twomost profitable ingredients . Thus i s Emily Stevensdivulged a s a merm aid . Thus doe sWilliam G i l letteshoot hi s brother and go to Libby Pri son for Mi s sHelen Freeman . And thus do they mi stake such aplay a s Moloch to be , l ike the work o f JosephConrad

,power ful by virtue o f i ts thematic meaning

lessness , when in real ity it i s merely empty.

A rubber-stamp addle a rgument used by some o f


am used only a fter a str ict techn i qu e i s , in fa i th , asappy com fit . The famili a r perfectly human andhighly agreeable im pulse to l augh at a funera lshould im ply that it i s an equally rea sonableand agreeable im pulse to be a b it sad, n ow a nd aga in ,a t a farce . Why should there n o t be sentiment infarce , a s the re i s in Hopwood ’ s ? Who passed alaw against i t ? Probably the same raki sh fellowwho censured the late Charle s K . Hoyt fo r playingwith cheap reli sh on hi s character ’ s nam es— Welland Strong, Jack A sp in , Goodri ch Mudd , e t a i

when the same re li sh i s vi s ible in Homer, the Bookso fMose s (chock full o f i t ) , Petrarch , Ci cero , Shakespea re , Farquhar, Sheridan .

The cri tics , instead of courting progres s and infusing new li fe into the bones o f the drama

,a re

forever yelp ing “ You can’ t do thi s ,” You can’ t

do tha t, and are so constantly doing thei r l ittle , i fineffectua l best, to keep the theatre in s tatus quo .

The criti cs sa id that drama wa s no t a form o f l iterature fo r the weavings o f cons i stent na tural i sm , tha ti t couldn’ t be done and along came Arno Holzand Hauptmann and did i t. The criti cs sa ida play to succeed had to have heart interest, a s theytermed i t ; that i t couldn’ t get over without loveand along came Shaw . The cri tics sa id a play, to interest a m odern mixed audience , had to be well-knitand closely con secutive and along came the fragm entary Arnold B ennett and even scrappi er Tri stanB ernard . The cr iti cs sa id you could n o longer suc

The Com m er cia l Thea tr ica lMism a nager 6 1

cessfully fool your audience— and a long toddledLeblanc, Cohan and Mcgrue in the wake o f Baring,Davi s , e t a l. The criti cs sa id tha t i f you played aj oke on your audi ence a t the fina l curta in , the audience

’

s di sappo intment a t that juncture would not beatoned for by its previous ple asure— and alongcame S idney Grundy with hi s “ Arabian Nights(still runn ing in stock under various title s and stil lthe amateur ’ s favourite ) and Thaddéius Ri ttne r wi thh i s U nterwegs that set shaking the Little Ma ryso f Vienna and Berlin . The cr iti cs sa id a play couldnot contradict i tsel f and along came Wedekind with“ Der Ste in der Wei sen ” The criti cs sa id a lotabout the un i ty o f tim e and along cam e a youngste rwi th hi s On Trial .” The criti cs were o f theopinion that an operetta must have music and alongcame Ludwig Bauer with hi s “

The King Trust .

They sa id you couldn’ t write a succe ss ful play with

out women and along came Schn i tzle r with Professo r Bernha rdi , which ha s made money where itha s been presented . They sa id that di ff erent chara cters had to speak a s i diomati c individuals andshould not b e made to serve a s a mere groupedmouthpi ece fo r the author and along came Wilde .And they who are now venerable (and respected )grandpas gave the first spoo f-giggle to Ibsen .

The theory that a wooden plat form l it up byel ectrici ty and hung with strip s o f pa inted canvas andcheese cloth may re spond on ly to a fixed and inv a r iable set o f rules i s akin to the theory that a highly


profici ent a ctres s with fa t legs m ay be convincingin a rom anti c rOle . The truth of the matte r be ingsimply that a playwright may succe ss fully do alm o s tanything he choose s to do , provided only he ha sthe necessa ry imagination and inventive ski ll for thedoing. The cr i ti cs con found themselves . Whenthey see a new and novel form fa il , they im agine i ti s the form that ha s fa i led when , i n reality, i t ismerely the playwright .I f the drama i s to hold the mirror up to nature ,

then let the mirro r do some reflecting. To obj ectto the presence o f a sentim enta l love scene in a farce ,a s has been the obj ection in the ca se o f Sadie Love ,”

and Simultaneously to argue that Sadi e Love ’ sweakness l i e s in i ts lack of plau sibi lity and remoteness from reality, is to a rgue that l i fe i s but one longand un interrupted chuckle . This cr iti ca l business i sbecom ing steadi ly more and more grotesque . Smallwonder so many o f the better cr itics have given upthe i r art in di sgu st and resigned themselve s to become playwr iters.

o

The yappishness o f the average mun icipal pro fessio nal dramati c ump i re i s no more gayly to b e sensedthan in hi s a tt itude toward what he call s vulgari ty .

To such an important old dea r, anything i s to bescowled at a s vulgar tha t

'

m ight j oggle the a ff ectibiliti e s o r j ounce the suspended animation o f the niceo ld ma ids in the Serbian Stom achband Sewing Circleback in the o ld home town in Minnesota . With ea ra lert and shoote r at hi s l ip trembling to di scharge


i t s devastating pea , he awa its , l ike ca t the mouse , thefirst susp i cion upon the fa i r and untarni shed American stage o f any word , act o r line that might po ss iblycorrupt the moral s o f l i ttle Henrie tta Swinkbauerback in Fi shvi lle Springs . And when his e ager bluesni ffer detects a vagrant whiff o f something thatseems to him not stri ctly a u fa it

,not quite to the

e stheti c and ethi ca l ta ste fo r which Fishville Springso r Oswald Falls o r whatever it is, i s famous, he putshim on hi s overcoat and hurrie s him right down tothe o ffice to write a li ttle p i ece . And the next morning he read s hi s l ittle p ie ce and becomes profoundlyimpressed with him sel f a s “ a cham p ion o f cleanplays which i s to say, the school o f Gobbo whobelieve s tha t i t i s b etter to co rrupt the a rt o f dramawith such spotle ss pi sh a s “ Experi ence ” than i t i sto corrupt with blushe s the j aundiced cheeks o fsom e sp ins ter numskull s in Finkpo rt with a p lay likeThe Song o f Songs .” When one stop s to conside rthat the young men and women who are admittedlyamong the most ta lented o f our younger (or for thatmatter, olde r ) essayi sts fo r the American i lluminedsavanna— su ch writers , fo r example , a s Edwa rdSheldon , Knoblauch , Zoe Akins , thi s same Hopwood,e t ce tera have one and a ll been denounced fo r thi svulgarity by these holy sons o f Slobbe r, these pureyokels ; when one stop s to conside r tha t such in manyrespects excellent plays a s Papa ,

” “The Song of

Songs ,” The Faun to say nothing o f“The

Ea siest Way,” “ Baby Mine ,” and the l ike— have

64 Mr . G e o rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

suff ered in the metropoli s the sting of the provinci albean , one will appre ci ate the Sym pathy that is duethe American who wishes to write som ething otherthan Els i e stori es for the native stage .Vulgari ty i s in i tself an art, though i t i s diflicult

so to pe rsuade the average citi zen o f the D em ocra cy.

Being himself inherently vulga r, the American ha ssmall re spect fo r vulgarity. He has come by it sona turally, so spontaneously, that he forgets the perf ected qual i ty o f hi s vulgarity i s the re sult not o fthe moment nor yet o f the year , but o f some o n e

hundred year s o f the most a ssiduous cultivation onthe part o f hi s forebears . Famili arity with vul

garity ha s bred the American ’ s contempt for i t .And s o , being h imsel f something o f a gen iu s in vulgarity, he quite naturally fa il s to appreci a te thequali ty when it i s made bri ll i antly Vi sible in art forms .Thus Shaw’ s creamy study in vulgarity,

“Great

Catherine ,” when locally presented , was certa in

to fa i l o f thi s fellow’ s approbation . So , too ,would fa i l Fr eksa ’s “ The Fat Ca sa r . So , to o ,

Holm ’ s Mary’ s B ig Heart .” So , too , Schnitzler’ s

Reigen ,” the hi larious French farce “

The Rubicon ” and a score o f others l ike i t, Wedekind

’ sEarth Sp ir i t,

” Box o f Pandora ,” Mine-Haha

and In Full Cry,” the currently deleted portions o f

Shakespeare , Ev rino ff’s

“EI

’

hea tre o f the Soul ,”

much o f Lothar Schm idt, the Metropo l’

s Men

from Maxim’ s revue , the Amoureuse o f PortoRi che , Lav edan

’

s“Gofit du Vi ce ,

” the Rena i s


s ance ’ s succe s s L’

Aphrodite , Hauptmann’ s B e

fore Dawn ,” nine-tenths of the gay l ittle Guignol

com edie s .The American bumpkin who at home eats i cecre am with a spoon , has a sepi a photograph o f theColosseum hanging on the wall o f what he term shi s s itting-room ,

” ca ll s the maid familiarly by herfi rst name , keep s s evera l Co rona s a round for str ictlycom pany purposes and i s fe rti le in s imila r vulgariti es , immediately he enter s a theatre consti tute s o fhimse l f an authority on refinement . O nce in theplayhouse , he i s a beau o f preci se ta ste , a howlingswe l l in finesse . Full o f superior bahs and poohs ,he . Does a lady characte r in the play swig a cockta i l and say a hell ,

” shakes he hi s head on them a la v ise

'

mien o f the ep i sode . Does a lady chara cte r don a lacy n ighti e , tighten s he hi s l ip s in firmdisapproval . He i s a soufllé o f a n fai ts

,sa v o ir

v iv r es,comm e ii fa uts, it la m o des

,bo n go zi ts, all

compact . This , the fellow the writer for the American stage i s called upon to ple a se . Thi s our re fereeo f vulgarity . Hopwood ’ s “

Sadie Love ” wa s abadly spoiled j ob , true ; but the person who says thati t i s unnece ssar ily and inappropriate ly vulgar there incon fesse s that he i s the sort o f clown who wouldcriti ci ze Rabela i s a fte r the same standards that hewould critic i ze Peg 0 ’ My Heart.

”

LEGEND’

S END

O applaud the practice o f Mr . Dav idBela sco in exp ending infin i te ca re and timein perfecting the production o f so empty

and bootle s s a play a s “ Little Lady in Blue ” i sakin to an admiration for the sort o f adult who tr iumphan tly expends pa instaking eff ort and tim e inputting together the s everal hundred l ittle p ie ces o fa j ig- saw puzzle . That such veneration i s a s without foundation a s a tent i s probably perfectly wellappreciated by the folk who particip ate in i t, yetthe B ela sco tradition dies hard and o f that tradition thi s particula r veneration i s , one may believe ,something in the nature o f a death rattle . I t i s a si f they who stand by the bed-Side , a t a bi t o f a losswhat nice to say, murmur gently,

“ But anyway :he had a good heart .”

I t i s perhap s now a dozen yea rs s ince the Bela scolegend sl id o ff the well-o iled ways and sa i led gaudi lyforth , with flags flying and guns booming, into thegull ibil i ti e s o f the Am eri can publ i c— a publi c a l

ready celebrated for having swallowed in highclover Madam e Janauschek a s a grea t art i st, Ri chmond Pearson Hobson a s a great nava l s trategi s t,Hamlin Garland a s a great noveli st, Tom Sharkey

66


Fam e and the First National Bank with Nelli eMcHen ry.

But thi s B ela sco , a sap i ent fellow withal , knewwe ll what he wa s abou t . The thing worked likea charm . And the yokelry, egged on by the eve rnaive and infatu ated St . William Winter and othersuch credu lou s em o tion a ls, ra i s ed cri e s o f persecution and B ela sco be cam e , overn ight, the martyredDreyfu s o f the Ameri can drama . High-sala ri edpres s agents who knew how suave ly to sou le androget and bartlett were commiss ioned now to fa shion composition s to be signed by Bela sco and spre addi scree tly in the more l i terary gazettes . And byway of augmenting the aloofness , the mystery, therem ote me lancholy and the a rti sti c temp eram ent o fhim , the monsignor sold now his old swive l cha ir,his o ld de sk l ight with the green Shade and thechromo o f Ned Harrigan that hung on the walland bought to take the ir pla ces a Ming da i s , an a lta rcandle-sti ck and a copy of the Mona Lisa . Carpets ankle-deep were la id upon the floor , the bl indswere drawn and Van tine’s entire stock o f j o s s sti cksset to smell up the place with a pass ionate O rientaleflluv ium . In that corner , a s ingle wax taper , inserted arti sti cally in a Limoges se ide l , i llumined thecham ber with i ts e ccle s ia sti c glow

,and in that wa s

glim psed a S ingle narci s sus in a wistful pot.U pon the inla id onyx commode that served a s a deskre sted carelessly a fram ed photograph o f Dante ,with the in scription “

To my warm friend , Dave ,

L egend’

sEnd 69

in token of hi s se rv ices in the cause o f art — andduly autographed by the poe t in that pecul i a r andunm i stakable flowing hand of h is . Outside thehe avy bird ’ s eye maple door studded with b ig bra s sthumb-ta cks , two sm all colou red be llboys impressedinto servi ce from a nearby hostel ry and outfittedwith green turban s and ye l low toga s , were madeto sit cross- legged like twin gods o f the mounta in .

And atop the door, to be set melodiously ringing atappropri ate moments by a push-button ne ighbourlyto Mr . Belasco ’ s gre at toe , was arranged a set o fchimes .Thi s re stful chamber wa s chr istened a “ s tudioand , so wa s the news given out, i t wa s here , amidthe se cla ss i c insp irations

,that the Bela sco withdrew

from the sordid , work-a -day world to woo the muse .Among the muses that Belasco wooed in the se surroundings wa s the muse o f dramati c criti ci sm , fo rhere were bidden from time to time , with muchflouri sh and ado , much subtle grea sing and tonyfl im-flam , the newsp ape r theatri cal wri te rs . One ata time , and a fter much stunn ing ho cus-pocu s , werethes e gentlemen rece ived . When they ente red , Mr .

B e la sco wa s inva riably seen to b e seated on theMing da i s , fore-finger to brow, in a ttitude o f profound and im pre ss ive meditati on . All wa s sti ll a sthe tomb and dim , and but the thin sp i rals o f theburn ing j oss sti cks di stu rbed the solemn lul l . Pre sently, a s from a di stance , though in re ality hiddenunder the da is , a musi c box began a sweet and mel

70 IWr . G eo rge Jea n Natha n Presen ts

low lay . And a s the mus i c died away, a pressagent, s ecreted b ehind a heavy purple B elo o chistanportiere a t R I , made sweet sounds on a sm a llwhistl e fi lled with wate r a s o f a canary singIng.

Suddenly then, a s i f startled out o f deep rever i e ,would the surpri sed Bela sco become aware o f hi sguest’ s presence . AS some kindly and generou sem p ero r, the Bela sco would deign now bid the fe llow nea r hi s throne and , putting the fellow at hi se ase , would expre ss to the fellow hi s vast adm iration for the fe llow’ s criti ca l and l iterary ab i liti e sand beseech his advice on how best to end the seconda ct o f the play he was even then working on . Allowing ample time for the grease to s ink in good anddeep

,the Belasco would then descend in que enly

abandon from the da is and s ink weari ly into thetu fts o f the Lou i s XIV cha ise b e fore the Loui s XVtable , meanwhile adroitly p ressing the button underthe tab le with hi s toe and setting the chime s overthe door to dulcet playing. Followed n ow, pen

ser o so,a lament on the cra ss commerci ali sm o f the

thea tre , ending up , a llegr o , with a quotation fromShakesp eare and anothe r from a re cent arti cle wri tten by the vi s itor. An hour late r, the newspape r writer might be seen on the highway cuttingone o f hi s old fri ends dead . And the followingSunday might be seen in hi s gazette a six columnarti cle atte sting to the extraordinary intelligence ,learning, discernment, ta ste , arti stry, and geniu s gen

L egend’

sEnd 7 1

era lly o f David Bela sco , m a itre and wizard extr a

o rdina ir e o f the American theatre .Gradua lly the legend, nursed and coddled now

by an a ffectionately inscribed card a t Yule tide , nowi t may be by a rareb it it deux

,now mayhap by an

irre si stibly polite note o f thanks for a favourablebit o f written comm ent, spread i ts wings in Fo rtyfourth Stree t and flew with loud flutter fa r andwide a cross the countryside . Did the traditi on perchance periodi cally Show signs o f droop ing, thenwere ape

’

r itifs hustled to i ts reviving in the shap eo f a couple o f recherché lamps ho isted in the a i sle sduring the intermiss i ons o r in the shape o f one o fGorham ’ s country-house dinner gongs to signal thecurta in ’ s ri se o r in the Shape o f Reinhardt ’ s old tr icko f sackcloth hangings for the boxes and prosceniumduring the presentation o f a play o f pious coun tenance or, more recently, in the shape o f a seri es o fprofound essays on arti sti c stage illum ination andlike subj e cts (s igned by Mr . Bela sco , but wri tten byMr . Loui s DeFo e ) and in the Shape o f a legendboosting autob iography wri tten for the Bela sco signatu re by a needy m ember o f the Dram a League .As has been sa id , th is ingenuous ba i t worked likemagi c and the yokel ry swa llowed it hook and s inker .For thi s Be la sco wa s a clever man— the cleverest,and by all odds, in the native thea tre and

,doubt

les s chuckl ing up hi s sle eve , for i t i s imposs ible toimagine him de ce ived by hi s own tin-panta loonery,he witnessed the canonization o f his s imple humbug


and through tha t s im ple hum bug the canon iza tiono f him s elf by the ab sorbent rhap sodi sts . But thi swas yesterday .

Already there i s cons iderable evi dence , even inthe newsp ap ers , .

o f a gri evous lese m gj este'

. Oneobserve s a pro fane grinn ing and head-Shaking.

And the B e la sco legend shows sign s o f soon goingto the foot o f the cla s s to j o in i ts com rade s , thestork and Santa Claus , Fri edmann the tub erculosi scurer and Eu s ap ia Palladino , Doctor Cook andG ranv i lle B arke r, Augustu s Thoma s the Dean andthe Mann Act, black ho se with white fe et and Ital ianverm outh , eugen i cs and neutrality, Rabindran a thTagore and the Russ ian Arm y.

Wha t now i s b ecoming belatedly apparent to thehoaxed Hazlittry and i ts prose lytes ha s o f courseb een fam il ia r these many years to every one else .The facts , bere ft o f Ming sofa s and p er fum ed punksticks , are these . During hi s activi ty a s a producer,Mr . B ela sco ha s produced not one -fifteen th so m anyworthy plays a s the late Charle s Frohm an pro duccidduring a precisely corre sponding p eriod . Mr .

B elasco has produced “The Ea s i e st Way,” “

The

Concert ” and “ The Phantom Rival three merito r ious plays : SO m uch and no more . As againstthese lonely three , h e ha s pre sented an a stoundingpro ce ss i on o f show-shop piflle including such thingsa s “

The Governor ’ s Lady,” “

The Woman ,”

Seven Chances ,” “The Fighting Hope ,” “

A l ia s ,The Ro se o f the Rancho ,

” Adrea ,” “

The War

L egend’

s End 73

rens o f Virgini a ,” “ A Good Littl e Devi l,

” “The

Heart o f Ma ryland,” “ May Blossom ,

” “ PeterG rimm ,

” “The Musi c Ma ster,” “

The Case o fB ecky,” “

The Heart o f Wetona ,” “ Men andWomen ,

” “The Grand Army Man ,

” “The Wife ,

“The Very Minute ,” “ Little Lady in BlueA show-Shop peg higher, but certa inly o f not authenti c Stature , have been his p re sentations such a s The

Darling o f the Gods ,” shilling melodrama in

Morocco binding ; The Lily,” one o f the lea st in

teresting sp ecim ens o f the modern French problemplay ; “ The Boomerang,” a plea sant but un impo rtant trifle ; “ The Auctionee r, not to be comparedwith the Montague G la s s dramaturgy The

financi a l succe ss o f most of these plays has , o fcourse , no more relevance to the question o f the i ra rtistic sta tu s than the financia l succe ss o f the novel so f A . N. and C . M. Willi amson ha s to thei rs .During a l ike and paralle l period o f manager ial

activity,Charles Frohman , on the other hand , pro

duced any number o f plays o f the order o f Pete rPan ,” Mid-Channel ,” “

The Legend o f Leonora ,”

L’Aiglo n ,

” “The S i lve r Box ,

” “A l i ce-Sit-by-the

Fire ,” “ Preserving Mr . Panmure ,” “

The TwelvePound Look ,

” “The Adm i rable Crichton ,” “

The

Mollusc,” “

The Hypocrite s ,” “ His House inO rde r,” “

A Wife Without a Sm i le ,”

Trelawneyo f the ‘We lls ,’ “

The Im portance o f B e ing Earne st,

” Chantecle r,” “The Tyranny o f T ears ”

the plays o f such a s Ib sen , Shake speare , Pinero ,


Rostand, B arrie , Fi tch , Cham bers , G alsworthy,Jones , Wilde and Ade as opposed to the B e lascocata logu e of Willi am C . De Mi lle s , Ro i Megrues,

Edward J . Lockes , John Me ehan s , Lee Arthurs ,Wign ey Percyv a ls, Willard Macks , Ri chard WaltonTullys and Victor Mapeses.

And Charle s Frohman was and i s not the onlyone . Winthrop Am es , who ha s been producingplays but a very Short t ime In comparison with thelengthy career o f Be la sco , ha s in tha t bri e f periodachieved a va stly more important position for himself through the pre senta tion o f such works a s

“ Anatol ,” “Stri fe ,

” “ The Pigeon,” “ Prunel la ,”

L’

En f an t Prodigu e ,” “O ld H e ide lberg,” Ruth

erford and So n ,” S i ster Be atri ce ,” The Thunderbolt,

” “The Piper .” William Faversham ,

during hi s few years a s a producer, has done “ TheWorld and Hi s Wi fe ,” “

The Faun ,” “O thello ,”

“ Jul iu s Cae sa r,” “ Herod and “G etting Ma r

r i ed,” an honourable record m arred only by the

!i o n flo n called“The Hawk True enough , the se

producers have also on occa sion presented playsquite a s seedy a s those pre sented by Mr . Bela sco ,yet such plays have in thei r reperto i re b een the exceptio n , certa inly not, a s with Mr . B e la sco , the rule .Harrison Grey Fiske ha s given the publi c twice a smany substantia l plays a s Bela sco . G eorge Tylerhas given the publi c three tim es a s many substantia lp lays a s B el a sco . And wha t i s more , the se playshave been produced with a ski ll a lways equal to and


an inj ustice . Mr .Wayburn ha s brought a great dealmore to the mu s i c Show stage than Mr . B ela sco ha sbrought to the dram ati c . ) Such compari sons a re o fcourse altogether to o ab surd to call for serious not ice . These producers a re a s far removed fromBela sco a s i s Mr . Ziegfeld from Al Reeves , or a s i sArthur Hopkins from Corse Payton . A mereglance a t the i r records , records brave with theproduction o f fine dram a , development o f fine a ctingand success ful re search and innovation in stagecra ft,i s su ffi cient to shrivel to the van i shing point eventhe best o f Bela sco ’ s achievem ents . B e s ide suchmen, beside even such second-rate producers a sG ranville Barker or v o n Fa ssm ann or Ro ebbeling,Bela sco i s a schoolboy in the art o f the theatre .And beside the inventivene ss and imagination o f

such a s Ma rstersteig, Gordon Cra ig, Adolph Linn ebach , Livingston Platt o r Hagemann , hi s inv entiv en ess and im agination seem so m uch Chintz .

But these a re ' f acts to be found by the bad sa ilor inthe most a ccessible books o f re ference and I po sea s no apothecary o f news .Mr . Bela sco ha s contributed one and only one—thing for j udiciou s pra i se to the Am erican theatre . H e ha s brought to that thea tre a standard oftidiness in p roduction and maturation o f m anuscrip t,a standard that ha s di scouraged to no little extenttha t theatre’ s erstwhile no t uncommon frowzy hustleand slip shod manner o f pre sentation . But whatelse ? His plays , in the main , have been the senti

L egend’

sEnd 77

mental vapourings o f thi rd and fourth-rate wr iters .He has produced none of the class ics ; he ha s produced not a s ingle modern fir st-rate Briti sh play orFrench p lay o r Germ an play ; he ha s produced buttwo Austri an plays and one o f these he deleted o fi ts two most striking factors ; he ha s encouraged n oyoung Ameri can talent and thos e young Am eri canswhom he ha s encouraged , he has encouraged towrite not dramatic l itera ture but so -called sure-fireshows , lending to thei r manuscripts hi s fecund a idin devis ing superficial hokums and punches and othersuch stu ff s o f the two dolla r vaudevi lle s ; he hasdeveloped , in all hi s ca reer , but on e a ctress , Mi s sFrances Sta rr ; he ha s developed , in all h i s career,but a s ingle acto r, David Wa rfield and this s ingleactor he ha s long since stunted by casting him yearin and year out in revivals o f the lucrat ive tra sh o fLee Arthur and Charles Kle in .

U pon what, then , does hi s em inence rest ? The

circusing, a fter the manne r o f Osca r Hammerste in ,o f an inferior actress who had come before the publ i c noti ce through a sensationa l divorce ca se ; thepromulgation , a s origina l , o f a system o f stage l ighting that had b een in u se a long time be fore allove r G erm any and had already b een borrowed byproducers in the theatre o f Russ i a ; the promulgation

,also a s or iginal , o f a so -ca lled ultra-reali smus

in stage sett ings which date s ba ck to Charles Keanin the I 8go

’

s and whi ch was elaborated to very nearlyi ts present painful proportions by Otto Brahm in


B erlin , i f I am not mi s taken , a s fa r back a s 1 8 88and carri ed even further two years la ter in theMoscow Art Theatre ; the divulgation , also a s original , in 1 902 , o f a scen i c tre a tm ent o f such a playa s “ The Darling of the Gods ” already famili ar toyouthfu l s tudents o f a stage that ye ars before hadbeen occupi ed by Franz Ebert, Adolph Zink andthe other imported li lliputi ans in an extravaganzacalled The Magic Doll .”

I have been Mr . Bela sco ’ s guest in h i s theatresthe se many years . He ha s, with unfa i ling courtesy,regularly invited me to revi ew his e fforts and, withan equa l courtesy, has uni formly a ssigned to thereception of my tender upholstery a most comfortable and we ll-placed sea t— unl ike the rude Mr .

John Cort who always , with shrewd and uncannypreci s ion , s i ts me in an ulte rior pew without anystufling in i t and , to boot, directly behind a very fatgentleman guest who i s given , particularly a t tensedramati c moments , to s tupendou s and disconcertingnose-blowings. I admire Mr . B e la sco a s a showman he i s p robably the be st and certa inly the mostsuccess ful in the Anglo-Saxon dramatic theatre . Indeed , if eve r I write a bad play, I promi se h im thefirst re fu sal o f i t. I admi re him for having gaugedthe American esthetik a s probably n o other showman s ince Adam Forepaugh and Barnum has gaugedit. And I admire him , further , for having donesevera l really good things really well . But, thoughhe has been eve r to me an urbane host and though

L egend’

sEnd 79

eve r he has subtly fl attered my sense o f humour byhesitating to b id me inspect hi s “ studi o ” or hi sfirst-edition E. Phillip s Oppenhe ims o r his collectionof Byzantine soup ladle s, I cannot but bel ieve , albe itunmannerly, tha t he ha s by his many counter fe itsworked a va s t and thorough ill to the Ameri canplayhouse and its dram a . And I cannot but furtherbel i eve tha t hi s legend i s ending to the brighten ingof a new and more understanding dawn in the nativetheatre .Little Lady in Blue i s , in many o f its mani

f esta tion s, a typica l specimen o f the Bela sco dramaturgy . I t i s artifici a l , not in the properly appropr iate sense that such a play a s Jerome ’ s “ The G rea tGamble ” or Chesterton’ s “Magi c ” o r Besie r ’ sLady Patrici a ” or Eleano r Gate s ’ “We Are

Seven o r Wilde ’ s The Importance o f Be ingEarne st ” i s artificial , but in the Sense tha t suchthings as “ Brown o f Harvard ” and the OwenDavi s dem i-dram e are artifici a l . And not merelyartificia l , but worthles s . A pale distillation o f

the more flav ourless j u i ce s o f Loui s N. Parke r,the comedy (an e arly n ineteenth century fable ) hasbe en designed , i t would seem , for the mere ex

plo ita tion o f a so -called sta r a ctress . Thus , i t provides tha t actress , a s i ts hero ine , with the famili aropportun i ti e s to prove to the audience in due success ion (I ) tha t she can speak French (in thi s instance , howeve r, the qual i ty Of the lady’ s m erci i scons iderably stra ined ) that she can speak Ger


man (at lea s t to the extent o f pronouncing fertiga s i f i t were fatigue (3 ) tha t She i s virtuou s ;(4 ) that she can sing ; (5 ) tha t She can play thepiano ; (6 ) that she knows how to wear prettyfrocks in short, that She can do everything but actcomedy. For Mis s Frances Starr , a m ost agreeableand profici ent interpreter o f certa in dram atic r61e s ,i s apparently no more su ited to a ct comedy than Iam su ited to act Little Eyo lf . The net re sulto f the lady’ s attempt i s l ittl e else than a com

po site imitation o f Maude Adams and Patri ci a Coll inge . The net impress ion of the play is o f P0

mande r Walk ” written by Catherine Chi sholmCushing on a rush order .

I I

Stil l another p lay de s igned and se t forth withobviou s franknes s for the exposi tion o f three prepossess ing frocks contain ing one preposses singyoung lady i s Mr . Hulbert Fo o tn er ’s “

ShirleyKaye .” In the fi rst a ct, a mauve crépe moussel ineand the prepossess ing young lady encounter an un

couth ba sso who ha il s f rom the baggy trouser beltand desp i se s the women o f the Idle Ri ch . In these cond act, a cream-coloured peau de so i e with ab lack velvet ro s ette and the prepossess ing younglady

,looking pensively out o f the r ichly portiered

French window in the direction of the b aggy ba sso ,suddenly fl ing an impati ent gesture toward the lavi shchamber and , in voice v ibrant with pent-up emotion,

L egend’

sEnd 8 1

tensely excla im All-th is-sufi’o ca tes-me ! And inthe last a ct, a bla ck lace over yellow charmeuse andthe preposse ssing young lady sit on a bench besidethe baggy basso and, with eyes fa stened wist fullyupon the grate-fire, exchange views with the baggybasso on the one they love , both parti e s eventua llyd iscovering to their own and the intense a stonishment o f the audience that i t i s each other they haveall the while been alluding to .Mr . Fo o tner sketche s hi s chara cters by engagingly

simple means . H i s Westerners indicate thei r ruggedn ess by saying

“ Hell ” and making comica l r emarks about the butle r. His Eastern soci e ty cha ra cters establi sh the i r hauteur and bre eding by sayingsuch things a s “ I do not po ssess that book ” i npla ce o f I haven’ t that book ” and by s itt ing upa s stra ight a s pokers . Part o f the play ha s to dowith the outwitt ing of a m an o f a ffa i rs by the prepossess ing young lady, who contrive s to get hold o fhi s proxie s o r som ething of the sort for a ra i lroaddirectors ’ meeting. Thi s brewed much a i ry andsuperior spoofing from the cave-m en o f the pre ss ,who pro fessed to no be l ie f in such feminine virtuo sity. This Spoofing I might persuade myself todigest with greater conviction were i t not fo r theci rcum stance tha t these very same gentlemen inthe i r ve ry same reviews o f the play showed thatthey had succumbed completely to the ve ry samepreposse s sing young lady, Mi s s El s i e Ferguson , and ,succumbing, had been outwi tted by her into believ


ing tha t She wa s an a ctre ss o f high rank . The truthi s tha t thi s Mi ss Ferguson i s anything but a perform er o f the first water : she la cks var iety, flexib il ityo f vo i ce , preci sion in enunci ation and fluency of ge sture am ong other essenti a ls . But the truth a lso i stha t She i s so very pretty, so very alluring and S0

thoroughly winn ing that She i s qu ite able to outwit,for the time being, the criti ca l sense . And when Isay the cr i ti ca l sense , I allude not only to the cri tica lsense o f m y confrere s o f the da ily j ournals but a lso ,and probably more parti cularly, to ,

my own .

I II

In the criti ci sm of Mi s s Maude Adams , i t ha sb ecome a kind of lex no n scr ipta that one m ust everb e exceeding chivalrous and speak nothing that i snot good . Mi ss Adam s occupi es in the the atre theplace tha t a wi fe occup i es in the hom e : no matte rhow tired one become s o f her , no matter how muchone becomes irr itated , with the pa ss ing o f tim e , byher eccentri citie s and her manneri sms , i t i s a law‘ o fsocial conduct that one ke ep up a show o f lov ingher and re fra in from saying aught i ll for the publi cea r . Mi s s Adams and the tradit ion a s soci ated withher nam e have the se many years succeeded in makinga gentlem an even o f me .I have known a l l a long, o f course , tha t she i s

a pretty poor actress a s leading a ctre sse s go , andall along I have fe lt uncom fortable , a s have manyothers , when she has spoiled so many truly beauti ful


all , critici sm m ay not fa irly b e consciou s o f suchi tems , however seemingly fore ign the i r nature .I t i s thi s Maude Adams , I suppose , ra ther than

the Maude Adams we watch play before u s , thatmake s such a s I eager to fib e loquently in her behalfa s an actre ss . And , for one , I am glad to be aparty to the pol ite mi sdemeanor .Barri e ’ s “ A Ki ss for C inderella , Mi ss Adams ’ s

1 9 1 7 o ff ering, though not without i ts severa l typ ica lBarri e conce its and love ly touches , fa ils to a rou sem y enthu s ia sm s . On all s ide s I have read and he ardtell o f i ts unalloyed charm , i ts

“ gently patheti cfancy, i t s heart-warm ed , moist-eyed delicacy, it s“ wistful lovel ines s ” and a l l i ts W insome et ceteras,but I am unpersuaded . At no point save in i ts fi rsta ct does i t approach to the stature o f Mi ss G ates’

Poor Little Ri ch G i rl , which i t in content clo se lyresembles . Much of i t i s o f an aridity di ffi cult toreconci le with the name o f its author and in thematter o f imagination generally i t i s not only beneath the Gate s’ play but beneath Paul Ap ril ’ s“ Hans Sonn enstOsser ’s Trip to Hell , a play offabri c s imi l a r to The Poor Li ttle Ri ch G i rl whichwas done abroad a t an earlie r date . The generale ffe ct o f the Barrie play i s o f fl at near-beer . The

B arri e imagination ha s here taken fl ight a s withouta p ropeller . There i s a loud inaugural buzz o fengines , the beginn ing o f a gra ce ful mount, a wildindire ction , a looping o f loops , a sudden stoppingwith the moon sti ll a million m i le s away.

L egend’

sEnd 85

Barr ie , ala s , i s not always Barr ie . U nder thecircumstance s , there fore , the crit ici sm s which ha i lthe play and its author with ecstati c whoops put mein mind o f one o f Harry Tate ’ s vaudeville a cts Ionce saw in the o ld T ivol i musi c hall . Tate ,wondrously figged out a s an avi ato r and surroundedon the field by a crowd of hys terica l admirers , i sbehe ld se ated °

with ma j e sti c mien in an a erop lane ,ready for a grea t fl ight. The engines start anenormous clatter ; Tate pulls hi s cap tighter overhi s ears ; and hi s hysterical admirers set up a grea tshouting. The din i s terrific and all i s ready forthe wonderful voli tation . The m achine , however,though its engines continue to make an awful noi se ,re fuses to budge . But the hysterica l admirers a renot to b e den i ed . They promptly l i e down on theground on thei r Little Marys and , looking up atthe stationary machine and the i r beloved he ro ,wildly wave the i r hats up at him as i f he were reallysoaring high above them .

THE FOLLIES OF 1 91 7, B . c.

HERE once the ca sua l domin i e , comeincognito to the city for a fly a t forb idden thri ll s and clandestine j oys , wa s

won t covertly to patron iz e the Foll i es , a moresagacious creature he now ha stens h is step s towa rdsthe late s t B ibli ca l play and thereat and op enlyachieve s fo r himse l f a three fold physiologica l inflamm a tion and emotional bedevilment . For he ha scome to apprecia te , thi s sly dog, that where i t is ama tter o f what Mr . Frank T inney calls “ the genuwin e hot stuff , the average so -called religious playm ake s one o f the Ziegfeld exhibitions seem in comp ari son a s tame a s ki ssing one ’ s grandm othe r .By the Simple devi ce o f changing the locale from

Pari s to Jerusalem , ca ll ing Frango is something l ik ePa rso dia s and Fleurette B o rsippa or Jezebel , andlibera lly sprinkling the di alogue with the e s andthous , the canny theatri cal manager i s able not onlyto ge t away with an unexpurgated version o f a“G i r l with the Whooping Cough,” but , what i smore to the po int, able to hocu s into hi s auditoriumthe vastly lucrative and sometime coy church ele !ment. For that other element, that e lement o f morewonted thea tri ca l predilection , the e lement in New

86

The Fo llies of 1 91 7, B . C. 87

York'

made up large ly o f Broadway vestals andFo rty-se cond Street Pla tos , the announcement o f anew Bibli ca l play ha s come to be parti cularly r ich inprom is e and fruity in expectations . For the B iblica l play, in the the atri cal a rgot o f sensational sexpunch , ha s— a s the se snoop ers a re we ll awarelong since taken the place le f t p layed-out and va can tby Charm ion , An na Held ’ s eyes , Bri eux and theMedica l Rev i ew o f Revi ews , Al Re eves’ BeautyShow, Paul Potter and the Princess Raj ah .

The average Scriptura l o r rel igious play i s bu i lton the a stu te m anageri al theory tha t the best wayin which to insp ire an audience with pure and lo ftythoughts and so bring that audience under greate rsubm i ss ion to the will of Alm ighty Go d i s to Showthe audience a balle t of semi-nude women , a scenein a pagan boudoi r in which the hero i s elaborate lyseduced by a pass ionate Babylon ian lady, and e ithe ra flock o f l ive sheep o r the spectacle o f a team

,o f

horse s toting a pap ier-m a ché chariot over a treadmill . Where a farce by, let u s say, Mr . Avery Hopwood , which cause s the tender churchgoer to Shieldhi s eye s with hi s hands , shows nothing m ore ep izooti c than a marri ed woman fl i rting with a man not he rhu sband (both parties be ing fully clothed ) , the usualreligious play, which he swallows whole , i s p rettycerta in to disclose a t lea st one spectacle o f lavi shconcup iscence and wenching set in a frame o f wholesale di shabille .

The e ssentia l commercial stratagem for o il ing the

88 Mr . Geo rge Jea n Na tha n’ Pr esen ts

churchgoer ’ s hypocri ti ca l a l imentary cana l for thesuffi ciently smooth reception o f the business is am azingly facile o f execution . All that i s nece ssary i s ,first, to have the hero hold up his hands in horrorwhen the undre ssed balle t wiggles its torso s andshakes i ts legs in the wild bacchana le (thi s salve ssuffi ci ently the consci ence o f the churchgoer ) , and ,second , to wind up the e laborate half hour ’ s incalescent orgy o f seduction with a minute or two bi t showing the gr ievous repentance o f the hero . Which ,of course , to the soul with a sense o f comic values ,i s much like pass ing out pamphlets a t the conclus ionof an hal f hour ’ s crescendo ho o chee-co o chee exhibi

tion proving by some vague scientific gentlemen thatthe ho o chee-co o chee i s a preventive o f appendiciti s .Fo r years I have been wrought by the regimen o f

my pro fess iona l o ffi ce to attend these B ibl ica l andreligiou s exhibit ions and, with but two exceptions , Ihave yet to lay eye to one to which the ci tiz en Ihere use aga inst our theatri cal gentlemen thei r ownfatuous phrase might take hi s wi fe or s i ster o rsweetheart.” From Henry Arthur Jone s’ “

Sa intsand S inners , with its clergyman

’ s daughter deflowe red by an a rmy capta in with whom she continues tol ive in sin , to Mari e-Odile ,

” with its rape o f theingénue ; from Mi chael andHis Lost Angel ,

” withi ts due t o f seductions , to the carbonaceous co n to rt ions o f Pauline Frederi ck in “ Joseph and Hi sBrethren ; ” from the tem ptations o f the fl e sh inThe Christi an and the courte san market o f The

The Fo llies of 1 91 7, B . C. 89

Sign of the Cros s to the stripped Adam and Ev ein the Creation of Coney I sland ; from the er

rant nun o f“S i ster Beatri ce ” to the I ri s Bellam y

a i r o f John Luthe r Long’ s Kassa from thepro sti tution o f Wilk i e Collins ’ “

The New Mag

da len and Stuart O gi lvie ’ s Sin of St . Hulda tothe stree t-walke r and big-busted Passion o f Hobart’ sneo-moral ity Experi ence from the b iologi cal excursio ns o f Lady Sybil in The Sorrows o f Satanto the harlotry o f Wilson Barrett’ s “ Daughters o fB abylon ,” you will find quite the mea sure o f lust o fsuch a s Georges de Porto-Ri che or the Wedekind of“ In Full C ry,

” from whose plays the eccle s ia sti cretreats with fingers cla sping the nose .But thi s i s no new thing. The two leading alle

go r ica l personage s o f the so -called Moral Playsthe rel igiou s drama o f the Sixteenth century— S0

one learns from The Tri a l o f Plea sure ”

The Thre e Lad ie s o f London All fo rMoney ” and “

The Three Lords , etc .”

were , respectively, Concup i scence and Infidelity.

ZI'

he B iblical play most r ecently off ered the churchgoer i s named The Wandere r and i s a version byMr . Mauri ce V. Samuels o f Schm idtbo nn ’s “

The

Prodiga l So n ,” or iginally produced by Re inha rdt in

Berl in . What we env i sage here , according to theprogram , i s the parable o f the p rodigal so n a s narrated in the Gospel o f St. Luke . But what we actually envi sage here i s the parable o f the prodigal son

90 M r . G eo rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

a s narra ted in the Go spel o f Florenz Ziegfe ld . Intestim ony whereof I tak e the l iberty o f quoting thefollowing a flida v it culled from the leading metropol itan theatrica l newspaper

FUSSING THE WANDERER G IRLS

A favourite past im e these n ights is to ho ld hands withthe young wom en in The Wanderer ,” who a re obliged atthe conclusion o f the w ild dance in the second act to fallprostrate over the edge o f the stage, w ith their arm s andheads waving in the faces o f f ront-row patrons.The legs, arm s and shoulders o f the f ro licsom e dancersare bared, and the spectacle o f these young wom en a ll but

falling into the laps o f tho se in the f ront row appears tobe alluring to even the m o st hardened first -nighters. Indeed, m any o f the m ale patrons o f a r t it In Manhattan re

gard the number as providing a m edium o f ho rse-play suchas is introduced in the

“ Balloon number in “The Mid

n ight Fro lic.

”

Mr . who is always alert to the best in the dram a,occupied a seat in the first row o n Fr iday n ight , and whena blonde young thing, stretched out on her back, waved herhands In his face, he slipped a cigar into o ne o f them and acigarette into the o ther .

In place o f Mi s s Kay Laurell in her b irthday su i t,that erstwhi le irres istible drawing-card o f the F01l ies ,

” the management o f thi s B ibli cal play offer byway o f similar tremor and by way o f inculcating inthe audience a noble rel igiou s feeling, Mr . Will i amElliott without his clothes on . For thi s coup I haveende avoured to find som e j ustification in a copy ofthe B ible which my friend Mencken obligingly cab


place and the audience ’ s mood and tha t nudity i s lessnudi ty in a re l igiou s play than in the Winter Garden ,I answer you that the theory i s , truth to tell , verycatchy, but that, further than thi s , i t i s o f the j ui cie sto f phari sa i sms . I should like to beli eve that Mi ssO l ive Thoma s coming out on the stage o f BenHur in s itz-bath attire provoke s in m e a hol ier andmore godly impu lse than when she com es out on thestage o f the Folli e s in the same garb , but I confes s that my mind i s in such matters a reluctant vessel.

The old story o f the artist’ s model be ing one thingto the eye o f the arti s t and quite another to the miscreant p eeking in a t the window fails , at least in theway som etim es o ffered , to fit the theatrical case .Were thes e so -called Bibl ica l or rel igious p lays workso f a rt, o r even second-rate works o f a rt, one mighttake another Vi ew of the s i tuation . But they a re ,more O ften than n o t, the verie st pot-boilers, poi sedshrewdly against the portly purses o f the pews .

_In

the first-rate rel igious plays— plays l ike “Andro

cle s o r Br ieux’ s very beauti ful and compell ingFaith o r An dreyev’ s inci s ive Savva - onewill find no such palpable and tawdry box-o ffice ba i ta s scene s in Babylon i an bagnio s or hip-wriggling sirens o r naked actors or soft-pillowed debauchery .

The commerci al fa ilu re o f these respectable workso f dramati c art and the commerci al fa ilure beforethem o f like honourable e fforts would seem , somewhat sadly

,to indicate that the type o f pewm an who

The Fo llies of 1 91 7, B . C . 93

patronize s the p l ayhouse is , an even greater hypocr ite than some o f h i s cr itics have brought u s to bel ieve .

“The Wandere r bears approximately the sam e

relation to a re ligious spectacle tha t Mr . Willi am A .

Sunday bears to Cardinal G ibbons .

SLAPSTICKS AND ROSEMARY

T i s the cu stom o f the re spected dramati c cr it ica t lea st once a year persona lly to recall with agrea t Show of wistful affection thi s or that p er

f o rm ance of a day now long passed into that starhaunted a tti c o f memory. The p erform ances thussti ll vividly recolle cted with a mellow head-shakingpatho s a re in genera l a ssociated with the names o fLe ste r Walla ck , Ada Rehan , Lotta Crabtree , MaryAnderson , Ellen Terry and , in the in stance o f thevery young cr i tics , Edmund Kean , Farren, Macreadyand Rache l . O nly the other day, indeed , did myesteem ed colleague , Mr . Wa lter Pri chard Eaton ,lament typographically the thought tha t CharlotteCu shm an was no longer with him (and us ) to dazzlethe boards with he r stil l bri lli antly rem embered ta lent . And , o f course , i t i s almost imposs ible In theEv ening Po st to di stinguish which i s the dramati cdepartment and which the ob ituary.

Although not yet old enough to we a r rubberswhen it ra in s

,I too am able from out the pa st to con

jure up the sti ll trenchant p i cture s o f celebratedmummers of anothe r day. No t a few o f those themere thought o f whom i s sufli cient to extract a tender tea r from my brothers’ eyes , mine eyes , too ,

94

S lapsticks a nd R osem a ry 95

have rested on . Noble arti sts som e o f them ,I ven

ture ; ye t m y thea tre , ala s , wa s to b e the theatre o fanothe r epoch . I envy, indeed , the cri tica l perspicacity and precocious powers o f ana lys i s tha t wereenj oyed by Mr . Eaton while he was still in ki ltswe are practi ca lly o f an age - but I am forced intothe unpro fessional admiss ion tha t, a t ten or thereabouts , I wa s a not parti cularly rel i ab le cri ti c o facting. I re call , fo r instance , merely that MaryAnderson had the sn iflles at the matinée when firstI , yanked thither by my governes s , saw her and thatshe seemed to be almost a s pretty a s my mother Inhe r newe st b a ll gown . And my chi e f l ingeringyoungs ter ’ s im press ion o f Duse a s To sca i s of a sorto f Theda Bara . For a truer estim a te o f that a ctre s s’ s celebri ty I am there fo re constra ined to studysuch o f m y colleagues a s the enthusia sti c Mr . Wollcott o f the Tim es

,who though considerably

younge r than I wa s apparently a lready a sophistica ted and not unexce llent cr iti c while I wa s still yelling wheneve r the fam i ly tri ed to wa sh my ears .My boy memori es o f the thea tre a re va stly le s s

informative , vastly le ss dignified , memorie s . Inplace o f the probably edi fying exhibition o f a ctinggiven (cir ca 1 87 7 ) by Mi s s Rose Coghlan a s Clari ssa Harlowe

,I som ehow seem to recal l m ore ln

cidly D el la Fox rolling down De Wolf Hopper’ s ex

tended legs in Wang . In place o f what wa s unquestionably a fine b i t o f acting by Tomm aso Sa lvin i in “ La Morte C ivile ” (circa I seem

96 Mr . George Jean Na than Presen ts

to remember the toboggan in the second act o fHoyt’ s “ A Midn ight Bell .” And in place o f someprobably admirable work by Booth and Barrett

,i t

would appear that my acute r recollection i s o f thefunny scene in The County Fa i r where Ne i l Burgess , dre ssed up l ik e a wom an , shocked the countryfolk when he le aned ou t o f a barn window upon thelowe r half o f whi ch a bi llpo ster had pasted the legso f a choru s lady in tights , and o f an awfully cunn inggirl i n H enry V. Donnelly’ s stock company nam edSandol Mi ll iken . I do n o t remem ber very muchabout John Hare ’ s doubtle ss first-rate performancewhich I saw a t the Garrick oversea s in 1 890 or aboutRi chard Mansfield

’

s doubtle ss mem orable performance in Don Juan which I saw the following yearin the Garden Theatre , New York (I was j ust ninethen ) , but memory lights up at the ment ion of theunknown acto r in a ten-twenty-thi rty melodram aca lled “

The Ensign ” who , in the rOle o f an unpo lished American se am an , facing the modi sh and contemptuous British vi lla in on the deck of a U n itedStates man-o ’-war, boomed in the fe llow’ s teeth .

We ain’ t got no manners , but we kin fight l ik ehel l !And so , to o , does rather m emory quicken at themention o f Franz Ebert, the tiny com edi an o f atroupe known a s The Lill iputians ,” a t the tr ickscene ry o f the Byrne Brothers’ “ Eight Bells ” andCharle s Yale ’ s D evi l’ s Auction ,” at Charley B igelow and Lill ian Russel l in The Princess Ni co tine ,”


a t Digby Bell in The Ta r and the Tartar , a t CoraU rquhart Potter ’ s wonderful brown ha i r andVa shti Earl ’ s wonderful blonde ha ir and Chri stineB less ing’ s b ig blue eyes and Thom a s Q . Seabrookein “

The I sle o f Cham pagne and my first s ight ofDenm an Thompson and the scene where E. S . Willard mixed up the name Lucy with the lette r he wa sdictating in the firSt a ct o f The Pro fe ssor ’ s LoveStory ” (I wa s about fi fteen then ) and KatherineFlorence ’ s make-up in The G i rl I Left B ehindMe and the exci ting fire-station scene in The Sti llAlarm ” and a very bad play named G lor iana

(which I then admired ) and Camille D’

A rv ille inMade l ine o r The Magi c Kis s (they gave away,I reca ll

,p icture s o f Mi s s D’

A rv ille on cellulo id button s a s souvenirs ) and Robert Downing

’ s b iceps andthe minstre ls B arlow and Wilson and Virgin i a Earla s the lunch counter girl in Hoyt’ s “ A Hole in theG round and GusWilli ams in One o f the Fine stand G ladys Walli s andAnd a burle sque Show conta ining Watson , Bickeland Wrothe and called On the Yukon ” in the oldSta r Thea tre o f Cleveland, Ohio , some two decadesand a ha l f ago .

Indeed , I do not know but what, among all myearly memorie s o f the theatre , thi s mem ory o f atwenty-fiv e-cent burlesque Show isn ’ t qu i te the mostenergeti c . A distre ssing fact, sure ly, and o n e mostprofoundly lacking in offi ci a l solem n i ty, yet a fa ct a tonce eminently frank and proportionately certa in .


The B ickel I have never forgotten : he is to me a tthi s late day still the funnie st low com edian on ourstage . No r the Show itself have I suff ered to fade .I laugh at i t yet a s memory echoe s i ts prim i tive , butwithal positive , El i zab ethan unitie s o f Slap sti ck, bladder and squirt-gun . A droll m a sque , i f ever therewa s one ; i t s hum our s broad o f gi rth, its mi en ro

bustio us, i ts cabotinage simply killing. And thuscame it about recently, upon reading m y twenty-n ineand thirty yea r o ld colleagues ’ fond memorie s o fShake speari an p erformance s given in Daly’ s fortyyears ago , that I , too , looked backward upon thetender ro semari e s o f m y boyhood , summoned aga inunto m y fancy the ne

’ er to be forgotten r em in is

cence s o f days now long gone into lavende r and , somellowing, sought aga in to evoke the pa st with alli ts sweet keepsake s theatri c, all i ts a ff ectionate reco llection s. Two n ights I gave over to a reunionwith my retro spects : one a t the very Da ly’ s ever soproficien t in di sti ll ing the homesick cri t ical tea r ;.o nea t the Columbia Theatre . And j olly good n ights ,in fa i th , were they !Here were the good old days all over aga in

parti cularly a t Daly’ s , where the stage was nowgiven over to no les s a band o f troubadours thanJoe Freed and Hi s Heart Charmers ,” a s the b illing i s . Who Joe i s , I know not, but his Show, bel ieve me , i s a topper . True enough , i t should , inthe verna cula r

,be pulled— it i s somewhat more

ca lo r ique than the Russ ian Ballet o r“ Homo Sa


Hopslinger , with a sau cy grimace , ha s meanwhilebecom e a waiter and bids the fa i r one order . I ’mnot hungry,” drawls the lady, so you may bringme merely a couple of oyster cockta i ls , som e horacedovers , a planked shad, a n i ce big thick porterhousesteak with French fried potatoes , a salad or two , asli ce o f cramberry p ie a nd a cup of co rflee .

” Bu t ,protests Mr . B eerheister , fann ing himself with thedinner ca rd , fora sm uch a s he ha s with infin ite drollery b een surrepti tiou s ly counting hi s funds while thel ady ha s been order ing and has found himsel f po ss essed of but thi rty-eight cents , a in

’ t you forgottensomething ? ” Whereupon the l ady, sudden ly re

collecting, retorts oh yes and orders Mr . HopSl inger to fetch he r a bottle o f Pomm eroy brute .Mr . Hopslinger meantime ha s gone over to te l

epho ne the order to the che f and has suffered a di scharge o f flour in hi s fa ce from the aperture in theinstrument. While he i s yet wip ing the flour out o fhi s eyes , Mr . B eerheister , somewhat impatient” appro a ches the

’phone , se ize s the receiver , shoutsHello ” and is j oco sely floored by a stream ofwate r . Mr . Hopslinger by thi s time ha s contrivedto brush the flour o ff hi s countenance and , walkingto the hotel desk , ga i ly drinks the ink , wip ing hi smouth with the blotting p ad .

Approaches now an elegant gentleman in even ingclothe s , coat fastened in front wi th a loop . The twocom edians contemplate the splendid fellow in aweas nonchalantly he counts over a huge roll o f bi ll s

S lapsticks a nd R osem a ry 1 0 1

which he holds in hi s yellow Chamoi s gloved hand .

Pres ently, the elegant gentlem an drop s one o f thebill s and Mr . B eerheister fall s upon i t . “What !thunders the elegant one in a p ink tenor , would

yo u demean yourse l f fo r a paltry one thousanddolla r bill ? ” Mr . B eerheister , ari sing, is prop erlya sham ed o f him sel f. “

O h,” says he ,

“ I didn ’ tknow it wassa poultry b i ll .” “ Anyway,” observe sthe e legant gentleman , “ i t ha s now been contamin a ted from contract with the germs on the floor .”

Whereupon he calls B oy ! and when in responsea chorus minx in a toga o f transparent green gauzeappea rs , bids her gingerly carry the bil l o ff and throwi t in the a sh-can . Mr . B eerheister prom ptly makeso ff a fte r the hussy. Where is you go in’ ? inqui resMr . Hopslinger . I f you wanta find me

,you kin

ha f m e paged at th’ ash-can ,” ca lls Mr . B eerheister

over hi s shoulder, thus not ob serving whithe r he i sgoing, bum ping with a thud aga inst the s ide o f thepro scen ium and landing emphatically upon what hedrolly de scribe s a s hi s roundhouse .At the Colum b ia

,nothing le ss than “

The GoldenCrook Extravaganza Comp any ” and— mind you— with B illy Arlington ! Here the two comediansare o f the hobo gender and are named re spectivelyPrince O swald and Dudley Dustswinger . Both a reclad in amazing pants sustained by a Single sus

pende r, and undershirts . Prince Oswald wears . afrowzy stove-pipe hat ; Dudley Dustswinger a fel tbonne t garni shed with hole s . The scene , according


to the play-bill , i s the reception room of the Midnight ‘Club , an insti tution that resem bles mura lly aholiday box o f drugstore candie s . The comedianscome down to the v ery edge o f the footlights , PrinceOswald bearing a stalk o f cele ry . You know, Oswald , I seen a lo t 0 ’ monkeys in m ’ l i fetime , Oswa ld,but you a in ’ t l ike a monkey at all, O swald . Mo n

keys i s in telligen t anim als .” Zowi e goe s the ce lery

in Mr . Dustswinger’

s face ! You have grocery insulted m e,

” retorts Mr . Dustswinger , eating the ce le ry . The scene darkens and an a ctor made up a sSatan appears in a red l ight . Who are you ? in

qu ire s Prince Oswa ld .

“ I , responds the other insepuxlchr a l tones , “

am— the—dev i l .” “Oh

,i s

tha t all ? drawls the Prince, “ then go te r hell .”

The evi l one , paying small heed to our comedian’ swhimsy, bids of Mr . Dustswinger hi s greate st wi sh .

I wi sh fer a beauti ful woman to love me,” repl ie sMr . Dustswinger , not unintell igently. So be i t,”

says the dev i l . Look ! 0

Mr . Dustswinger , with an undulating mazurka o fthe neck

,follows the devil ’ s finger and observe s , in

the open window, a girl in p ink tights . IS She

re al ? he asks . See fo r yoursel f,” suggests hi s

Satan i c Ma j esty. Mr . Dustswinger approa che s thewindow wi th a great Show of timidity and, by meanso f a couple o f pokes , sa ti sfie s himself o f the lady

’ sactual i ty. The devi l pu ll s the curta in .

“ Aw, Mr .

Devi l , plea s e le t me see her aga in,” beseeches Mr .

Dustswinger . SO be i t,” re iterate s the o ther

104 Mr . George J ea nNa than Presen ts

wald continues drinking Slowly until the last drop isgone . You lo se , says the barkeepe r . Well ,kin you beat that ! excla ims the Prince , giving theaudience a cherub ic wink .

Enter s now our gen ia l fr iend Dustswinger w ith aj ug. Fill thi s up ,

” he orders the barkeeper . The

latter fill s the j ug. Dustswinger starts to m ake o ffwithout paying. Here you , gim m e back that jug ifyou a in ’ t go in ’ to pay,” comm ands the b arkeeper , taking the j ug rudely from Mr . Dustswinger and em ptying i t o f i ts contents . But kin I have the j ugback ? que stions Dustswinger hum bly. The b arkeepe r gruflly thrusts i t back in our friend

’ s hand .

Whereupon our friend , with a ludicrous nudge at theaudience , takes out a hamm er , breaks open the jug,extracts a sponge and tre a ts himself to a fine tipple .I t is now Prince Oswald ’ s turn and , com ing con

fiden tia lly down into the footlight trough , he whispers to the audience how he used to love his beautiful school-te a cher, how he brought her a li ttle peacha s a present one day, how she took him on her lapand thanked him , how he next brought her a big app le and how she took him o n her lap and this timenot only thanked him but ki ssed h im and how hethen began saving up to buy her a watermelon !And so i t goe s . The dear o ld quartette s in the ‘

purp l e Prince Alberts st ill s ing about the RiverShannon and the good-old-U . S . A . The com edi ansti ll dance s with the fat lady, one hand on her neck,the other debonna irely on her b ass-drum . The so


ciety lady still inte rp re ts her lo fty socia l s tatus wi tha wholesa le and not ent irely di scr iminate use o fwhoms,

” and lorgnettes the presum ing comedianinto a humilia ted s ilence by procla iming that he i s“ b eneath content .” And every tim e any one com e sout to exude a sentim enta l song the l ights are s ti lldim m ed and the Spotlight i s sti ll turned on . Butvu lga r i f you will, the laughter i s sti ll there in theselowly masques— more laughter than you wi llfind in a year’ s round o f the lo ftier m u s i c showswhich have substi tu ted a Broadway and Forty-secondstree t speci e s o f wha t they call refinem ent fo r thehonest old shirtsle eve stuff o f the Miners . I f, myfri ends , you want to renew the days o f your boyhood,the days when all you a ctually knew about AdaRehan was that her p icture came in packages o fSweet C aporal cigarette s and could b e traded withthe ne ighbour ’ s kid for one o f Corinne in tights (prov ided you added a couple o f agate marble s and aslingshot )— if you want to l ive tho se days overaga in , go to a burlesque show.

The best thing about G eorge M. Coban’ s Re

vues ” i s thi s very qua l ity o f boyish bladder-burlesque with which he p erfumes hi s buffo o n ades.

Mr . Cohan i s ever success fu l in hi s efforts of thi sspecie s because he frankly addre sses himself to theyoungste r in us . He knows j u st a s wel l a s you andI tha t we will laugh harder and longer a t the spectacle o f a p ickl e-herring smearing shaving lather all

106 ‘Mr . G e o rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

ove r another p ickle-herring’ s fa ce , ne ck and ears ,poking som e o f i t in the la tter ’ s eyes and then li ckingi t o ff the fellow’ s face and eating i t than we willlaugh a t, say, any two dozen a lleged verbal witticism s o f the average modern day libretti st . Andhe knows equally wel l tha t we cannot for the dignified l i fe o f u s re fra in from laughing a t the ceremonyof the zany who , in m aking hi s lordly adieux, trip sover the mat and lands kerplunk on his et cete ra , sohe include s the stratagem in his harlequinades alongwith such o f i ts s i ster stratagems a s the comedianwho tumbles out o f his cha i r in hi s attempt to ge t abetter Vi ew of the conten ts o f a lady’ s stock ing (v ideJoe Freed and His Heart Charmers ) and the amo ro us old beau who fl i rts even with the small statueo f Venus (v ide Al Reeve s , e t a l) .

There a re , i n a genera l way, but two grades o femotion in a the atr i ca l audi ence : the fifteen-yearo ld emotion and the thi rty-fiv e-year-old emotion .

The first i s the qual i ty o f the musi c Show aud ience ; the second the quali ty o f the drama audience , a t l ea st in some communiti e s, i f not in New

York . (In New York , to be regarded a s a t a llsuccess ful a play must make its appeal to the maj ority . I t so must reflect that maj ori ty’ s a tti tude , opinions , philosophy, thought. And at lea st four o ut o fevery five such persons beli eve that bock beer ha ssomething to do with a goatI t i s a ridiculous enterpri se to a ttempt to cater to

the thirty-fiv e-year-old emotion in the music hall .

PANTALOONS A-POSTURE

HUS dulcetly the mimes when l i fted thecurta in on Mr . Cyri l Harcourt ’s dram a ,The Intrude r

RENE LEVARDIER. I shall leave by the ten o’

clock trainfo r Fon t inblow .

PAULINE ! his w ife] . What ! Y ou a re go ing to Fonta in eblue to -night ?G EORGE GUERAND ! her lov er ] . But I did no t believe

there was a night train to Foun ta inblah .

For a study o f contem poraneous m umm er ing,

would that an even ing be fore thi s stage had beenyours ! You would have been fetched

,I p romi se

you . Y ou would have seen arti st and arti ste act theplay almost enti re ly wi th the eyebrows . You wo uldhave seen the leading lady inte rpret deep nervousemotion with the upper portion of her corset. Youwould have heard allu s i ons to the Pont No o f andyou would have seen the actor who played the thie fadj ust hi s ha t to hi s hip and , with feet akimbo , de fythe hero who was standing beside him by address inghi s remarks hotly to the head ushe r . You wouldhave se en the leading lady, grie f stri cken , S ink intoa cha i r, cla sp ’kerchie f to mouth and m ove her headslowly from side to S ide l ike Mr . Montague G la s s ’

108

Pa n ta lo o nsA -Postur e 109

Mozart Rabiner . You would have seen the a ctorplaying the husband halt long enough at the door onhi s exi t to give the audience an eye : thus regi ster ingsusp icion . You would have se en the a cto r playingthe lover halt long enough at the door on his exit togive the audience the same eye : thus regi ster ingalarm . You would have heard an allus ion to thecohan-seerage and you would have seen the actorplaying the husband indicate doubt by b iting ther ight corner o f hi s lower l ip and the a ctor playingthe lover indicate defiance by taking hi s hands outo f hi s pockets .In short, you would have been reminded of the

fires ide story o f the loca l actor,who , a t the la st mo

ment called upon to substi tute in a p lay adapted froma fore i gn source , ru shed out upon the stage the opening n ight and proudly negoti a ted Oui , oui , mons ieur ” a s Owie , owie, monster !In no othe r pro fess ion in the world , o f course , i s

there so m uch incom petence a s in acting. No t evenin dramati c cri ti ci sm . The rea sons for thi s incom

petence are famili ar to readers o f D iderot, Coquelin,Lewe s , Walkley, George Moore , Anatole France ,Tree and such others a s have treated o f the subj ect .But som e o f the se re a sons , though famili a r, are nota s sound as they might be . Tre e , fo r example , himse l f a n acto r, a rgues , a s d id Coquel in be fore him ,

tha t the l ittle knowledge which i s supposed to bedangerous in mo s t walk s o f li fe i s the de sideratumo f the stage arti st— the li ttle French , G erm an ,

I 10 Mr . G e o rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

I tali an , musi c, etc. And then , following up thi sspruce bra in m ane uvre , the gentlem an observes thatwhere education tends to the repression of emotion ,the a cto r l ive s and move s and ha s hi s be ing in i tsexpress ion . Mr . Tree here obviously waxes ridiculous. To argue tha t education i s not necessaryto an actor in that i t wi ll inter fere with h is expre ssion o f the em otions , to argue that he may theb etter expres s them if he does not know thoroughlywhat he i s talking about, i s to a rgue that Robert G .

Ingersoll wa s le ss succe ss ful in impressing hi s audience than Robert Down ing . A farce actor or am elodrama actor may

,o f course , be at once an ig

no ram us and a success ful stage performer . Butsm all wonde r (re alizing mo st a cto rs bel i eve withMr . Tree ) tha t such a s Ibsen and Shakespeare andHauptmann are so regularly murdered in the i rtracks ! Inde ed , no b ette r proo f of the vacu i ty o fMr . Tree ’ s belie f may be had than in Mr . Tre e ’ sown performances .Even where the actor i s not posse ssed o f a thor

ough education , hi s hi strion i c eminence in the community depends l a rge ly upon hi s caj oling that communi ty into believing he is posse ssed o f such an education a s wi tn e ss the case in our own comm unityof Mrs. Fiske . Sarah Bernhardt is a great a ctre ssbecau se she i s an educa ted woman . True , thegreater the idiot, the more viv idly he may expresssuch physi cal emotions re la ted to amour and thechas ing o f a lady around the room as are part and

I 1 2 Mr . G eo rge Jea n Na than Pr esen ts

that a theatre audience i s im pre ssed by the outwardand vi sible s ign s o f things rather than by the thingsthem se lve s and that, thi s b e ing the case , the actorbe ing by nature o f hi s craft a lazy fellow— takesthe sam e ea sy course so to im pres s hi s audience .To contend tha t thi s is, there fore , j ust what the a ctorought do and that i s but fai r to allow h im to doit— i s to contend tha t the best a ctor i s that a ctorwho interprets not the r61e written for him by thedram ati s t bu t the aud i ence ’ s compo s i te idea o f therOle written for him by the dram atis t. And to m akethi s contention i s to sp eak in term s o f mob popula r ity, which popularity i s , o f cours e , ever vitally a todds with art o f any kind even with what Mooreca lled the lowe st of all the a rts , acting. The pla intruth , p atently enough , i s tha t the actor b ears thesame rel ation to an arti st that the phonograph bearsto Madam e Sembri ch . The arti st i s contem ptuou so f the crowd . The only actor in Ameri ca who i scontem ptuous o f the crowd i s Mr . Arnold Da ly.

And Daly, by that m ark , i s the only a ctor in America who approaches to the rank o f an arti st. AndD a ly

,a s actors a re regarded by the the atregoing

crowd,i s not what i s known to them a s a succes s ful

a cto r .The a ctor thinks in terms o f wha t hi s audience

will think . Mr . Willi am’

Faversham had once theim p ertinent intell igence to portray I ago a s he himsel f thought that characte r shou ld be portrayed andhi s audi ences

,who had be en u sed to the rubber

Pa n ta lo o ns A -Postur e I 1 3

stam p notion o f Iago , felt them selve s slighted andwould have nothing to do with the characterization .

O the r a ctors , playing l ike merchants the sa fe s ide ,mere ly sell to thei r audi ence s the characterizationso f the rOles and the appurtenances thereto that theaudience s a re accustomed to . Let an actor p la yingan

,

Engli sh character correctly reci te the word spe

cia lty a s spe ci al i ty and, a s wa s the ca se withMi s s G race George la st se a son , the audience wi llprom ptly sn i cker its di strust . Let an a ctor playinga judge enact the rOle in a make-up re sembling Mr .

Justi ce Freddie Kern o chan in place o f the customarymake-up resem bling Russ Whyta l and he will b e agloomy fa i lure in the audience ’ s eye .I cannot be l i eve , for all tha t ha s been sa id and

sa id e loquently to the contrary, tha t the numskullmake s the best actor . It i s to m e inconce ivable thatHave lock Ell i s

,incog. , could n o t have played the

docto r in Damaged Good s very much better andvery much more convincingly than the actor who didplay the part o r that Finley Pete r Dunne couldn’ thave played the Iri shman in G enera l John Reganseveral times bette r than Mr . Charle s Hawtrey .

Yet, in spi te o f all these remarks , pi ctu re to yoursel f the most intelligent and best a ctor in the wholeworld playing John G abri el B o rkm an . Picture thi sactor in the midst o f a superb performance . Picturehim captiva ting the most intell igent audience evergathered together into a theatre . Pictu re his keenstroke s o f chara cteriz ation , hi s perfect a rticulation ,

1 14 Mr . G eo rge Jean Na tha n Pr esen ts

hi s own clea r mental i ty gleam ing through the Ibsenscrip t. Then— suddenly

—pictur e, in the v ery

m idst of this r em a rka ble imperso na tio n of the rdle,

the gr ea t a cto r a cciden ta lly splitting his pa n ts !

And, having succeeded in p i cturing thi s , you havesucceeded co -ordinately in pi cturing the tum blingto earth o f every fine theory o f the art o f acting everwritten including particularly thi s , my own .

I 16 Mr . Ge o rge Jea n Na tha n Pr ese‘

n ts

Ye t in a performance o f O thello given by ourmezzotint brothers a t the York Theatre in commemora tion o f the Shakesp earean te rcentenary, the fa ctwa s e stabli shed wi th a vita li ty that first baflled, thenput to rout, the plump resi stance o f sovereign sn i ckers and sa rdon i c e levations o f the nose . U nder thedirection of a Mr . R. Vo elck el and with a com panyheaded by Mr . Edward Sterl ing Wright, an actor o fe ste em in dusky art cIrcles, the famili ar tragedy wa sread with a S ingula r impress iveness and an e arhaunting tona l qual i ty. I have , i n my day, heardOthe llo ” from many tongues in many lands , butnever, unles s m y e a rs dece ive me , have I heard areading now more liquid and silve r, now more fullthroated and golden , than this reading o f theMoor’ s fable by the se amb itious darki es . H erewa s the mu s i c o f the pro se voi ced not in the drysemi-cackle o f the Haym arke t and up St . James ’ sway

,nor the sometim es monotonous ventri loquy o f

the Vo lksbiihn en , nor the messy twang o f Lo ngaCI-eSquare There wa s from thi s stage ful o f black amoors something o f the viol in , the alto-saxophone ,something o f the m uflled drum , the harp , somethingeven o f the sa cring bell , the octavin keyed in B flat,the grand piano , the mescal .Thei r a rticulation a s i s , o f course , ever the ca sewith the negro—wa s of that middle ground ’twixtspeaking and singing (the a rti culative quali ty, to wi t,o f a pretty young girl ’ s I love you the sort o fa rti culation tha t, bette r than any othe r, i s su ited to

The B la ck A r t 1 1 7

the del ivery o f such a word we aver a s Shake spea re .Gone from thi s reading were a ll tho se fam i l iar m um

m er tonsi l qua l i t ies , a ll those l i ttle a rt ificia lities, thatstea l from the po et’ s l ine s thei r r ippling lovelinessand inj ect into them , in place , the a ir o f studiedphrase

, o f sedulously practi sed mouth-pursings before a pi e r glass . The sound o f Shake sp eare andthe sound o f some tim es exce ssively sib ilant AngloSaxon speech took on , from the l ip s o f these niggers ,something o f the so ft fluidity o f French, o f the musica l dropping o f the harsh e and the a o f ana rt i cle be fore the vowe l-b eginning noun . Fo r theugly “ I ,

” we had the symphon iz ing da rky Ah

fo r the unm usical “ my ” o f the text (or the corruptly synonymous me o f the white acto r ) , theliqu id mah .

” Consider , in example , the speech o fD e sdemona :

Som ething, sure, o f stateEither f rom Venice, o r som e unha tch ’d pract iceMade dem onstrable here in Cyprus to him ,

Hath fuddled his clear sp irit ; and, in such cases,Men ’s natures wrangle w ith inferio r th ingsThough great ones a re their obj ect .

Picture to your ea r the speech a s i t comes intocontact with the tymp anum from Anglo-Saxon l ip s ,with its succe ssion o f hi ss ing S’s, i ts coarse shure

,

”

i ts burring R’

s in “ great ones a re the i r,

” i ts ho r r iso n ous confl i ct o f R sounds in the brace o f wordsna ture s wrangle . Then dream to your hearingthe spe ech from black l ip s

I 18 Mr . Geo rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

Som ething, shua, abv stateB itha f romm Venice, aw som e unhatch'd practiceMade d ’m o n strable heah in Cyprus to him ,

Hath fuddled his clea’ spirit ; and in such cases,Men’s nat-yonahs wrangle w ith in fe’ io r th ings,Though great ones ah thei’ obj ect.

The s sounds rema in , true ; but the black s

i s,a s we know, a more dulcet

“ S ” than that wh ichemanate s from Anglo-Saxon te eth .

To turn to another pha se o f the p re sentation,we

may di scove r such euphemists a s will , not without agenial j ocosi ty, point o ut that Othello interp retedby a corp s o f decided brunette s must pe rforce b e little else than a burle sque , a thing of freak, fora smuch a s thus , a t the very beginning of things , i s De sdemona ’ s fa ther deprived o f hi s obj ecti on to hisgirl’ s all iance with a cullud gentleman. A licori ceDesdem ona , obviously (a ccording to the contendingcr iti cs ) b e ing scarcely a persua sive protagon i st andone hardly the speci e s to register in the audience’ shea rt a sens itive agitati on be fore the spectacle o f am iscegen a tiv e marriage . Here we enj oy one o f theperfectly patent, faci le , and yet intrinsi ca lly s illy a r

gum ents ever se ized upon by ha i r-tr igger Hazlitts.

I t should a ssuredly be a n o more diflicult ta sk for anaudi torium to imagine the black Mi ss Mar garetB rown a s the wh i te Desdemona than i t should be fo ran auditor ium to im agine the white Mr . RobertMantel! (fa ce made famili a r by the protractedp ress-agency o f countles s photographs ) a s the bla ck

1 20 Mr . G e o rge Jea n Na tha n P r esen ts

table young fowl fo r whom the leading m an wasrampantly willing to sa crifice his caree r

,hi s fortune

and hi s l i fe .We grant readi ly tha t women can cope and havecop ed succe ssfully with the imagination in malerole s for instance , or “

The Princeand the Paupe r ” ) we grant readi ly that a p ie ce o fcanva s with a window and a door pa inted on i t cansuccessfully placa te the im agination a s the exterio ro f a house ; we grant readily the fourth wal l co nv ention , and the theory that two persons conversingwith e ach othe r a lways face Mr . J . RankenTowse , and that when a man wants to sm oke there i sa lways a match handy, and that the sky has wrinkles ,and m any Sim i la r things . Should i t there fore be sodifli cult a j oust to coax the imagination to grant thata coloured girl can play Desdemona ?In thi s connection , parenthe ti cally, doe s not the

eyebrow suffer a l i ft when one ponders a s to what themore intelligently cri ti ca l o f our dark fe llow-citi zen smust think when they look upon the stage from the i rgallery exile and observe white actre ss es l ike Mrs.

Cra ig, Emma Dunn and Beverly Sitgreav es playing

the role s o f negre sse s and Mr . Willi am Harri s ,Jr . , ca sting an enti re play deal ing with the black racewith white a ctors ? Must not such castings seemquite a s fanta sti c to them as does the ca sting of ablack girl fo r Desdem ona seem to the le s s intelligently cr it ical o f ou r white fellow citizens ?These coons , indeed, de serve a very great credi t

The B la ck A r t 1 2 1

for the i r dignified contribution to a tercentenary celebr a tio n tha t, on the part o f some o f thei r p alerbre thren , was marked by a sterling display o f hypo cr isy and snobbery— and , in the instance o f a tlea st one lordly impresario , bri ll iant incom p etence .Some o f the histrion i sm revea led by them was, i t i squ i te tru e , almost a s bad a s som e o f that ob served inMr . Percy Ma ckaye

’

s so -called communi ty m a sque“ Calib an , and it is further true that some of thegentlem en o f the ca st gave an exhib ition o f ge sture swhich for sweep , multipli city and grandeur ha s seldom been exce lled even by Thom a scheff sky

’

s comp any in the Ghe tto — yet the fa ct rema ins , prettyor no , that thi s negro Wright

’ s interp retation o fO the llo and thi s negress Brown ’ s inte rpretation o fDesdemona are not only in many ways a s good butindeed cons ide rably bette r than certa in conspicuou sand blazoned white interpretations o f two other ce lebr a ted male and two other celebra ted femaleShakespearean rOles tha t during the la st sp an ofm oons have been vouchsa fed us under the holidaycloak o f the mem ori al fe stiviti e s . Let me there forerecommend that you vi si t the theatre when thi sWright troupe o f black Shakespeareans com es yourway, i .e .

, i f i t doesn’ t happen to be a warm day.

THE CASE FOR BAD MANNERS

HE lo t o f the American who e lects to wri tefo r the American stage i s , to say the least,not a happy one . By cra ft a dram a ti c

cr i t i c, I am frequently given to sp e cula tion what Iwould do—how I would feel— were I myself tobecome a playwright and

, so becoming, be com p elledto b ea r the inju sti ce s tha t certa in of my colleaguesin the cri ti cal robes are in the hab it o f doling out,regularly and sourly, to the native-born dram a ti cwri ter . These cr i ti ca l injusti ces— injustice s un iform ly pe rmitted to go on thei r way unrebuked becau se o f tha t mental laz iness whi ch pa sse s currentand i s mistaken f o r criti cal espr it de co rps I shallforthwi th present and essay to puncture .The first sm art o f the la sh which the Americain

p laywright i s made inevitably to suffer from cri ti calhands ha s to do with what one o f the cri ti cso therwi se a discerning fellow— has named “ ourcomedy o f bad manners .” Let an Ameri can playwright present a dramatic manuscript in which thereare exhib ited a number o f characters possessed o fbad manners and upon him will descend the ag

grieved Ha zlittry l ike so m any hungry wolves , yowling bad manners at the top of the i r lungs and la

1 22

124 Mr . G eo rge Jea n Na tha n Presen ts

wom an to we a r an even ing gown when she scrubs thefloo r. Bad manners may be dramatized in terms o fgood m anners no more than a Civi l War them e m aybe dramatiz ed in terms o f a p i llow-fight. The comedy o f bad manners i s an establi shed insti tution inFrance and in Germany . Why, in the nam e o f alltha t i s honest, Should we not a lso pe rmi t our ownplaywrights to write such comedies ? The authoro f Snobs was ridicu led for writing such a comedy when such a comedy wa s p reci se ly wha t he wa strying to write : a comedy o f American bad m anners .Why dem and of our writers that they dramatize ,and dramati ze only, not what i s , but what should beWhy not allow them , i f they choose , to dramatizenature ra ther

.

than man-millinery ?!The diffi culty here i s not so much with the Amer

i can playwrights a s with the Am erican produce rswho , when they put on one o f these American comedi e s o f bad manners , generally ca st the play withEngli sh actors . No wonder the re sult i s so o ften

.a

j ocose dido . No wonder the re sult i s not a stra ightforward , honest and honourable comedy o f bad manners but, rathe r, a mongrel and i rrelevant som ethingin which a character with a broad a and a pink handkerch i e f up hi s cuff i s made to boast vulgarly to a n

other monocled character o f the incomparable v irtue s o f hi s home town , Toledo , O hio .

Fulda ’ s Jugendfreunde i s a very good com edyo f G erman bad manners and the G erm ans gladlyadm i t i t. Gapus and Coolu s and Bernard have

The Ca se f o r B a dMa nn ers 1 25

done s eve ra l very good com edi e s o f French badmanners and the French gladly admit it . Shaw ’ splays and Brighouse ’ s are fu ll o f bad mannersand the Engli sh a re de l ighted with them . Whyshouldn ’ t an Amer ican playwright be given anequally fa ir chance a much fa irer chance , indeed ,s ince the com edy of bad m anne rs i s ce rta inly morea ccurate ly and e ssentia lly a thing o f the Am ericansoi l and o f American s than i t i s o f France or England o r G ermany ?Furthermore , good manners a re not so dramati c

a s bad manners . The thing 18 S imply a matter o fpracti cal theatr ical economics . An amusement-seeking audi ence i s vastly more enterta ined by a chara cter who eats e laborate ly with hi s kn i fe than one whoeat s in mannerly fa shion with his fork . A mangorging twenty lam b chop s and using only hi s handsi n the strategy is , in term s o f the theatre , certa inlya more ente rta ining creature than a man e ating butone with the proper weapons . The same a rgumentholds true in the m atte r o f drama a s an art andnot merely, a s above , a s a box-o flice propos ition .

The b ad m anners o f the Ameri can Tom Barry’ sThe U p start a re be tter art than the good m an

ners o f the Briti sh Som erset Maugham ’ s Caroline , and Barry ’ s p lay is the very much bette r play.

Two thi rds o f the Russ i an drama i s drama o f badmanners . The com edy of Mol iere wi ll be found toconta in qu ite a s copious a share o f bad manners a sthe comedy o f such o f our Ameri can playwrights a s


G eorge M. Cohan who are the cri ti c s’ favourite ta rgets . Mr . Langdon Mi tchell ’s excellent com edyThe New York Idea , generally regarded by thecritics a s one o f the best example s o f the Americancomedy o f good manners , exhibi ts qu ite a s many instance s o f bad manners a s doe s Mr . Hu lbert Footner ’ s exceedingly poor comedy, Shirley Kaye ,” re

ga rded by the criti cs a s one o f the b est exam ples o fthe American com edy o f bad manners . Manners ,good o r bad, have littl e o r nothing to do with theca se . I t i s not the manners , but the manne r inwhich the manners are written , that must count withthe cri ti c.More o ften than n o t i t i s the a ctor who i s respon

s ibl e for the transforming o f an Am erican playwright’ s good comedy of bad manners into a badcomedy o f bad manner s— and so confounds andconfuse s the more gullible cri ti c and causes blame tobe lodged upon the playwright.Let us , in thi s relation , consider the following bit

o f the garden scene— pol ished, well manneredfrom Pinero ’ s Gay Lord Quex .

” I quote fromthe book o f the play.

QUEX !with tender playfulness, first glancing a t the sleep

ing La dy Owbr idge] . And so a ll these good things are tobefall m e after to -m orrow ?MURIEL ! in a low v o ice] . After to -m o rrow.

QUEK. When I approach , I shall no longer see you Skimaway into the fa r vista o f these alleys , o r shr ink back intothe shadows o f the co rrido rs (pr osa ica lly )— af ter to

1 28 Mr . Ge o rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

warm on e ! r epla cing m a tch sa fe a nd ciga rette ca se in his

pocket] af ter to -m o rrow.

MURIEL ! giv ing her gown a little pa t to settle the skir t] .I’

m go ing to try.

QUEK ! thr owing his ciga rette circum spectly in to the w ingsa nd wa tching to see whether a stageha nd has been ca r eful

to extinguish it] . If I touch your hand, you won’t slip itbehind your back in a hurry ! seizing her ha nd ] ?MURIEL !pulling it away a nd lo oking a t it] . No t after

two -m o rra. ! S he ca r efully adj usts her skir ts so they w illn o t becom e m ussed a nd sits; he sta nds behind the ston e ben ch,

lea n ing on it with on e elbow a nd w ith his free ha nd sm o o th

ing ba ck his ha ir . ]

To blame the playwright, under such circum stan

ce s,for be ing a pri e st o f bad manne rs i s akin to

blaming the bas s-drum in the orche stration o f oneo f I rving Berl in’ s com posi tion s for one ’ s ea r-ache .But the inj u sti ce to the Amer ican wri ter o f plays

does not ha l t here . When an American l ik e Mi s sMargare t Mayo , fo r example , write s a r i squé fa rcel ik e “

Twin Beds ,” the maj ority o f her cri tics

a re disposed to hurl a t he r the stereotyped a rgumen t tha t, in ri squé writing o f thi s kind , i t requ i re sa Frenchm an ’ s del i cacy o f touch to m ake the themeinoff ensive and acceptable . Here , also , we encounter a typica l specimen o f native crit ica l fluff . I fanything, Mi s s Mayo write s her ri squé fa rce s withthe two- fold de li ca cy o f a Frenchm an . At thehands o f Henn equin o r Veber o r Sacha Guitry orPau l Gia ffer i, fo r in stance , a farce l ik e tha t nam edabove would b e twi ce a s broad , tw ice a s vulgar, a sthe Am erican playwright ’ s .

The Ca se f o r B a dMa nn ers 1 29

When one bear s in m ind tha t i t i s a fixed tradi tiono f the American fa rce stage (I ) tha t bab ie s are theresult o f clandestine ki sse s , (2 ) that a m a n i s a lwayshorrified and greatly di stres sed when he finds himse l f locked in a hotel room with a pretty girl

,and

(3 ) tha t when a young unmarri ed couple find themse lve s com pelled to rema in over n ight in an i sola tedinn the clerk a lways take s them for man and wi fe ,to the horror o f the young man— when , a s I say,one bears thi s inviolable and biza rre r itua l in mind ,one may well real ize that most o f the Gall i c fa rcethem es a re a lready automati cally deodo ur ized anddelica tessened be fore the American playwright i spermitted to touch them . When the Am ericanMi s s Mayo ’ s Baby Mine was produced in Pari s ,the Frenchmen, a larmed over i ts de l i cacy, inj ecteda goodly dose of more obvious naughtines s into i t .Hopwood ’ s condem ned farce , “ Our Little Wife ,

”

were it rewri tten or adapted by a Frenchman for thePari s stage , would be deleted o f its present del i cacyand made a s di rty a s a washstand in a sleeper on theSouthern Ra i lway.

The American crit ic permi ts the Amer ican p laywright li ttle , i f any, l iberty in the matter o f postula te o r initia l them at ic p rem i se and that li ttle hep erm i ts him with the greate st conde scens ion and r eluctance . The postulate o r the premise o f an American

’

s play must, by the crit ica l vo i ce , be ever probable , logi ca l and consi stent with the facts o f l i fe .Otherwi se the p laywright’ s work i s made a thing o f

1 30 Mr . George Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

cr iti cal spoo f. Six out o f e ight o f the m etropoli tancriti ci sms of Mi ss Cla re Kummer ’ s “

Good Gracio us Annabelle atte sted to this peculi ar point o fV i ew. And the play, a t that, was a confe ssed fa rce .Mr . Edgar Se lwyn told me not long ago that, to

succeed in criti ca l America , i t wa s essential tha t afarce ’ s first a ct convince its auditors o f the sinceri ty(sic) o f the farce and W in the hearts o f its auditorsto the cause o f its themati c protagon i sts . Mr . Sel

wyn i s undoubtedly correct. But imagine such animpos ition a s s inceri ty ” upon a write r o f farcefarce , a som e thing desi gned merely to make peoplelaugh and b e merry. Im agine criti ca l ru le s for sucha thing ! A S well im po se a strict techn ique upon adi alogue f o r Weber and Fields or upon the anti cs ofa Marceline . By such criti cal atti tude , the American i s di scouraged , i f not indeed altogether prevented, from writing brilli ant, i rre sponsible , illogical , improbable things l ike Molnar ’ s G a rdeo

o flizier and i s forced instead into com posing suchlogical , probable slobbergobbles a s

“ In f o r theNight .”

I t i s ab surd to demand that the postulate o f ap lay be logica l and its theme in a ccordance stri ctlywith the fa cts o f l i fe . What, by such processes o fratiocinat ion , would become o f half the great or halfgrea t plays o f all time , from CEdipus Rex

” on ?The stage i s a stage , not a stern court of law. To

deny a p laywright any p remise he choose s to o ffer i sto forb id him the first a ids to sati re and paradox

, to

1 32 Mr . G eo rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

voice s o f the G eorge B ro adhursts and the Willa rdMacks . But to find a rea l dram ati st, a dram ati s tcapable o f writing adult plays for well-educated,we ll-travelled , well-fed adult Am eri cans , one m u stindeed stop long and look til l a s tigmati sm sweep sthe eye and li sten and li sten to the cables .

THE VAUDEVILLES

AVING , f o r som e tim e pa st, been subj ectto a notion that my periodi c allus ions tovaudeville may, a fter a ll , have b een

slightly too ace scent— tha t poss ibly the th ing hadimproved and wa s no longer the sn ide num skulleryi t once had been— I la tely di scharged the requiredfee and took roost upon a sea t in the ca rdinal vaudeville hal l o f the metropol i s . Imagine my surpri sewhen I discovered— I m ay a s well con fe s s i t forthwith and frankly— that I had , in truth , been mistaken ; tha t I had been out o f touch wi th the vaudeville s fo r a su ffi c ient term to render m y remarks atonce inappropriate and unfa ir ; that, in short, I hadsta ted the case aga inst vaudevi lle from the planeo f a to o anci ent p rejudi ce . For I found that vaudevi lle , j udging it from the exposi tion thereof on i tsprincipa l New York stage , i s not only not so b ada s I in my sciol ism and ignorance had beli eved itto be , but that i t i s a blam ed Sight worse .The arterio- sclerosi s , the vacui ty and the stu

pidity of thi s sp ecie s o f pro fe ss ional enterta inm enti s beyond the com prehen s ion of even the a ss iduouspatron of the Broadway drama . Burle sque , bes ide it, i s a high art. And Broadway dram a o f the

1 33


typi cal sort in which the hero i s unable to provean a l ib i and cle a r him sel f o f the charge o f murderbecause on the night i n question he was withMadame Purée de Sa int Germa in and chivalrouslydecl ine s to com promise that lady, i s a product o fGo d-given gen iu s .By way of emphasiz ing the im partial i ty and the

go sp e l o f the foregoing paragraphs and di sm i s singa t once the al lega tion that I am constitutionally incompetent to j udge vaudeville an allegation emiuently true— I sha ll rem ove the persona l e lementfrom a consideration o f what took place that even ing upon the pla tform , shall set down s im ply thefacts and sha ll so permit the reade r to compose hism ind f o r him sel f.When I ente red the hall , the first thre e num ber son the b ill—always the weakest numbers on avaudevi lle programm e , a ccording to the vaudevillepurveyors’ own code and testimony— had alreadyspent them se lves . What followed, there fore , in thepurveyors ’ minds and to the purveyors ’ intention s ,must have been the strongest. The first o f theses trong features (headliners , I beli eve the de s ignation is ) to assess the vis ion was a so -called hobom onologist, by name , Mr . Wills . Thi s Wills gentlem an had hi s face smeared with blui sh grea sepaint and Hess’ No . to sugge st the need o f ashave , had hi s person enca sed in exaggerat edly tattered apparel and had a couple o f a dozen m edalspinned upon hi s bosom . Thus Mr . Wills I go t


o f them had on green stockings,sa id Mr . Wills,

and the other had on red , white and blue stockings .He did n o t know which one to look at

,sa id Mr .

Wills . Then , sa id Mr . Wills , he concluded to lookat the lady with the red , white and blue stockingsand so see Amer ica first. The Wills gentlem an concluded with a parody on “

The Ro sary,” which,being a j olly novelty, cha ffed the Ford automobiles .Following Mr . Will s, came one o f

“ soci ety’ sfavouri te dancers , a Mi s s B . G la ss , and with he r acollaborative colle ague in the shape o f a Mons .Rudolph in a dress-sui t with a large artifici al ga rden i ain hi s buttonhole and patent-leather ha ir. Mon s .and hi s p artner first negotia ted a waltz in a migratory spotlight, next a mili tary gavotte dil igently patterned a fter a simila r dance in one of la st se a son ’ smusica l comedie s and concluded with what the playbi ll describ ed a s “ Mi s s Gla ss ’ rev iva l o f the cakewalk,

” but which seem ed to b e more revival thancake-walk . After the period provided for r eco v

ery and known in the theatri cal parlance a s the inte rmiss ion

, a couple o f gentlem en in even ing clothesbecame vi s ible . Following some stepping o f thefamili a r kind

,one o f the team rem arked that he

wa s going across the stree t to buy a box of cigarette s .Thi s le ft the first gentleman fre e for a pa s seul.

Then the second gentleman returned . Le t’ s makea n ight o f it, proposed the first gentleman .

Whereupon (music cue ) l and the second gentlemansom ething a fter this fa shion :

The Va udev illes 1 37

No m ore bright lights fer m e,

No m o re gay life fer m e,

I go tta hom e in the country sweet,I go tta wife that ’s fine and neat ,I go tta boy he

’

s just so highHe is the apple o f m y eye,They are wa itin ’ at hom e fer m e

,

They a re wa it in ’ to greet but m e.

Y ou can have your br ight lights,Oh, those B roadway night ligh ts,But my w ife and my kiddie fer m e !

U pon the applause , the gentlemen reappeared atthe r ight o f the stage , locked arm s , tipped eachother ’ s ha ts , twined arms quickly back and readj usted hats upon e ach othe r’ s heads— and lockstepped o ff .

Next, what the programme announced a s a melodramatic sketch . A young man , i t appeared , hadstolen money from the bank . Go sh a ll hemlock !ej a culated a rube ” character , supposed to b e adirecto r o f the in sti tution , I do an ’t see why. I

’

v e

watched that there boy sence he wuz knee-high toa grasshopper and I do an ’t understand it nohow !Entered a sputter ing “

German ” characte r, alsosupposed to be a director . Me in Gott, iss de bankboosted ? ” Entered an o ld dea f characte r, a l sosupposed to be a directo r . Good morning,

” sa idthe rube characte r to the dea f

,characte r. Eh ?

a sked the dea f characte r, placing hi s hand to hisea r . “

Good morn ing,” repeated the rube characte r. Eh ? asked the deaf character . And so on


forte , piu forte , forti ssimo , fortis si ssim o , unti l“Aw, sit down !

”

The young man was called in . Why, o h why,did you do i t ? ” Pause . Then -

“ I ’ l l te ll youwhy I did i t ! I did i t because my wi fe and mybaby were starving—yes , sta rv ing! You d idn ’ tpay me a l iving wage and— and— I had a r ight

to the money ! Ente red wi fe . He didn ’ t meanto take i t ; did you , Dick ? Here

’ s the money. Hedidn ’ t mean to keep i t, he didn ’ t mean The

young man stood in the corner, head down , his fingerstoying nervously with the brim o f hi s hat. He nowgrasped hi s wi fe in his a rms . “ It’ ll be all r ight,dear, i t

’ l l be a ll r ight . Don ’ t worry , I’ ll take care

o f you and the baby, so help me Go d I wi ll .”

Me in Gott, der bank i s saved ! ej aculated theG erman characte r .

“Eh ? ” inqu ired the dea f character, placing h i s

hand to h i s ca r .

“And the boy’ s salary -the sa la ry that wuz

wrongfully kept from him— am oun tin’ to $4 500.

shall be given to him at once . I knew him , gosh a llhemlock, sence he wuz knee-high to a grasshopperand I knew he wuz all r ight ! ” excla imed the rubechara cte r .And so , curta in .

Now Vaudeville ’ s Pet S inger , one Mi s s LaRue Dresse s by Hickson . At the le ft, pro fessor a tthe piano . At the r ight, gilt cha ir . In the centre ,spotlight . In the centre o f the spotlight in the

A FEW PAGES OF DESTRUCTIl/ E

DRAMATIC CRITICISM

HE fre sh-a s-a -da i sy temper o f the theatrica lcourtship of the native cockn ey emotion continues to be reflected in plays like Mr . Austin

Strong’ s “ Bunny,” the theme o f which wa s

already anc ient when Bhasa used i t in the secondcen tu ry o f the Christi an era in the Sanskrit dramaMr ichchhaka tika (v ide v o n SchrOder

’

s Indien

’s Lite ra tu r, Lecture and in music show

libretti l ike Stop , Look , Listen ,” the vernal gu ffaw

wooers in which are the comedian who observe semphatically that he i s through with women forgood and all, who— while he i s yet sp eakingeye s a l ikely minx cro ssing the stage

,thereupon sa s

excuse me ,” turns around and follows her into t e

wings ; the rattl ing o ff by a chara cte r o f an interminable string of Chinese , the query a s to what thecharacte r sai d and the comedian’ s re tort, he sa i dn o and the apothegm on poi son ivy.

Add to the pi cture , in a dram atization o f W . B .

Maxwel l ’ s The Devil ’ s Garden ,” the scene o f cro s sexamination in which a husband di scovers that hi swi fe ha s be en monkeying wi th some one else— a

scene bijo ued with such pa ssages a s“Wi ll , le t go

140

Destructiv e Dram a tic Cr i ticism 14 1

my shoulders ; you hurt : I ’ ll answer all your question s in the morn ing No , I think I

’ l l have theanswers now You ’ re lyin

’

, woman”;

“ Iwon’ t pretend any more —“

I did i t for yoursake , Will , a s Go d see s me , I did it for your sake ,only to help you ! I couldn’ t get the help unles sI sacrificed myself to save you and We ’ ll begin a t the beginn ing, and I ’ l l have the truth , I ’ llhave i t to the last word i f I have to te ar i t out o fyour bosom .

”

Add , furthe r, some d ialogue art ifici a lly draped together by Mr . Henry Arthur Jones for the purposeo f permitting Mr . Oti s Skinner to lean over theback o f a cha i r w ith bat ti lted j aunti ly a cross eyeand walking-sti ck po inted w ith grandiose flouri sh a tthe vi lla in .

Add, stil l further, some more mus ical comedie s inwhich the star pantaloon make s aj oke about li sten ing to some one ea t soup and , whentwo a rmed Ethiop ians threaten him , observe s thatthe future looks dark ; and in which (

“ Very GoodEddi e ” ) the humour embra ces such penoche a sAre you aga inst matrimony ? No , I

’m upagainst i t,

” and such j ocos itie s a s ki ssing good-bye toa fiv e-dolla r b i l l about to be loaned to a friend .

And—the panoram ic impre ss ion begins to b ecomplete .In the p anorama there are , true enough , here and

there vi s ible fl eeting instance s o f something o r othe rsoundly good , yet the circumstance obtrudes that the

142 Mr . George Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

theatre o f the p er iod i s still anything but l ively inimagination , anyth in g but green in fancy. Do Iseem aga in to be entering into several pages o f whatthe yokelry condemns for destructive critici sm ? I fso , let u s appraise the annoyance .What, a fte r all , the

‘

philo sophy o f thi s hypero rthodox prej udice aga inst what the contemporaneouswhisker so ca ll s destruct ive criticism ? De structivecri ti ci sm i s the dri ll master o f progress . Smashinga popula r, and therefore probably imbeci le , theo ryon the nose and advancement are twins . FromChri stopher Columbus , who cracked the shello f the popular theory that the earth was fl at, toB e rnard Shaw, who handed the popular S ardoutheo ry i ts buri al cert ificate , the hi sto ry o f destructivecriti ci sm and the h istory o f enlightenment a re complem enta l. The attendant theory that fellows likeColumbus and Shaw have not b een destructive cri ti css ince they substituted by the i r own hand somethingbette r fo r that which they destroyed i s s ister nonsense . I f Columbus had promulgated the theo’rythat the e arth wa s round but had himself been un

ab le to prove it— if the truth o f hi s theory hadbeen forced to wait fo r attestation until a hundredyear s a fter hi s death Columbus would still havebeen a path cleare r. The same wi th Shaw. The

same , indeed, with any other exponent o f so -calleddestruct ive cr iticism ,

’

wha tev er hi s especial field o fenterpri se from Theodore de B észe who in DeHa ereticis a Civ i li s Magistratu Pun iendis

” wrote


in the New Republics and the hotel parlours ? Will iam Winter , who interprets art in terms of morals ,who for many years ha s wr i tten ser iously that thetrue purpose o f the drama i s to portray mere ly thesweet ep i sodes o f li fe and that by thi s mea sure suchdramati sts a s Herv ieu, de Curel , Ibsen , Strindberg,Hauptmann and Bri eux are arti sts inferior to SydneyG rundy, Loui s T i ercel in , H . V . Esmond , Loui s N.

Parker, James A . Herne , France s Hodgson Burne ttand Madele ine Lucette Ryley . J . T . Gre in who ,r eviewing, on January 5 , 1 902 , a p lay calledFrocks and Frills,

” wrote “ Herein are we intro duced to the amusing mysteri e s o f a fa shionabledressmaking establishment and when there a beautiful wom an l ike Mi s s E ll i s Je ff reys removes herbodice and exh ibits a cam i sole o f de l i cate lace, aclimax i s provided which should be suffi cient to drawthe town and who , revi ewing Mrs. Warren’ sProfe ss ion a few weeks late r, wrote

“ I t was anuncomfortable a fternoon and I cannot withhold theop inion that the representation was enti rely unne

‘

ces

sa ry and painful .” I renaeus Prime-Stevenson whowr ite s o f the grea t gen iu s o f Meyerbeer . JohnRunciman who greases Purce ll a t the expense o fBach . Ashley Duke s who appl i es butte rnut o il bythe wholesa le to Maeterl inck ; and P. P. Howe whosmears Granville B arker, a s dramatist, with meltedopera ca ramels . The cri ti cs who ha i l the geniu s o fT agore and A l fred Noyes and Ridgley Torrence .Heinrich Dorn who upheld the popula r mus ical tra

D estructiv e Dra m a tic Cr iticism 145

ditions aga inst Wagner . Such comedian s a s Charlton Andrews who exe cute su ch swe etm e a ts a s “ themo s t typica l exponent o f such nationa l drama a sAm erica thus far boasts i s Mr . D avid Be lasco andta lks o f a play by Sudermann called Die Heimat .Such pro fes sional yum-yum m ongers a s those o f several o f our leading news brochure s who , l ike thegentlem en above , mistake indiscrimina te prai se forconstructive criti ci sm , confound fl attery with cr i t icalfecundation .

As aga inst such gooroos o f glucose , I stand ,plea se Go d, a sn ip e r. Tha t no theatri ca l p ersonwhether manager, a cto r or playwright ever paysthe slighte st attention to anything I say save possibly to a llude to m e now and aga in a s an old grouch—I not only appreciate , but also expect . So fara s I kn ow, nothing I have ever written by way o fcritici sm and I have b een a t the j ob now for morethan twe lve years ha s eve r di sturbed in the le astthe prosp erous m ediocrity o f our theatre . Mr .

Augustus Thomas i s sti ll the dean o f Am erican playwrights and, a s the dean , sti ll write s “ sci entificdram a s (

“The Soul Machine in which he seri

o usly advance s the doctrine that a p erson m ay bepla ced under the spell o f hypnosi s a t long distance .Mr . David B e lasco i s sti ll the foremo s t a rti sti c cons ci ence and wiza rd of reali sti c deta il in the Americantheatre and , a s such wizard o f rea li sti c deta il , st illl ights hi s stage (

“The Boomerang ” ) from above

— it be ing a peculiar ity o f nature that the sun al


ways enters a room through the cei ling instead o f ,

a s i s commonly believed , through the windows .And advanced vaudevi lle audi ences sti ll laugh themselves hal f to death at the mention o f the ne cess ityf o r donn ing ear-muffs when eating blueberry p ie .I t i s one o f my deepest regre ts that I was not

born a constructive criti c . I long for the grin o fpubli c approval . My hand i s lonesom e for thej ovi al shake, my back for the comm endatory pat .I f, a s some one ha s sa id, whom the gods woulddestroy they firs t make popular— then giveme fr a tern ite

'

o r give me death . Bu t, ala s , so in

tr in sic in me i s the impulSe to the contrary, theimpulse to procla im the flaw and withhold the squirtgun o f eau de cologne , that I myself am powerle ssaga inst i t. I have neve r written a single paper ofdramati c criti ci sm , a single short play, a single shortstory

,a single mu s i ca l composi ti on, a single book

o r edited a S ingle number o f a magazine that ha sbeen able , upon care ful scrutiny, to withstand myown searching and s ini ster eye . There i s ever something about my l abours that gro ssly displea ses me ;tha t a fter a r e-perusa l seem s a bit crude , evena b i t ridi culous ; that doe s not bear truthful ra id byan intelligent destructive crit ic . The theory, so

frequently quoted by di sgruntled clowns , that “ hewho can , does ; he who can

’ t, cr iti ci ze s , i s , a s Ihave frequ ently observed , a theory appurtenant tothe notion tha t Rudolph Friml is a greater m an thanW. J . Henderson .

148 ,Mr . G e o rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

Skinne r which , save in the most obv iou s externa ls ,i t do es not . A S i t i s , Mr . Jones ’ s play give s i ts sta rperform er n o t o n e-ha l f the opportun i ti e s he enj oyedin You r Hum ble Servant ” (also a made- to -orderj ob ) and not one twentieth the Opportun i ti e s he enj oyed in the dramati zation called The Honour o fthe Fam i ly (a lso a made-to-order j ob ) .

I f, on the other hand , Mr . Jones desire s that hi splay be cons ide red uncommerci ally, be con sidereda lone for its intrins i c, a s oppo sed to its extrins i c,qua l itie s , then de structive criti ci sm must be vi s itedupon Mr . Jone s to the e ffect that he ha s , in thi swork , attempted an excursi on into theatrica l sati rea la the Shaw o f Fanny’ s Fi rst Play,” the Ri ttnero f “

The Man in the Prompter ’ s Box,” the Bahrof The Yellow Nightingale the Ettl inger o f“ Hydra ,

” the Barr i e of Alice-Sit-By-The-Fire ,”

e t a l.,to which exalted form o f humour Mr . Jone s

would se em to be unsuited . Mr . Jones proudly expose s such dialogue a s “ i f you wi sh to keep theses illy m atinée girls out o f your theatre , my dear Cohyers, j u st try giving them a good play and (inretort to a dea f bi shop ’ s com pla int that he cannothear the a ctors ) You are to b e congratulated

,

” andim agines i t to be fre sh , bouncing sati re when , inpoint o f fa ct, i t was old stu ff when Sheridan wroteThe Criti c to say nothing o f when i t was u sedin var ied form by Mr . Phil ip B a r tho lom az in theprologu e to Ki ss Me Qu i ck and in the prologueo f the Winter Garden show in which wa s the tune

D estructiv e Dram a tic Cr i ticism 149

Sum urun I forget the name o f the thing . N0

man who cou ld write a Mrs. Dane ’ s D e fence ” i sl ike ly to write satire . The scene between the va inactor-manage r and his fooli sh girl adm i re r in these cond act o f Mr . Jone s ’ s play (a scene in which theactor for whom the play wa s written take s no part )i s th e one rea lly good spot in the manuscrip t. I thas abou t i t a sly and knavish a i r that recalls someo f the gra ce o f Rebellious Susan .

” But otherwise ,the m anuscript i s sm all potatoe s .Bunny,” the la te Austin Strong play mentioned

in my i sagogi c remarks , was one o f those becomei rritating contraptions : “ a play with a Dicken sa i r .” I t wa s the familia r l i fe le ss , qua s i-l i terary,nineteenth century confection o f second-hand-bookshop , quiet-lane- in -small-town-near-London , Junemorn ing, male-Bianca-for-hero— where in hum annature i s se en a s in a reading glass . Mr . Strong’ smanner o f writing i s poli shed and hi s imagery (a s ,for example , hi s addre s s to a young lady that she“ i s l ike a bright fl ag flying in the breeze ” ) i s o fcourse mea surably supe rior to the usual Broadway imagery in a like Situation “ your ha i r i s l ikespun gold your eyes a re like stars in two m idnight pools et cetera— yet hi s characters seembut so many a ctors dressed up like Chauncey Olcottand in imminent danger o f los ing the i r s ideburns .Turning to the dramatiza tion by Mi s s Edith El l i so f W . B . Maxwell’ s novel ,

“The Devi l ’ s G arden ,

”

the vacu ity of what is locally regarded a s constructive


critici sm may be nicely appreciated . Let us , accordingly and by way o f i llustration , criti ciz e the playthu s constructively ”

In the first place , allowing for the fact that theMaxwell tom e wa s a loudly overestimated mum boj umbo , the dramatiz ation , aga in a llowing that thenove l possessed mea t for the stage , fa i led of p ro sperity for various cle arly definable re a son s , the chie fo f which was that the dram ati st allowed the mostinteresting elements o f the novel ’s action to transp i rein the intermission s .In the second place , the dramati s t el iminated the

sa tyri c B arradine , the mo st p iquing protagonist o fthe earli er evening, in her very first act.In the thi rd p lace (as I , in a misgu ided mo

ment, have po inted out elsewhere ) , she showedclearly in thi s same a ct that Mavi s Dale was so

deeply in amorous thrall to her husband , so eageraga in to rega in his love , that even were Dale , immed ia tely the curta in l i fts upon Act I I , to confes s themurder to her, he would be at once freely forgivenand se t a t pe ace . Thus , a s early a s nine o

’ clock, wasthe audience robbed o f any sense o f future confl i et.In the fourth place , the character o f Nora , the

young gypsy, and the personage o f the play next ininterest to B a rr adine in the eye s o f the audi ence ,wa s not di sclo sed in person unti l the third a ct andthen with so sm all a mea sure o f prepa ration that thecompell ing scene where in the girl throws hersel f,


gible argum ent aga inst e lem ents in this parti cularplay and fo r every such seem ingly sound argumenta ccounting its fa i lure and so working constructivelyin b eha l f o f future dramati c manuscripts o f a likespeci e s , I can summ on up contradictory argum ents(also seem ingly sound ) , toge ther with concrete illustra tio n s, which will not me re ly bel i e m y in i tia l a rguments but which will prob ably prove the truth o f thereverse o f them to the entire sati s faction of everyone concerned .

For example , I have pointed out Mi s s Ell i s’ gener a lly granted m i stake in h av ing oblite rated her m ostinteresting e arly-even ing figure in her very first act.Su ch an argum ent i s pure cri ti cal flub-dub . Ib sendid the sam e thing and criti c nor public has everfound fault with him for it in Littl e Eyo lf .

”

For example , I have noted , a s have many o f mycolleagues , tha t the dram ati zer sprang the NoraDale scene upon her audience suddenly and withoutpreparation and so cau sed i t to miss its proper eff ect . Nonsen se pure and simple . What o f the unprepared- fo r scene be tween the thug and the Salvation Army gi rl in the second act o f Shaw’ s Maj o rBarbara ,” qu ite the m ost e ff ective dram ati c scene inthe whole play ?For exam ple , a s aga inst the criti ci sm o f heavi ly

lugged-in comedy rel ie f in i tse l f la rgely di stinct fromthe play, what o f the heavily lugged-in , equally di stinct, but yet highly amu s ing com edy re l ie f o f Mr .

B ro adhurst’

s success ful Bought and Paid For

Destructiv e Dram a tic Cr i ticism 1 53

For exam ple , in controvers ion o f the criti ci sm that ,through the lap s e of ten years in the middle o f herplay, Mi s s Ell i s dele ted her m anuscript o f the necessa ry vital consecutiveness , consider a similar lapse(doubled and more indeed ) in the matte r o f thi sconsecutivene s s in the prospe rou s Bennett-Knoblauchplay Mile stones . Cons ider , s im i larly, such playsa s Madame X ” Merely Mary Ann ,

”et cetera .

So fa r a s minor characters be ing figures more interesting (a t lea st, while upon the stage ) than thea l so presen t le ading protagon i sts , ca st an eye uponthe waite r in “ You Never C an T e ll ,” the Mexicanin Arizona , the poet in John Gabrie l B o rkm an ,

”

the girl a rti st in “ A Man ’ s World ,” the Mi ll i eJames character (you reca ll i t, though I forget thename ) in Lover

’ s Lane ,” the Bill Wa lker o f Ma

j or B arbara ,” the burglar in “ A Gentleman of Lei

sure ,” Nutty Beamer in “ Young America ,” a ha l f

dozen characters in Shakespeare .As to the charge that the dramati zer re served the

most interesting elements o f the novel fo r the inte rmi ssions , ponder upon the c ircumstance that thedramatizer o f “ Ben Hur did the same thingand made a fortune .As to the perfectly apparent pa ss ion of mate fo r

mate and the equally apparent readine ss eventuallyto embrace the o ff ender, no matte r what he ha s doneo r doe s (with the attendant diminution of the boobyspectator ’ s sense o f physical confl ict and ' su spense a sto the p lay’ s outcome ) — turn to such box-oflice


b e lles a s The House of Gla ss,”The Family Cup

board ,”et a l.

And so with the re st o f the blooms of such cons tructive analytica l critici sm . Whether addre ssedto a que stion o f art or to a question o f popular success , cri tici sm o f thi s sort i s not only valueless , but,by virtue o f the ci rcumstance that i t seeks to imposeupon drama a firm formula , a changele ss set of rulesand regulations, deleteriou s . The s im ple truthabout such a play a s “ The Devi l ’s G arden i s thati t fa iled (whether the vi ew critica l be from the po int(I ) of sound merit o r (2 ) financia l populari ty ) because it wa s ne ither (I ) mentally, nor (2 ) physi cally,stimulating.

1 56 Mr . G eo rge Jea nNa tha n Pr esen ts

(The Book o f a Wom an ) , a s tha t p iece wasdone four yea rs ago in the KOn iggratzerstra sseTheatre o f Berlin , there wa s produced not long agoi n the Prince ss Theatre in New York City a playca lled Such I s Li fe with the name o f HaroldOwen , an Engli shman who collaborated in the writing o f the melodrama Mr . Wu ,

”set down a s sole

author. Save for such minor alterations a s the substitutio n o f an allus ion to Edinburgh for one in theorigina l manuscript to Ham burg and the giving o fthe characters Briti sh , in place o f Teutoni c, names ,the Schmidt play and the play blithely presented bythe Engli shman a s hi s own were identi cal . The playdivulged in the Princess Theatre , therefore , wasand I oversta te the ca se in not the s lightest degreea typ ica l Germ an farce-comedy written by Schmidtwho i s one o f the most popular, most widely knownand most adro i t playwrights in the modern Germanpopula r comic theatre .Presently about fif ty-thre e years old , Schm id t(whose plays are acted all ove r the Em pi re and i tsneighbour, Austr ia , and who ha s be en translatedonto the Russi an stage and , in several instance s , thestage s o f othe r Europ ean countri e s ) b e longs to thatfam i l ia r group o f comedy write rs tha t includes suchmen a s Ri ttner, Molnar , O tto Erle r, Fe l ix Sa lten ,Sil Vara , Karl Ettl inger, O tto Ernst, Karl Rosslerand O tto Gysa e : a group which , while here andthere many comedy pegs below the Thoma-Schnitzler-Bahr group , i s sti ll many rungs higher than that

Why S chm id t L eftHom e 1 57

em bracing such writers a s Robert Pae s i , O ttoSchwa rtz , Paul Apel, Otto Soyka , Vo sb erg, O ttoFa lkenburg, Ludwig Bauer and HansMuller, thoughthe latte r are witty fellows all o f them . Am ongSchm idt’ s better-known piece s o f farce-comedy writing, to reca l l a few to your noti ce , are Die Venusm it dem Papage i (Venus with the Parrot ) , NurEin T raum (Only a Dream ) , Entgle i sung (O ffthe Rai ls ) , Fia t Ju sti ti a ,” “ Christiane and thecom edy whi ch Mr . Owen has translated a s Such i sLi fe , to wit, “ The Book o f a Furtherto e stabli sh the re lative theatrica l importance o f

Schm idt and probably the Sim ple st way in whichto bring with conviction hi s popula r Continental emin ence to the loca l noti ce i t may b e chron i cl ed thathe demands an exceptionally high royalty— a nole s s lo fty revenue , indeed , than Bernard Shawwhich i s to say, fi fteen p e r cent . o f the gross boxo flice takings , a rate noticeably above the custom aryfive

,seven-and—a -half and ten with which the attorney

for the usua l write r for the theatre i s well sati sfied .

So m uch for the facts . Keep a firm gra sp uponthem , i f you p le a se , while we proceed now to go’ round the curve .O f th i s celebrated German com i c wr i ter and o f

hi s typi ca l Ge rman farce-comedy, clumsily di sgui seda s Such Is L ife ,’ a n English fa rce-com edy, byMr .

Ha r o ld Owen,

” what did m y good fel low, M. DeFoe o f The .Wo r ld

,find ? Let u s observe . Thus ,

M. De Foe (with Ita l i cs by the entire company )


Haro ld Owen , the English author o f Such Is Life ’also w ro te Mr . Wu so it canno t be argued that heis who lly w ithout exper ience in w riting fo r the stage, a n

infer ence na tura lly to be drawn f r om the tedious pr oceed

ings a t the Pr in cess Thea tre ‘

Such Is L ife ’

a n

English wa r -tim e com edy . The a utho r m ight possiblybe a t better adv a n tage in wr iting na rra tiv e fiction .

”

And my good fellow, M. Broun , Hazlitt to TheTr ibune

,what o f M. Broun ? Thus , f. qua n to po s

sibile,M. Broun : The fact that such a play can

achieve production Should be most encouraging to

ev ery young a utho r .

”

And my good fe llow, M. B arnton, Lewes to theEv en ingWo r ld

,wha t o f M Da rn ton ? Thus

, tepi

dam en te,M. Da rnto n feeble Engli sh comedy.

”

And my good fel low, M. Woollcott, Lamb toThe Tim es

,what o f M. Woollco tt ? Thus, with

punditi c scowl , M. Woollcott mi ldly nonsensicalb i t o f Engli sh humour .”

That “ The Book of a Woman is, in fine truth ,the least meri tor iou s o f all Schmidt’ s plays and tha tthere i s no parti cular disposition here to qu e stionthe loca l appra i sal of its worth , cannot ava i l toobscure the succulent give-away which my learnedconfreres , through the p iece , a chieved for themse lves . So to mistake an intrins i cally typ i cal modern G erm an comedy for an English comedy— thehumours o f the two nations are , o f course , qui te entirely different ; so to im agine one o f the leading popula r comic wri ters o f G ermany without experiencein wr iting for the stage and so further to confuse


back than Such i s Li fe they go back to the largeloca l fundam enta l unacqua intance with Continenta ldrama , i ts phi lo sophi e s and hum ours , it s vi ewpointsand it s techn i cs . The lo cal criti ci sm i s , in the m a in ,builded upon tradi ti ons o f such philosophi es and humours , such viewpoints and techn i cs traditions f r equently false— rather than upon the modern go spels . For example , what the average Am eri cancriti c beli eves to be the modern French a ttitude incom i c wri ting i s in reali ty the modern G erm an attitude . Schmidt’ s fa rce “

Only a Dream ” i s an infinitely more Frenchy farce (from the Americanpo int o f Vi ew ) than , for example , Sacha Guitry

’ sPetite Hollande ” which (from the Americanpoint o f Vi ew ) ha s to i t a sort o f German a i r. SuchG erman com edie s a s the “ Lottie ’ s B irthday ” o fThom a and the “ Little Prince ” of Mi sch mightseem , to the Am erican mind, to have been written r espectiv ely by the French Max Maurey and theFrench collaborators Mauri ce Henn equin and PierreVeber ; while such French p iece s a s Mirbeau’s andNa tan so n

’

s“ Le Foyer ” m ight seem , to the same

m ind , to have b een written by a G erman o f the schoolo f Wedekind o r at lea st o f Turszinsky andJacques Burg.

Wha t Frenchman o f to-day has wr itten a farcewi th so Galli c a viewpoint (locally speaking) a s the“ Blue Mouse ” of the G ermans Engel and Horst,we ll remembered by Am e ri can audience s ; what German o f to-day has written a farce with so German a

Why S chm id t L eftHom e 1 6 1

point o f vi ew (also speaking from the loca l p lane )a s the Petite Fonctionnaire ” o f Alfred Capus?One speculates , indeed , into what catego ry our critics would have put such a play a s Anthony Wharton ’ s “ Irene Wycherley had it be en produced inNew York unde r another title and Signed with thename o f a Norwegian playwright. O r what wouldhapp en were Bjornson’ s “

G eography and Loveput on next month in the Princes s Theatre a s The

Chart o f Armour ’ by Fr ango is Deauvi lle and August Dusse ldor fThe diff erence between the French attitude in

m atte rs o f amour and the Germ an atti tude i s to nolittle extent exactly the oppo s i te o f wha t i s locallyim agined . That i s to say, the re spective a ttitude ofthe bo n v iv a n t

,the worldly fellow, the H el iogabalus

o f France and o f Germany and let i t b e rem embered that i t i s with such sophi sti cated chara ctersthat the typ ical farce-comedy o f both Pari s and Berl in more o ften deals . (Or at lea st what may ineach instance fa i rly b e taken a s the typi cal farcecom edy . ) The Frenchman o f thi s sort in hi s a ff a i rso f the heart ha s in him more o f the Viennese thanha s the Germ an : he i s , for a ll tha t the Anglo-Saxonbelieve s to the contra ry, a highly sentimenta l andanything but light-hearted fe llow . He loves inthe moonlight, where the German love s in the sun .

He coos hi s j e-v o us-a im es in the key o f B fl a t,where

his ne ighbour to the North laughs hi s ich-liebe-dichs

in d f dd . The door-s lamming, wardrobe-hiding,


under-the-b ed-diving French lover o f the AngloSaxon notion i s no more the French lover than theIri sh Shaw ’ s Blanco Po snet i s an Amer ican cowboy.

No r , to point the fa ct more pe rtinently, i s he thetypi cal lover o f typ ical French farce , a s tho s e whoknow the i r Rip and Bousque t, thei r De Flers and DeCa illave t, the i r Romain Coolus , thei r Bernard andAthi s , the i r Sacha Guitry (in hi s more recent years )and the i r B en iére prop erly apprecia te . He is n omore typ ica l o f the French lover or o f modernFrench farce a s Frenchmen know it than an Amer ican soci e ty man by the late Paul Armstrong was typi ca l o f an American socie ty man Or than the Italian B r acco ’s Comptesse Coquette

” i s typi cal o fItal ian farce , or the Briti sh Pinero ’ s Wife Withouta Sm i le ” i s typica l o f Briti sh farce , or the G ermanBlumentha l and Kadelburg

’

s IS Matrimony aFa ilure ? i s typ ical o f G erm an farce , or the FrenchDesv a lliéres and Mars ’ “Never Again i s typ ica lo f French farce , or the Ameri can Hatch and Ho

mans’ “B lue Envelope ” i s typ i ca l o f American

farce .When the domesti c thinkers speak of typicalFrench farce and the typ i cal viewpoint o f such farcethey speak o f the typica l French farce and viewpointnot o f to-day nor o f yesterday, but o f twenty andtwenty-fiv e years ago . Tempo ra m uta n tur— andfarce and viewpo int

,messi eurs , change with them .

The modern German viewpoint in love matter s i sthe French v iewpom t o f twenty and thirty years ago ;

1 64 Mr . G e o rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

file o f the British farces and com edi e s o f Pinero oro f Hubert Henry Davi e s o r o f Shaw or o f HenryA rthur Jones or of B arri e or of Maugham or ofJerome o r o f RoyHo rn im an or o f Cice ly Ham iltonor o f Ans tey o r o f Sutro o r o f Besi er or o f ArnoldB enne t o r o f Maur ice Baring or Keble Howa rd orG ertrude Jennings o r R. C . Carton or Cyril Harcourt o r Bernard Fagan or George Ro llit or An

thouy Wharton or Horace Annesley Va chell o r o fany other such Briti sh playwright, im portant or unim portant ? In s ix years o f playhouse round s inLondon , I heard but thre e puns , two in shows at theA lham bra , the third in a musi ca l comedy a t theAdelphi . And in many more years o f reading, Ihave encountered les s than e ight or ten puns , a t them o s t, in Briti sh play manu scrip ts . No r i s the typi ca l Engli sh hum our o f Wells and Chesterton , tospeak beyond the theatre , any more a humour ofpun s than the typi ca l Engli sh hum our o f W . W .

Jacob s and Ne i l Lyons or the typical (and exce llent ) Engli sh humour o f The Ske tch and The Til tler

,Punch and Tit-B its and L o ndo n Opin io n . The

typ ica l Engli sh hum our , contrary to be ing a thingfor sp eciou s m ock , is o f a high order . The Engl i sh , above the G erm ans and the French , i t is interes ting parentheti ca lly to note , have produced by a llodds the best humour out o f the grim materi al s o fthe pre sent wa r .I regret tha t I have no more le i sure to wa ste

where in furthe r to i lluminate the darknes s o f the

Why S chm idt L eftHom e 165

lo cal Ha zlittry a s that darkness ca st i ts shadowsupon the Lothar S chmidt play and the quali ti e s whichthat play brought unde r the notice o f the intramuralcri ti ci sm .

The s imple truth about the play wa s probablythi s : (I ) I t wa s , true enough , n o t a good playthough even had i t been a good p lay i t would no thav e been susceptible o f prop er enactment by theEngli sh a ctors a ss igned to i ts interpretati on , fo rEngli sh a ctors can no more p lay German fa rce thanAm erican actors can play French farce or G erm anactors Am er ican farce . Just a s the American a cto rlacks the de ftness and pol ish for French farce anda s the G erman acto r lacks the speed and brashne s sfor Ameri can farce , so is the Engl ish a ctor defici entin the gusto and stomach essentia l to German farce .And (2 ) the first act wa s played in high lights

(a fternoon ) where i t wa s pla inly nece ssary to i ts e ff ectiv eness that i t b e p layed , a s o riginally, by thelam plight o f evening (the hum our o f the tr an spa rent door episode wa s otherwise lo st enti rely ) .

And Mr . Owen garbled amateuri shly thetrans lation of two o f the witti est p a ssage s in theSchm idt manuscrip t .And the play

,a moderately quick fa rce , was

interpreted in the tempo o f Stephen Phillip s ’

Herod .

”

And the actors were , w ith the exception o fMr . Gottschalk , so very b ad anyway that they wouldhave ru ined any play .


I I

Coler idge observed that the true stage illusion as ,for instance , to a forest scene , cons i sts not in themind’ s j udging i t to be a forest, but in the mind

’ srem i s s ion o f the j udgment that i t i s no t a fore st.The true stage i llusion a s to m elodram a consi sts notin the mind ’ s engaging with it a s dram a holding themirror up to nature , but rather a s na ture holdingthe mirro r up to drama .Properly to pla ce onesel f in a receptive mood be

fore a melodrama , i t i s e ssentia l tha t the mind becaj oled into surrendering for the tim e being i ts sen seo f comedy. Otherwi se , o f what ava il or plausibili ty such effective melodrama cl im axe s a s that o f theGuignol ’ s Vers La Lumiere ,

” in which an Engli sho fli cer s inks to death in a bed o f qui cksand overwhich , but a moment o r two be fore , the vi lla in ha sa iri ly prom enaded in sa fe ty ? The melodramati cmind must believe temporari ly in Santa Claus

,in

ghosts , in the theory that a woman ’ s wit i s ever shperior to a man’ s , in the notion that a l l noble fe llows ,grea t lovers and val iant heroes in re al li fe a reI ri shmen, in the theory that murder i s never comm itted anywhere save in a darkened room (preferably a l ibrary ) , and that chi ldren a re a lways kidnapp ed during thunderstorms .With the mind so p ersuaded , Mr . Bayard Veil

ler ’ s melo-p ie ce , The Thirte enth Cha i r,” provi desa l ive ly theatr ical even ing. Writing a fter the for

1 68 M r . G eo rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

o f the skepti c yokel i s qu ite obviou s,even to one

like m ys el f whose trade l i e s fa r rem oved from playmaking. The sp iri tual i sti c m edium , Mr . Ve iller

’

s

centra l character, confe sse s throughout the e arli erport ion o f the melodrama that she i s able e a s i ly todece ive her cl ients by more or less sim ple stratagems .When , however , a t the play ’ s clim ax the m edium i sca lled upon to com pel the vi lla in to con fe ss to them urder , her (and Mr . Veiller

’

s) ingenuity fa il s and ,to the sad l et-down o f the play, She abjure s chi caneryand trusts fo r a ss i stance , with much pathos v ia theface m uscle s

,to God and the sp iri ts .

Now while what follows i s al l very reassuring tothe fa ithful , i t com e s a s som ething of qualm to theother nine-tenths o f the audi ence . This qualmmight have been prevented— and most readilyhad the author merely caused the medium , previousto entering into her final trance , to whi sper an inaudible som ething to the young

.

hero and thencaused the young hero , whose pre sence in the scepe

is not needed , to leave the stage . This would su ffi ceagain to plant tr ickery in the audience ’s mind andyet not dimin ish in the lea st the pre sent suspen se ofthe s ituation . And when then the door open s myster iously and when then the kni fe tumbles from thece i l ing the audi ence might be spared i ts p resent skepticism a s to the sp ir i t flo n -flo n and convinced to thegrea ter prosperi ty o f the ti cket ra ck that a hum anhand (or a bla ck thread ) had had som ething to dowith the cu rrently unconvincing door-opening and

Why S chm id t L eftHom e 1 69

tha t the butle r, ra the r than Little Laughing Eyes ,had stamped on the floor above and so dislodgedthe dagger .These a re , one appre ciate s, tr iv ial things for thecri ti c to trea t o f, but one i s sp eak ing here le s s o fdrama and dramati c l i terature than o f the showshop . And Mr . Veiller

’

s me lodram a a s i t stands ,with ha l f i ts m otivation entru sted to Kella r and theother half to Prov idence , i s , while a very good showde sp ite i ts la st a ct wabbles , sti l l a trifl e like kissinga gi rl who ha s been eating on ions . To make thekis s pass fo r necta r , the m an m ust al so eat onion s . A

Herm ann the G reat, a fter enterta in ing hi s audienceand gain ing its rapt and will ing attention for twohours , could not we l l hope to reta in that audi ence ’ sfavour were he suddenly to turn down hi s sleevesand begin acting a scene from “

The Servant in theHou se Tha t, briefly, i s wha t Mr . Ve i ller ha s a ttempted . Yet, o n the theory that a pala table dinner i s n o t entirely to be spo i led by a l eaky dem ita sse ,

“The Thirteenth Cha i r ” i s probably certa in

to sati s fy the maj ori ty o f i ts partakers . I t i s a sgreatly superio r a s theatr ical enterta inment to thelate Ri chard Harding Davi s ’ “ Vera , the Medium ,

”

a s i t i s inferior to Chesterton ’ s Magi c.”

THE DRAMATIC CRITIC AND THEUNDRAMATIC THEATRE

N the several sea sons theatrical p assing n ow

into history,n o m ore droll enterta inment ha s

be en vouchsa fed the p eople than the vehementresuscitation o f the ancient repartee a s to the statusin the playhouse o f the dramati c cr itic. In the badinage , almo s t every one from Mr . Abraham Erlangerdown to the Court o f Appeals ha s parti cipated , andthe net result has be en , i f not enti rely conv incing, a tlea st provocative o f a wholesome and genu ine amusement .No t the least chi c fe ature o f the enterpri se has

been the perfe ctly stra ight face with which the parti es o n both side s o f the fence have gone about thedi scussion : though one must o f course a l low thatfa rce i s thus b est conducted. And not the le a st wi stful feature o f the bu sine ss ha s be en the balm y ignorance with which both s ide s have i ssued thei r r e

spectiv e most floor ing grunts— to say nothing o fthe a ttendant inconsequ ence s . In an attem pt tobr ing light out o f chaos , let u s there fore endeavourto engage the quest ion with an eye cool and impartial .Thi s question, desp ite the gaudy bosh with which

1 70


enthu s ia sti c audi ence . I have be en going professio n a lly to the theatre in New York for morethan twelve years and I tell but the S im ple truthwhen I say that in a ll tha t time I have , with but aSingle exception , never once attended the op en ing ofany play, howeve r b ad , where at the congrega tionwas not clam orously encomi a sti c . To report premiere s by such tokens i s , there fore , to report so

many corpulent fab rications . And not to repo rtpremiere p er formance s by such tokens i s to take astep toward decent dram ati c cri ti c ism . And to takesu ch a step toward de cent dram atic criti ci sm i s tomake onesel f, a s I sha l l attempt to Show, even moreinappropriate and exotic to the surroundings .Mr . Clayton Ham i lton , who i s a m arri ed m an

and con sequently ha s much more time to figure outsuch things than I have , ha s deduced tha t, in aBro adway season , but one play in every twenty-thre eis worth even a portion o f a fterthought and tha t,so , a person o f intelligence and ta ste who ca sua llytake s a chance on going to a play i s l ikely, twen fytwo times out o f twenty-thre e , to have his in telligence insulted and hi s ta ste o ffended .

” Allowingfor Mr . Hamilton ’ s somewhat overly elabora te bullfiddlings upon th e word s inte ll igence and ta ste ,the substance o f hi s findings rem ains sti ll intact ando f an in fectiou s prob ity. In the la st ha l f dozenyears , I doubt i f there have been more than five orSix plays out o f a ll the many hundred-odd presentedin each sea son that have merited approach by the

The Dra m a tic Cr itic 173

criti c seriou sly inte rested in dram a . The re st ?Trick melodramas , fussy farce s , mob mush, legshows . A f ew o f them amiable enough pastim e—a s ki ss ing the maid or becoming wi st fully a l

coho lic i s am iable pa stime— but certa inly not appro a ching to an a rt calling fo r sober thought andcriti cism . Where there i s no art, there i s no ca llfo r cri ti ci sm . It i s a s r idiculous to write Cri ti ci smo f a dram a by Mr . G eo rge V . Hobart a s i t i s towri te cr iti ci sm o f the moving p icture s . (The la tte ra re the result o f a circumspect el imination o f thepr incipal attr ibute s o f four o f the a rts and a cleve rsynthe s i s o f the scum : they have rem oved style fromlite rature , sp eech from drama , colour from painting, form and the third dimension from sculpture . )The the atre managers are , there fore , so fa r a sI am able to make out, not only cle arly j ustified ,but ab solutely merci fu l

,in barring critics from thei r

houses i f so they choose . Why a ha rd-working,obtu se manager wi th a wi fe and several children anda choru s girl to support, should have his l ive l ihoodim perilled by a dramati c criti c who , however othe rwi s ewell-educated and we ll-tra ined , probably do esn’ tknow whether the sound o f gallop ing horses i s. t eproduced by hollow cocoanuts o r scooped-out cantelo upe , i s a problem to con found any fai r-mindedman . The m anage r i s , sel f-confe ssedly, a tradesman . Why I , or any other criti c, should be perm itted by him to chase away hi s cu stomers i s nocleare r to me than why the same manager

,o r any

1 74 Mr Geo rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

othe r manager, should be permitted by me to hangaround the newsstands and cha se away prospectivebuyers from the newsstand impre sario s o f publications conta ining my cri ti ci sms of the manager .The manager whose stage i s qu i te frankly givenover to yokel-yankers should promptly invite a ll

criti cs out o f hi s theatre . But no . What actuallydoe s he do ? He bids the critic sit upon hi s a rti cle ,hav ing so insinuated in advance to the cri ti c that thea fore sa i d article i s a dram a worthy o f the cri ti c ’ scons ideration , and then , when subsequently the criti ctells the truth about the a rticle , he froths at themouth , sputte rs , wri tes letters to the landlord ofthe cri ti c’ s gaz ette and bids the cri tic thence forthbegone from hi s show-house gate . I personallyhave enj oyed such rom antic adventure s , even a s havenumerou s o f my colleagues . Several years ago , youwill re ca ll , I wa s invited by the management o f thein stitution to write my impre ssions o f the Prince ssTheatre a s an Am eri can Antoine e t Guignol . Iwrote them . Promptly the management respondedwith an emotiona l brochure to my friend and fina ncia l manager , Mr . John Adam s Thayer . Havingderived a good belly-l augh out o f the papier , Thayer ,be ing an unse lfish fe llow, despatched it by Ro sco e ,the o ffi ce lad , to my cham bers that I , to o, mightprofit o f its mirth . And I , being not less o f generous heart, subsequently printed the libretto for thedele ctation o f my readers . I had written merelywhat seemed to me to b e wrong with the conduct o f

1 76 M r . G e o rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

tha t when I wrote the o r IgIn a l cri ti ci sm which e arnedhi s i ll wi ll , I wrote s im ply wha t a t the tim e se emedto me an eminently well- studied , care ful and equitable opin ion— although , a la s and unfortunately, anot swee t one— tha t my m otive was merely theu sua l and incom plex motive o f serving, a s be st Ihum bly m ay, the causes o f a re sp ectable Americanstage and its drama , and that, had he a t the tim evi ewed me possibly le s s a s a Villista o r Hohenzo l

lern and more a s a favourer who wa s trying to helphim and by helping him , so too the producing theatreto which he i s a p arty, he m ight not only have ridour stage o f another hypocritically glozed Briti shfacem aker, but also and thi s will indubitablycap ture him with a more ben ign magneti sm mighthave s aved him sel f a lo t o f m oney ?Hall Ca ine ’ s cheap melodram a , Margare t

Schi ller, produced in the New Amsterdam Thea treby the Messrs . Klaw and Erlanger , el i c ited , alm o s twithou t exception , the combined and de served sn i ckery of the reviewers . And , shortly a fterwa rd: i tswithdrawal wa s made nece ssary . Yet what thea tti tude of Mr . Erlanger toward the very criti cshe had invited to express an op inion on the pi ece ?I have b een priv i leged a glance a t one o f the gentleman ’ s bille ts-douse

,addre s sed to the proprie tor o f

the j ourna l o f one o f the cri ti cs , and I quote therefrom a sentim ent Ha ll C a ine i s one o f the greate st writer s l iv ing

,and who i s (naming the criti c )

to say he i sn ’ t ? (Again naming the criti c ) ought

The Dra m a tic Cr i tic 1 77

to stop criti ci z ing and go to sweeping up thestree ts ! Need I go on ? Wha t chance in ourtheatre doe s dramati c cri ti ci sm of an inte ll igent gender o r drama stand with such an atti tude behind it ?Yet assuredly such a specie s o f cri ti ci sm should

have a place in our theatre . Go d knows , o ur thea tre needs i t ! What o f a theatre in which the leading m anager bel ieve s— and doubtless hone stlythat Hal l Ca ine is a grea t writer ? What o f a theatre whose de an o f playwrights , so regarded andhailed , cabbage s without credi t a tale o f Guy deMaupas sant and explo its i t a s hi s own under thecaption o f Rio Grande ” ? What o f a theatrewhose leading actre ss , so procla imed , is accordedthat rank and the added laurel o f inte llectual i tyby virtu e o f the fact tha t she ca rtoons he r almostevery comedy rOle and decl ine s to submerge th i sgreat and aloo f inte llectua l personali ty of hers inhe r alm o st every dramati c rOle— an actress who ,in any other country under the civ i l i zed sun ,

would be nam ed a caricaturi st ? What of a theatre who s e leading hi str ionic gues t a t and ce lebrant o f the la te Shake sp earean fest ival di splays hiscr i ti ca l powe rs thus in a volume ca lled Thoughtsand After-Thoughts ” “ I contend that ‘HenryVIII ’ i s not a symboli c p lay ! And thus As,however, thi s play (Ma eterl inck

’ s ‘Le s Aveuglesconta in s thi rteen characters , o f which twelve areblind , i t wou ld b e superfluous to discuss i t a s anacting dram a ! I revea l but two sample gems .

1 78 Mr . G e o rge Jea nNa tha n Pr esen ts

The truth o f the m atte r, however , i s that , to anot incons iderable degree , the Am eri can theatre ha staken i ts place alongs ide the honk—a -tonk , the cabare t, the Midway Pla i sance . Where , now,

i ts onetim e dignity, i ts importance ? Once— and not solong ago— a place o f am usement, recreation andstim ulation for ladies and gentlemen , i t has , with afew noteworthy exceptions , become a sort o f stamping-ground for the cull ing o f mem bership to Broadway dancing clubs , a place o f labour for movingp icture a ctors tem porarily out o f work , a clea ringhouse fo r the la ck-lustre dramati c im agin ings b fha ck nove lette writers and ex-actors . The charmtha t wa s the theatre , even ten years ago , where i si t now ? Small wonder such a crit ic a s Hunekercould not b e dragged into a theatre to day with ateam of oxen o r the prom i se of a quart o f Pilsne r !And so I say that, under the ci rcumstances , the

present-day m anager is not only a stute , but entirelyj ustified, in hi s barring o f thi s or tha t possibly somewhat too inte ll igent commenta tor from hi s theai re .

T rue , such ba rring would sti ll le ave a sufli cien t supply o f cr i ti cs on the j ob , a t lea st in New York ; butp erfe ction i s a part o f few schemes .Mr . William A . Brady, a vastly more perspica

cious fellow than some like to bel ieve , not long agoremarked that he himsel f did not understand whypeople longer give a continenta l about the theatrea s we have i t on Broadway . Mr . Winthrop Ames ,rathe r than a ssi st in the further corruption of the


ager m ay love the theatre and have , a t the sam etim e , a re sp ectable eye to the box-o ffice . But to -day

,

with a few exceptions , a manager ’ s love never ge tsnearer the theatre a s an institution than the si lla cross which hi s trea surer sells ti ckets to Tyson .

There are managers and there are managers . I tnever ha s been and prob ably never will be n eces

sa ry for the Bradys , the Ameses , the William ses, theHopk in ses, the Coban s and Ha rr ises and the Tylersto go o ffi ci ally into the cr iti c-barring bus iness .And ye t— let u s be fa i r— there a re occa sions

when even such managers a s these would b e do ingthe drama a pretty s ervi ce were they to exclude fromcerta in o f the i r representations criti cs (a lbe it fellows intell igent, hone st and di scerning so far a s theygo ) o f a grown exceeding common specie s . I a lludeaga in , o f course , to the type o f criti c o f the schoolheaded by the late Mr . William Winte r, the cri ti cwho regards and appra i ses every dram ati c o ff ering,howeve r intrins i cal ly with or without merit, from thep lane o f a provinci a l m ora l i ty . H ad I b een Mr .

A . H . Woods , I should have excluded from mytheatre , upon my presentation of Mr . Sheldon ’ s a dm i rable dramatiza tion o f Sudermann ’ s “

Song o f

Songs ,” a t lea st two metropoli tan professi ona l playrev iewers who are notoriou s ly infected with an ob

s treperou s blue-nosed hosti li ty to any play thatvo ices a philo sophy o f l i fe m ore daring than thato f The C indere lla Man .

”Such cri tics a re a men

ace not only to the manager, but to the publi c. And

The Dra m a tic Cr i tic 18 1

so , too , might my sym p athi e s have been found withthe Shuberts when their presentation o f a cleverViennese satiri c farce com edy already ‘ greatlytamed in adaptation—was denounced by several ofm y horrified sp inster colleagues on grounds o f ashoddy Anglo-Ohio morali ty . No t indecent , mind !Tha t i s , pa tently, a cons iderably di ff erent thing.

Had I b een in the Messrs . Shuberts ’ place , suchputz -pomade di spen sers would hence fo rth have b eenprom ptly di sbarred .

T o return , mom entari ly, then , to dramati c eri ticism .

The theory, favourite o f the atri ca l managers ,a ctors and a certa in specie s o f playwright, tha t cr iticism should eve r, even when o f soundly adverse content, b e o f gentle and ladylike mien , i s non sense pureand s imple . To accom plish its end , cri ticism ,

whenseeking to correct an evi l, should and must be hard ,unfl inching . To inj ect an alloy o f honeysuckle intosuch cr itici sm is but to inj e ct into i t personal fe eling.

I t i s not nece ssary or fitting that the surgeon , kn i feready, fi rst ki ss hi s lady p atient

,however much the

lady patient m ay be rea ssu red by the a ct.And not m erely i s thi s tru e in the ca s e o f dram ati c

criti ci sm ; i t i s even truer in the commoner appra isa lo f purely theatr ica l mater ia ls . Such an a ctor, forexample, a s the one in a recent exhibi t who pron oun ced i t secka ta ry should be cons ignedpromptly to the firing squad . No additional ev idence o f the fellow ’ s treachery should b e required .

1 82 Mr . G eo rge'

J ea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

Any one so incom petent in his profession a s to b eguilty o f so unsightly a mi sdemeanor , however intrinsically triv ial , should expect small consideration .

iTrue enough , such duti e s are not altogether plea sant. It is a not particularly j olly p ro fession whichcalls upon its practi tioner to pr ick the arti sti c p retences o f gentlemen who

,outside the i r labours , a re

doubtle s s excellent and convivi al soul s , and o f ladie swho , outside the i r stage an tick ings, are doubtle ssgood w ives and mothers . But the criti c has naughtto do with such medita tions . I myself, for example ,am personally not at all a b ad sort o f fellow . Yethaving on one occa sion publ i shed a book whichfai led to sati s fy my own criti cal demands , I felthonestly com pelled to write and print (under apseudonym ) a cri ti ci sm of both the book and mysel f,the which perfectly just cri ti ci sm , upon subsequentr eading, impre ssed me a s exceedingly harsh and unfr iendly if not, indeed , pos it ively v iciou s .


minds o f the native stage , one o f the nat ive stage ’ smost muse ful students , and , in finality, the nativestage ’ s one and only rea l fem ale inte lligence .News of Mrs. Fi ske ’ s stunn ing mental ity and pen

e tra tion came first to.

m y e ars , I recall , in the longago year s when I was yet a youngster in ki lts andbangs : the long ago years o f Al len and Gin ter ’scigarette p icture s o f Pauline Hall in tights , of homeri c gumdrops that cost a p enny and might

,before

eating, be bounced up and down on the end o f a longrubber, o f the mysteriou s and ca re fully hiddenB e l Am i in the pap er covers with the p icture o fthe handsom e Lothario in even ing clothe s leaningover and ki s sing the languorou s hussy on the shoulder-blade the long ago years when the conductorson the horse cars always wore in the ir lapels a sm allp ink rose made of cellulo id .

As I say, i t wa s in thes e rem ote days that first Iwas appri sed o f the Fiske a cumen , o f the Fi ske brainman i festation s and phenom ena . And so , growingup , there followed m e through adole scence and intomy mature r years a great awe for thi s a stoundingtheatr ica l ce rebrali st, and an even greater awe forthe thoughts and ide a s that were he ld to em anatefrom the dorsa l s ide o f her cerebro spinal axi s j ustbehind the corpora quadrigem ina . Quite true , timeand aga in a fte r I had a rrived a t the advanced agewhere i t wa s no longer necessary for the professorto put Mr s. Ro rer

’

s Cook Book on the p iano s tooltha t I might reach the keyboard , a gip sy doubt, a

Am er ica’

sMost In tellectua l A ctr ess 1 85

crue l suspicion , wa s wont to a ssa i l m e and bid mepause . But search a ss iduously a s I would throughLo r illa rd Spencer ’ s Illustr a ted Am er ica n

,The Cr i

ter io n,and kindred periodicals o f the day, noth

ing could I find to di sprove the F i ske menta l estate .Qu i te true a lso , ne i the r could I find anything toprove i t, but s a id I to myse l f there i s doubtle ss noneed to prove it : i t i s no doubt so se l f-evident tha ti t needs n o proving— l ike the fa ct tha t two plu stwo equa ls four or that the e arth i s round or tha t astraight l ine i s the shortest di stance between twopoints o r that F . Marion Crawford ’ s Sa ra ce

n esca wa s a great nove l to pre ss four-lea f cloversin .

Did I e ssay to di scove r in thi s gazette o r that adazzl ing opin ion from the pro found Fi ske on art,the drama , li terature , what not, did my inve stigation prove fruitle ss . No t a syllable , not a word ,had the lady written o r spoken for publi cation . Ia sked questions . Mrs. Fiske , they told me lo ftily,never give s interviews ; she never expresses opin ion s ;she i s a dignified actre ss , a great inte llect . But, Iwanted out o f s illy boyi sh cur iosi ty to know, howthen doe s any one know she i s a grea t intellect ?This que stion, I discovered , ca rried with i t what wa sr egarded a s a mea sure o f im pertinence and ill-breeding and wa s , l ike the question on grandma ’ s falseteeth and the symboli sm o f the sta irca se busines s inSapho , a cue for the application of a ha i r brush toa ludi crously unrelated portion of the anatom y. AS


I grew a b it olde r, I was informed on many subj ectstha t had been to me mysterie s : my parents expla inedto me that babie s really didn ’ t, a s I had supposed,grow in cabbages , that the world re ally wa sn ’t coming to an end when it got suddenly dark out-o fdoors , tha t i f I wa s Si ck or ti red and didn ’ t feel l ikesaying my prayers i t was quite all right a s therewa sn’ t any Go d anyway and all that sort o f thing .

But there were no parents , there wa s no Wedekindin the ne ighbourhood , there wa s no one to enl ightenme in the pe sky Fi ske logogriph .

And so the years passed . At the age o f seventeen , thirsting still for a drink o f wisdom from thedeep Fi ske fount, I contrived by dint of grea t ente rpri se to lea rn that Mrs. Fi ske loved dumb an ima ls .Ha , methought, a t la st a b i t of light, a scent, a token .

I would now, a t le a st, learn what the celebratedthinker thought about animals . Perchance , herewas a new theo ry o f biological evolution

,mayhap a

new Darwin ! I pursued the clu e relentle ssly, un

rem ittingly. And, 10, five years la ter , a t the age o ftwenty-two , I learned what ? From a copy o f theNew York Her a ld, a newspaper of those days , thea stoni shing philosophy that Mrs. Fi ske had sa id theday be fore that She believed a te amster who fa iledto equ ip hi s horse s with sp iked shoes fo r slippe rypavem ents should be e ither heavily fined or sent toj a il !But did my allu sions die ? Nay, nay. I b ided m y

t ime . Thi s , I reckoned , thi s love for dum b an ima l s ,

1 88 Mr .Ge o rge Jea n Na tha n P r esen ts

tom obiles, even the lady ’ s latte r philo sophi e s ap

pea r ed no longer in the pr ints and all was darknes s . U nti l recen tlyNow a t length , a fter the impenetrable s ilence o f

years , ha s the foremost inte llectua l a ctre s s o f theAm eri can stage dei gned to im part to the publ i c afew of the choi ces t secrets o f her bra in . These inmost secrets , into whi ch we shall presently inqu ire ,have been whispered to our ea rs through the medium o f the p ages of the Cen turyMaga zine, and theyr epresent presumably, in the mass , the great lady’ sca refully trea sured and unti l now withheld theatri calesthe tik, philosophie s and poulti ce s . What theamazing na ture o f the se ideas ? The i r eye-openingrevolu tionary bulk ? Thei r cra ck and snap , b ite andsparkle , force and sharpne ss ? Let us see .

No . 1 . An arti cle enti tled Mrs. Fi ske Pnucture s the Reperto ry Idea .

”G re a t Thought No . 1

in Arti cle No . I' Bosh ! Do not talk to me

about the repertory idea . I t i s an outworn , needless , im possible , ha rm ful scheme .Possible answer to Mrs. Fiske ’ s Grea t Thought

No . 1 , Arti cle No . 1 : (a ) the reperto ry idea brillian tly worked out by the National Theatre in Stockholm , Sweden ; (b) the repertory idea brill i antlyWorked out by the Comédi e Fr anga ise under Perrinand Cla retie and by the Odéon under Antoine ; (c)the rep ertory idea brill iantly worked out by Mrs.

Ho rn im a n in her Manche ste r theatre ; (d ) therep ertory idea bri lli antly worked out in the Abbey

Am er ica’

sMost In tellectua lA ctr ess 1 89

Theatre , Dublin ; (e ) the repertory idea bri ll i antlyworked out in the B erlin Hoftheater under Lindau ,in the Lessing-Thea ter under Brahm , in the Schi llerTheate r under LOwen f eld , in the people’ s theatre so f Ham burg, Cologne , Dusseldorf and a hal f dozenother Germ an prov inci a l ci ti e s ; (f ) the repertoryide a brill iantly worked out in the Mi chel Theatreo f Petrograd and in the Moscow Arti st ic Theatreunder Stan islawsky and Da n tschenko ; (g) the rep ertory idea brill i antly worked out in the T eatro Espafi o l o f Madrid unde r Fernando de Mendoza .Possible catechi sm for Mrs Fi ske in relation to

G re at Thought 1 , Arti cle 1 (a ) Just how ha sthe repertory idea been harm ful in the above instance s ? ; (b) needle ss ? ; (c) impossible ? ; (d )Nam e one non-repertory theatre more success ful , artistica lly o r commercia lly ; (e ) Name one non-reper to ry theatre a s succes sfu l , arti sti ca l ly or commercia lly.

Poss ible rea sons for Mrs. F iske ’s inabil i ty to re

ply sati s factori ly to inqu iri e s re lating to Gre atThought 1 , Article I (a ) Mrs. Fi ske j udges therep ertory ide a enti rely from its several Anglo-Saxonfa i lure s , brought about by incom petent plann ing andcare le s s extrinsi c and intrins i c d irection ; (b) Mrs.

Fi ske argue s“Thi s i s an age o f speci al i zation , and

in such an age the repertory theatre i s a ludicrou sana chron i sm ,

” Mrs. Fi ske thus Showing that she

som ewhat curiously bel ieve s a rt to be m ea sured byand predicated upon the whim s and mandate s o f a


parti cula r age or time— that thi s b e ing an a ge ofspecialization in prose dram a , the poeti c drama o fShakespeare i s there fore ludi crously anachronistic- tha t the specialization o f Mrs. Fiske in the instance o f such a play a s “ The High Road ” and inthe production and en semble enactmen t o f that play!

was le s s an anachron i sm than, a greater a rtisti c fea tthan , and one-tenth a s enj oyable an exhibi t a s, anyone o f the plays produced a year ago by the repertory com pany o f Mi ss Grace George .Personally, I agre e thoroughly with Mrs. Fiske

that there i s much to be sa id against the repertorysystem . What I am endeavour ing here to bring out,however, i s tha t the a rguments (or more accurately,the mere grunts ) which the dear intellectual ladylodges aga inst the repertory system are the weakestand si ll i est sort o f arguments— that her surfaceopin ions may be ba sica lly sound, but that the reasons she exhibits in support o f these surfa ce Op inions are no rea sons a t a ll .In further instance o f the manner in wh ich Mrs.

Fi ske argu e s aga inst the repertory idea , we find herobserving, with the a i r o f one who has j ust fetcheda climacteri c wallop , that one o f the fine st a rgumentsagainst the idea was to b e had in the succe ss o f Mr .

B arker ’ s repertory company at Wallack’ s with An

dro cles and i ts subsequent fa ilure with “ The Doctor ’ s Dilemm a ” due to the inab ili ty o f two actorsin the com pany, who had done well in the form erp lay, to interpret sa tis factori ly the rOles to wh ich


idea i s there fore harmful ; and (3 ) tha t i t i s an impos s ible and needless ide a because the Ameri canplaygo ing public i s n o t up to i t .One grows dizzy, so V ivid and Sharp i s the logic.

The argument i s o f a p iece with a contention thatanything which i s above the grasp o f a group o fCheap Jacks and numskulls i s by virtu e and becauseo f thi s fact a t once a thing o f bosh , and needless ,outworn , im poss ible o f execution , and harmful .The rep ertory idea therefore takes its place , in them ind o f our good lady, with such analogou sly needle ss , outworn , im possible and harmful bo sh a s thea rt o f Cézanne , the mus i c o f Dv o i'ak , the drama o fFr ango is de Curel , the satire o f Anatole Franceand o f Ludwig Thoma , the poetry o f Hugo vonHofm annsthal and the pro se l iterature o f AntonTchekhov. In the Fi sk e philosophy, we find , indeed , nothing less than an apotheosi s o f the dramao f Helen R. Martin ove r the dram a o f Jean Bapti s te Poquelin , the a rt o f Penrhyn Sta n laws over thea rt o f Anton i o Correggio , the sci ence o f DoctorGrindle over that o f Docto r Loeb , and the mu s i ca lp erformance of the Jazz band in Re isenweber ’s restaur an t over that o f the Boston Symphony orche stra . Had Mrs . Fiske l ived in the ea rly yearso f the e ighteenth century

,one would doubtless have

found her among those who fought tooth and na i lfo r the works o f the I tal i ans aga inst the work o fJohann Seba sti an Bach .

We proceed now to Article No . 2 ,“ Mrs. Fiske

Am er ica’

sMo st In telle ctua lA ctr ess 193

on Ibsen the Popular ,” and to l’Ide'

e Piqua n te NO . 1

in A rti cle 2 , to wit,“Stuff, my fri end , and non

sense ! Oh , I have no patience with those who descend upon a grea t play, produce i t without understanding and then , because di sa ster overtake s i t,throw up the i r hands and say there i s n o publi c forfine a rt. How absurd ! In New York alone therea re two unive rs iti es , a college o r two , and no endo f schools . What more responsive publi c could ourproducers a sk ?Molnar ’ s “Where Igno rance IS Bl is s i s prob

ably not a grea t play, but i t i s a t lea st a ve ry fineplay . I t was produced in the c ity o f two un ivers i ti e s , a college or two and no end o f schools , withcom plete understanding and meticulous ca re by Mrs.

Fi ske ’ s own husband . Di sa ste r overtook it in fourshort days Mrs. Fi ske i s indeed hard on poorpap a !Where , to continue , may one inqui re o f Mrs.

Fi ske , wa s thi s publi c for fine a rt more recently inthe instance o f Mr . Fav ersham

’

s exce llent Shakespea r ean presentation s ? For Arnold Daly

’ s excellent p resentation o f B ahr ’ s “ The Ma ster ForRe icher ’ s excellent p re sentation o f “

The Weav

ers For the excellent pre sentations o f theRidgely Torrence plays , and Brieux’s “

The Incu

bus ,” and Percy Ma ckaye

’s“The Scarecrow, and

The Ye llow Jacket when it wa s first Shown , andPatterson’ s Rebellion ,” and Stephen Phill ip s ’

Herod ,” and Herv ieu

’

s Know Thyself, and Pi


nero ’ s “ Thunderbolt and WifeWitho ut a Sm ile,and Synge

’s Playboy,” and Cheste rton’ s Magi c,

and Shaw ’ s “ Fanny’ s Fi rst Play,” and B irm ing

ham ’ s “ Genera l John Regan , and Lennox Robinson ’ s “ Patriots o r , to descend in the scale , foreven such plays a s Ruther ford and So n ,

” “The

Faith Healer,” “

The U psta rt,” “The Younge r

Generation ,” or B es i e r ’ s Lady Patr ici a ” whichMr . Fiske produced so beauti fully for Mrs. Fiske ,which Mrs. Fi ske played so well and which fa i ledpretty di smally to a ttract the attention o f the ci tyo f two universi ties , a college or two and no end o fschools ?The truth , o f course , i s that, desp i te Mrs. Fi ske ’ s

pleasant optimism , e ight out o f every ten younggentlemen in our American univers itie s and college sto say nothing o f our foreign univers it ie s and

college s in New York Ci ty prefer “ The Folli esto Ibsen a s they pre fe r the hi s trioni sm o f Mi ss AnnPennington to that o f Mrs. Fi ske . And the notionthat they do not in a ctuality pra cti se thi s pre ferencei s , for all one pro fe sses to believe to the contra ry ,som ewhat prettie r than i t i s true .Ide

'

e Piqua n te No . 2 : For the many false , butwidespread , impre ssions o f Ibsen we must blame

the innumerable littl e e ssays on his gloom andnone a t all on hi s warmth, hi s ga iety, his infin i tehuman i ty .

” Mrs. Fiske ’ s eyes sparkled , a ccordingto the interviewer, a s she continued When will


No . 4 To read B o rkm an’ in the l ight o f

some knowledge o f l i fe is to m arvel at the blendingo f hum an ins ight and poetic fe e ling.

”

No . 5 Ibsen give s us in h is plays only the la sthours .

!I’

he latter i s pre sented by Mrs. Fiske a s an origina l and searching deducti on . U pon i t, indeed , herinterviewer in rapt a ston i shm ent com m ents , It wa sputting in a sentence the distingu i shing factor , thesubstance o f chapters o f Ibsen cri ti ci sm ! Herewere set forth in a f ew wo rds

,etc. , etc.

”The

same thing wa s sa id o f Ib sen and his plays manyyears ago by Huneker and be fore Huneker b’

yWa lkley and long before Walkley by Henrik Jaeger .We come to Arti cle No . 3 , Mr s. Fiske to the

A ctor-in -the-Making and deduce a t once the refrom thi s syllogi sti c p ea rl : (I )

“ Acting i s a sci

ence (2 ) Acting i s a thing of the sp iri t, a conv eyance o f certa in abstract sp ir itual quali ti es , amatter o f the soul (3 ) There fore ,

“ Cons ideryour voi ce ; first, la st and a lways your vo ice . Ii

'

is

the beginn ing a nd the end o f a cting!”

Thus we a re to ld’

tha t though acting i s an exactscience , a thing o f the soul , etc. , etc. , yet with thevoice good and perfectly tra ined an a spi rant to highhi strion i c place may forget a ll the rest. I t (thel atter ) will take care o f itsel f. One may p erhap sbe p ardoned , there fore , for express ing a wi sh tohave seen Robert G . Ingersoll play Hamlet, to behold the S i lver-Tongued Orator o f the Platte in a

A m er ica’

sMost In te llectua lA ctr ess 197

performance o f Torvald Helm er,to sneak a look

a t Burton Holme s in the rOle o f Drayman Hensche lO ver Article No . 3 there i s need to tarry not

longe r. A smack, a taste , su ffi ces . And we so passon to Article No . 4 , Mrs. Fi ske Bui lds a Thea trein Spa in Thi s , a treati se on endowed playhouses .In reply to the query a s to what she would do wereshe given five mill ion s o f dollars to spend on sucha theatre , Mrs. Fiske , speaking o f such a theatre ,obse rve s , a fter the formula o f our dea r Duke ,

“ Ishould give a million to certa in human i tar ian cults ,a million to Ev a Booth to spend among the poorShe understands so well, and , o f course , I could ea si ly spend the other three mill ion in one a fternoonin help ing on the effort to make women see thatone of the most dreadful , shocking, di shea rten ingsights in the world i s j u st the sight o f a womanwearing furs .”

Fa i ling to find any good argument in Hazl itt,Lam b , Lewes , Archer, Hagemann , Magn in , Turner,Duruy, Schlegel , Collie r , Sa inte-Beuve , B eaum a r

cha i s , G enes t, Filon, Montague , Shaw, Sym ons ,B arre , Federn o r Lanson wherewith to confoundthi s tel ling, we ll rounded and constructive rea son ingin the matter o f the endowed theatre , there i s le ftnothing fo r the cri ti c to do but a llow Mrs. Fiskeher point, and pa ss on to the lady’ s cons ideration o fthe question o f a national theatre .Commenting on Mr . E. H . So thern

’

s proposa l


fo r such an endowed theatre in the nation’ s cap ital,

thus Mrs. Fi ske I suppose that most Frenchmen could get to Pari s once a year o r so to theComédi e Franca i se , and certa inly a theatre in theStrand i s within reach o f all the people in l i ttleEngland ; but ne i ther the New Theatre that was norMr . So thern

’s dream p layhouse tha t i s to be could

be called a national theatre when most o f the peopleIn the nation would neve r see even the outs ide o f itin a ll the i r days .”

How many Frenchmen who can get to Pari s andthe Comédi e Fr anga ise once a year o r so actuallydo ge t to the Comédi e Franga ise ? For one prov incia l, one pa tapouf, from Lyons o r Marse i lle s orBordeaux who visi ts the Comédie Franga ise , thereare several thousands who , on coming to thei r cap ita l ,make a bee-l ine fo r B a -Ta -Clan or the Olympi amusi c hall . The Comédie Franga ise ha s been madea national thea tre not by the p eop le o f the Frenchnation , but by the people o f Pari s . IS a theatrein the Strand or a theatre in the ulter ior and not t

.

oocomfortably acce ssible town o f Manchester the realnational theatre o f England ? IS a national thea tre a matte r o f a convenient rea l e state s ite o r amatter o f nationa l li terature ?But le t us permit Mrs. Fi ske to cont inue The

national theatre must go to the people . The nation al theatre , dear child , wil l not be a theatre a tall , but a trave lling company ! Which, in vi ew o fthe fa ilure outs ide a few large American citi e s o f


a ll beyond the hour o f hi s death could be concernedwith anything less personal and mom entous than thefa te o f hi s own soul , could be anything but utterlyengrossed by the intense wonder and curiosi ty a sto what hi s l i fe here a fter would be ! There i s something interesting. The great adventure !Boy, page Mr . Maeterlinck . I f he i sn ’ t around,see i f you can find Mr . Tolsto i . And i f you can’ tfind h im, go into the ca fé and locate Mr . ArnoldB ennett.

“ I am not sure that even our dear Mr . Lewes ,observes Mrs. Fi ske further along,

“ reali zed whyhe had been led to think So o ften that the actor wa sthe les s exalted and less creative a rti st . I suspecti t wa s because he had seen most o f them in Shakespeare . None could be compared with Shakespeare ; yet, in the e stimate o f the a ctor ’ s place inthe a rts , they all hav e been compared with Shakespeare ! ”

One must regret that Mrs. Fi ske ha s r ead herLewes so carele ssly. Our dear Mr . Lewes , a s thelady a ffectionately calls him , saw the actors o f whomhe wrote in many rules other than those o f the greatpoet. He apprai sed Edm und Kean (pg. 1 5 ) inthe rOle o f Ma ssm ger

’

s Sir G i les Overreach and

(pg. 20 ) i n the rOle o f Colman fils’Sir Edward

Mortimer . He apprai sed Charles Kean (“ I must

confe ss ,” sai d Lewes , “ that i t ha s never been anintellectual treat to me to see Charl es Kean playShakespeare ’ s tragi c heroe s ” ) in

“The Corsican

Am er ica’

sMo st In tellectua lA ctr ess 201

Brothers (the Boucicault translation of the Frenchpotbo ile r ) pg. 26— and also in “ Pauline . Hetoo appra i s ed Fechter in The Corsi can Brother s .”

He appra i sed Rachel in the tragedie s o f Racine andCorne i lle (pp . 3 6

-4 1 ) and in Madame G i rardin’ s

Lady Tartu fe (pg. He appra i sed Edmund Kean in the drama o f Sheridan Knowles andSchiller ; Ma cready (pg. 4 5 ) in the drama of LordByron , Bulwer Lytton and others ; Farren (pg.

63 in the drama of Sheridan and Garri ck andColman , and in the translated French play Secre tServi ce ,” and in the rOle o f G randfather Whitehead ,etc . ; Charle s Matthews in “ He Would Be anActor ,

” “ Patter versus Clatter ,” “The Day of

Reckoning,” “

The Game of Speculation ,” in suchrole s a s Lavater , Mr . A ff able Hawk and Sir Charle sColdstream in Matthews ’ own “

U sed U p inlight farce and loud burle sque ; Fre

'

deri c Lemaitre(pg. 84 in Maca i re , in Don César de Bazan ,in the dram a of Victor Hugo and the drama of thehack melodramati sts o f the day, in one melodramaso bad , indeed , tha t Lemaitre knew hi s audience swould laugh it out o f court and so a cted i t a s afarce-com edy and made an enormous succe ss of it ;the Kee leys in John M. Morton ’ s “ Box and Cox,

”

in A Thumping Legacy,” etc . ; Madame Plessy a s

Madam e Leco utellier in Augier ’ s Maitre Guerin ,”

Bouff é in Pére Grandet ,”Go t in “ Le Duc Job ,

Delaunay in “On Ne Badine Pas Avec l’Am our ,

Monta l in Vingt Ans Apres ,”Salv ini in the drama


o f Mr . Robert M. B ird o f Newcastle , Delaware ,U . S . A . And so i t would seem that our dea rMr . Lewes , desp i te Mrs. Fi ske ’ s di sbe l ie f, a fter allknew perfe ctly well what he was about when he estim ated the actor ’ s place in the a rts .But,

” continues Mrs. Fiske , undaunted ,“ there

a re tim e s when the actor a s an artist i s far grea terand more crea tive than hi s mate rial , when he doe ssom ething more than repeat a portion o f a sto ryinvented by another, ’ a s Mr . Moore ha s i t. Yetqui te a s distinguished a writer has sa id the leas tgi fted author o f a play, the lea st gi fted creator o fa drama , i s a man o f higher intellectual importancethan hi s be st interpreter. Now, di stingui shedthough he be , thi s write r betrays him sel f a s one untra ined in the psychology o f the theatre .”

It may interest Mrs. Fi ske to know that the Op inion in po int wa s co incided in and expressed by aman indeed woefully untra ined in the p sychology o fthe theatre . His name, Benoi t Constant Coque l in .

“We actors ,” Mrs. Fiske then val iantly pro

ceeds,“a re time and aga in compelled to r ead value s

into plays—values unprovided by our authors .Think of Duse !I trus t I am not to o impol ite when I observe that

thi s i s much a s i f George Jean Nathan were to say,“We write rs are time and again compelled to doso -and-so . Think o f Shakespeare !Mrs. Fiske ’s rapturou s Boswell now reads to her

what he allude s to a s a typ ically wild b it o f cr iti

204 Mr . Ge o rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

an amusing parallel on the quotations from Henley,c l a l.

,which the good lady now and aga in drops in

lea rned , o ff-hand manner into her Boswell’ s profoundly impressed ea r and the sel f-same quotationswhich nightly she might be heard to recitein the a cting rOle written f o r her by theauthor o f the play Erstwhile Susan where in todraw further a ttention to the good lady S somewhatqua int opinions on musi c

,a rt , l iterature and the the

a tre . And so there i s le ft nothing for me to do butnow bid the ju ry, thus sketchily addressed, to leavethe room and ponder the case . Ye t let m e furtherb id the gentlem en o f that jury hold aga inst m e nottoo hard i f I have here and there , in the a rgum ent,appeared a trifl e boori sh and uncourtly to one whoi s doubtle s s a lovely and most charming woman . Ihave n o t meant to be so . And i f, ala s , I seem so

to have b een i t i s only because my pen i s a clumsie rand poorer thing than i t Should b e , and I a les sski lful fellow at the art o f l itera ry composition thanon some far distant future day I may, Go d willing,be .

MYTHS OF MOMUS

N the evening o f August 1 4 , 1 9 1 6 , twofarce s were presented in the Republi c Thea tre : one upon the stage , by Mr . Law

rence Ri s ing and Mi ss Margaret Mayo ; the othe rin the lobby, by the gentlem en whose pro fess ion i ti s to rev i ew the metropolitan dramaturgy. Of thetwo , the latte r proved somewhat the more j o cund .

The farce upon the stage o f the theatre , dubb ed'

His Brida l Night,” had a s its theme the ancientcaprice o f mistaken i dentity ; the fa rce in the lobbya s its , the equal ly anci ent capri ce a s to the incredibility and hence dubious theatrica l p racti cablene s so f that theme .The abounding pers i stence in contemporaneous

circle s o f this phanta sm , the notion tha t mistakenidentity i s to o hollow a stra tagem whether in a ctua l i ty or in fancy to serve fea sibly the amusement pla tform , obscures by its avo irdupoi s even the man i foldbee fy si ster hallucinations that be fog the Anglo:Saxon playhouse . And yet, a s with the r es t, wha t i sthere in i t ? The theatre itsel f wa s born out o f ana cceptance by i ts audience o f the legitimacy o f thethem e . For, a s any schoolboy or graduate s tudentof the theatre at Harvard College can tell, the lead

205


ing impu lse given by Thesp is to the drama (circa53 6 B . C . ) consi sted in the adding to Dionysus ’ olddi thyrambic chorus o f a s ingle a ctor who app earedsuccess ively in di ff erent rule s and who a s we di scover in a t le a st two suggestive in stances— conv inced hi s spectators even when he m i stook him selffo r som e one else .From the very beginnings of the theatre to the

present time , the theme of m i staken identity, aga instwhi ch the criti ca l prejudi ce habitua lly waxe s spoo fish , has, whenever a t a l l well handled, been a prosperon s one . From 200 B . C . and the Mena ech

mi of Plautu s (probably the first definite elaborat ion o f the theme ) to its appropriation in the sixteen th century in “

A H i story o f Errors and fromi ts subsequent reappropr iat ion by Shakespeare in hi s“ Comedy o f Errors ” to (in the early e ighteenthcentury ) i t s r e-reapprop riat ion in “ Les Me'ncehmes ” o f Regnard and through innumerableFrench , G erman and Bri ti sh farces o f the n in eteepthcentury Pink Dominoes ” order to such pa stie s o fmore r ecent years a s the musi c Show “

Thre eTwins,” the farce A Hot Old T ime ,

” and the motion p icture seri al The I ron Claw,

” the mixedident i ty story ha s been a caj ol ing and lucrative thea tr ica l ware . I doubt whether, with the singleexception o f Molna r in “ Der Ga rdeo ffizier

(“ Where Ignorance i s Bl iss there has been aninstance where a skilled writer ha s fa i led to m akemoney out o f the whimsy . And even so , Molnar,


The first theo ry held by protestants against thetheme o f mixed identi ty i s that m ixed identi ty i s to ostr a in ful upon the im agination , too s ingula r and grotesque a conce i t, to capture the conviction o f a nativetheatre audience . Ye t thi s same theatre audience willingly takes for granted that no Frenchwoman love s her hu sband, that all bachelors habitua lly don dinne r j ackets even when anti cipating aqu iet evening alone in the i r apartments , tha t n o

woman is ever success ful in hiding her pa s t from them an She marri e s , tha t fore sts a lways grow in groovesand that fall ing snow neve r clings to any portion o f aman’ s ove rcoat other than the shoulders !The second theory i s that the confusions o f iden

ti ty under the maj ority o f circumstances exhib itedupon the stage are in a ctual ity impossible and so constitute poor meat for drama . But s ince the thesi so f mixed identi ti e s i s nine t imes in ten em ployed formere purpose s o f loud farce— fo r mere s lap sti ckpastime , a s it were i t i s a s unrea sonable to regi ste rsuch crit ici sm a s i t would b e analogously to h rgeagain st the slapstick itsel f tha t i t i s thea tr ically un

funny since in rea l l i fe one i s not accustomed to applyi t aba ft one ’ s ne ighbour . The most amusing thingso f the farcica l stage are and ever have been thingsentire ly out o f key wi th l i fe and nature . Farcemoves in a fanta st ic world

,for in the fanta sti c re

poses eve r the large st mirth . The mugging masko f the rogui sh Slave which filled the audi ence s a t theAdelphi of T erence wi th loud chuckles , centuri e s

Myths ofMom us 209

late r had the same e ff ect even on the austere AugustWilhelm Schlegel , so he adm i ts , when he saw thep iece produced in Weimar under the dire ction o fGoethe .From the innavigable yet compelling droller ie s o f

Ari stophane s to the wild ca su i stri e s o f Eti enne G ir a rdo t in Charley’ s Aunt,

” from the so -called ropedancings o f Moliere to the broken mirror scene inMy Friend from India o r the se l f-confes sed m ad

ne sses o f “Cflic

'

er the impossible and thecomic are ever clo sely related . TOO , a s ide fromfa rce the argum ent aga inst such a theme a s mistakenidentity i s equally ethereal . There i s n o more goodreason why thi s theme , even granting its intrins i cdubiousne ss

,should because o f thi s intrinsi c dub ious

ne s s fa i l to capture the interest o f a theatre auditor ium than there i s in a like poss ible contention aga in stthe validi ty o f the ghost in Hamlet,

” o r the l ightedcigar by m eans o f which Mr . G ille tte e ff ects hi s escape from the gas-hou se in Sherlock Holmes .” I ti s , surely, a s di fficult to bel ieve in gho sts a s i t i s togrant that a l ighted cigar would reta in its viv id glowlong enough to dece ive the agents of Mori arty .

The thi rd , and final , theory. To wit, that mistaken identi ty i s a story too old longer to beguil eo r divert the modern time audience . Thi s one o fthe convenient chatter ings o f indolent critici sm .

And a t bottom , obviously, nonsense . The older athem e the more certa in , a s every one pro fe ssionallyconnected with a box-o ffice well knows , its drawing


power . The fa ct that thi s very farce , His BridalNight, o f which we are here wri ting, i s in certa indirections (twin s isters, et cetera ) basically l ike theancient B acchis S i ster s ” which Plautus cabbagedfrom Menander thre e centurie s be fore the birth o fChri s t, doe s not per se argue aga inst i ts box-o ffi cemagneti sm any more than ha s the age of the ideao f Mr . George V. Hobart ’ s “

Experience ” (fifteen th century and , specifi cally, the mora l ity B ienAvisé et Ma l-Avis é o r the age o f the theme ofMolnar ’ s “ The D evi l ” (the twenty- sixth CoventryPlay ) o r the age o f the idea o f the Wa shingtonSquare Players’ pantomime of the foods inside thehuman stom ach La Condamnation de s Banquets,”

written by Nicola s de l a Chesnaye four hundredyears and more ago ) or the age o f the ide a o f thefire e ff ect in a recent Winter G arden Show (v idethe fire scene a s recorded in a ccounts o f The

Prophets ,” a cted inside a church in the early year so f the twelfth century ) any more , a s I say, thanha s the age o f any of the se mili tated aga Inst

thei r respective ti cket-racks . The m i stak en ident i tytheme i s not a b i t older than the theme o f the PixleyLuders musi ca l comedy Woodland (the Birdso f Ari stophanes , 4 1 4 B . C . ) which ran in New Yorkfor six months and i s still making money in the lesscountry-j ake di stricts .These myths o f Momus, how loudly tinkle thel ittle bell s upon the i r gaudy cap s !

2 1 2 Mr . G eo rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

di scuss ion o f the so -termed real i sm o f the currentdram a , together with i ts poss ible V i rtues and its po ss ible vice s and its e ff ect, i f any, o n the genera ldram ati c movement o f the tim e , i t i s, a s has be ensugge sted , neces sary that inqui ry be directed intothe chara cte r and vi rgini ty of this so -called realism .

Obvious ly, we must know, in a di scussi on concernedwith real i sm in drama , i f there i s in the first placeany rea li sm to be di scussed .

By reali sm , the people o f the theatre would seemu sually to mean the photographi c depiction on thestage of insti tution s , people s and conditions tha t a ree ither sordid or , by Anglo-Saxon standards, mora lly i rregula r. And thus i t occurs— being seldomcontradicted by our cr itica l gui ld— tha t thi s so

cal led reali sm o f our dram a i s , in any event, l e ssr eali sm in the complete sense o f the word than in anarrow, back-alley sense . I f thi s strike s the ear a ssom ewhat non sens ical i t becomes only necessary tochallenge : Name one American p l ay characterized widely a s real i sti c that ha s tre ated o f otherthan sordid or, by Anglo -Saxon standard s , mora llyi rregula r condi tions . Thu s , our “ real isti c ” playsa re plays like Walter ’ s Ea s iest Way,” or, to bringourselves into sm art de scent, such trade goods a ssome tim e ago enchanted the B roadway and Mul

berry Street circle s o f New York City : such untidyconfections a s “

The Lure ,” “The Fight,

” “To

day and the l ike .Where there i s no honesty there can be no genu ine

R ea lism us 2 13

rea li sm . And where a s su ch specimens a s “ The

Lure ,” “The Fight,

” “Today ” and so on are pal

pably dishones t— a s we shall show— it m u st bepla in that the i r much discu ssed and here and therewide ly procla imed reali sm (with all i ts a lleged inherent mun i cip al and socia l corre‘ctive value s ) re

solve s i tsel f into nothing m ore than m achine-madeproscen ium sensationali sm and box-o fli ce ba i t . Andit m ust Simi la rly be pla in that wherea s such realism i s meretri ciou s and consequently o f large appeal to the low cla ss o f persons that, unfortunate ly,supports the Am eri can theatre with i ts regula rpatronage, i t cannot fa i l to exerci se a viti a ting influence on what some o f us optim i sts a re p le a sed to a llude to a s the native drama . This , for two rea sons .First, because we have in the U nited States a t thepre sent tim e a body o f playmakers who , with but twoexceptions , have the i r eye s set primarily upon theti cket rack and second , because , a s a nation , we areto a ll appearance s theatri cal ly ignorant o f the fa ctthat reali sm i s subj ect ive rather than obj ective , tha ti s

,that the only dramati c real i sm worth discuss ing

seriou sly i s real i sm o f thought, atti tude and viewpoint, fa ithfully conce ived and fa ithfully presented ,rather than mere reali sti cally smeared canva s .There i s ten times more genuine reali sm in such aplay (a comedy ) a s Brieux

’ s Le s Hanneton s o rin Ga lsworthy’ s “

The Pigeon (also a comedy)or in Bahr’ s The Concert (also a comedy ) or inFulda ’ s “ Friends o f Our Youth ” (also a com


edy) or in Schmidt’ s Only a Dream (also a com

edy ) , than in a score o f melodramati c Lure s and“ Fights ” with the i r sham specta cula rized bawdye stabli shments , than i n fi fty “

Todays with the irm ounteb ank and absurd philosophie s on m odernAm eri can soci a l, ethi ca l and mora l condit ions .No t , o f course , that there i s n o t a defin i te andsound real i sti c quality in such scenic p i ece s a s Sa lvation Nel l ” and the like : but the po int to b e made i sthat thi s reali sm is le ss dramati c real i sm than the extr insic reali sm o f slouchy clothe s, paint and cheesecloth . Rea li s ti c scenery and reali sti c depiction o f

types can a ff ect the drama o f worth a s a whole finallyin small mea sure unle ss with the real ism of pa intedcanva s and with the reali sm of types there be co

ordinated an element wh ich shall bring out o f the sereali sti c garni shings a rea li sti c purpo se , a waterholding philosophy, a men tal, rather than a purelyocula r, em otion . And the mental emotion thus produced in the auditor must be produced hone stly. o I ti s the ea s ie st thing in Chri stendom , rememb er , tosti r up an Am erican theatr ica l audience . I f there i san exception, i t i s to be found alone in the childi shease with whi ch a metropoli tan Gall i c audience i s tobe inflam ed through the medium o f pi ece s posses sedo f a showy mili tary fl avour. And even in the instance o f thi s exception, there a re many persons practised in the mechani c s o f the native theatre to shoutrebuttal . The much ridiculed, but invari ably e f

fectiv e, p romulgation in times o f p eace of the national


ingly authenti c report has i t, to compe l a marke t byvirtue o f its pseudo-sen sational scene a scene la i din a bunga low of i ll-repute . Natura lly enough , andfa i rly enough , the refl ection may here a ri se that,even so , there may still have b een an indire ct sincer ity, an indirect and unconscious integri ty o f purpose , di scernible in the play . But when we observetha t the events and incidents o f the play which soughtto in sti l the “ need for investiga tion and re form ”

were based on wild exaggeration and fuddled hysteria , doubt tumbles to the ground . Exaggeration ,true enough , ha s its authentic and enti re ly vi rtuou splace in dram a— but the exaggeration must bedram ati c exaggeration , the exaggerat ion permissibleand often nece ssa ry to the demands of the stage forthe stage ’ s complete effectivene ss—not the exag

ger a tio n o f a ctual conditions , not the gross disto rti on o f recognized facts . I f thi s latter be a legitimate enterpri se , then drama a s a serious a rt— o r

even a s a form of ea sy amusement for p artly in telligent men and women—must become nothing morethan a Punch and Judy Show a ided and abetted byPa ine ’ s fi reworks . For a ll the prim i tivenes s andj ej une thought o f the Charle s Kle in m elodram a turgy,

there yet rema ined in tha t dramaturgy a basi c s incer ity, an intrinsi c probi ty. Such plays a s “

The

Lure ,” however, arouse indignation on the part o f

the easily impressed fo r a state o f a ff airs tha t exi sts(i f a t all ) in such small part that it i s negligible .And i t is the first rule o f dram a tha t where the drama

R ea lism us 2 17

declare s itself to be dram a o f V i ta l blood and crusading heart, su ch drama must bear clo sely in m ind thedi fference in the national soci al , moral and econom i cgeography o f m ounta ins and m olehi ll s .To i llu strate . I f there i s drama ti c j ustification

in such exaggerations , why not a drama arousing indignation over dachshunds being allowed in the publ i c p a rks because once in a great whi le i t happens thatone o f the li ttle angels goes mad and bite s a childplaying in the p ark ? A fa r-fetched them e , yetba s i cally and logica lly no t a b i t more far-fe tched , nota b it le ss upright, than a theme whi ch purports to setthe publi c pulse a -t ingle with the theory that n o poorAmeri can girl is sa fe from the Italian white slavers .No t a b i t more ridiculous , not a bi t les s j ustifiable(from a

“ re form ” Vi ewpo int ) , than such a themea s tha t o f the play Today,

” a rguing that i t i s notuncustoma ry for American wives whose husb andsa re unable to purcha se for them the gee-gaws theycheri sh , to indulge in countle s s a ss ignations in orderto ga in the treasures . Thi s l atter play wa s l i ftedbodily out o f the Ea st S ide , that Shilling haunt o ftheatri c s ensationali sm , to shock the uptown sp inea t two dollars the spine . And in the instance of“ The Fight,

” we discover the arb itra ry in troduction o f a bawdy house scene into a play which , i ni ts two original vers ions , was found to b e withoutthe believ edly necessary box-o fli ce punch .

”The

lo céi le of the play was a sm all town . The resort inpoint wa s s i tuated in the heart o f its busine ss dis

2 1 8 Mr . G eo rge Jea n Na tha n Pr esen ts

tr ict . The wom an who condu cted the establi shm entlured a young girl o f the town into the house .Her leading p atron wa s the town ’ s m o st prom inentpersonage , a Senator . The whole to-do occurred inbroad day-l ight !What we m ust qui ckly come to , however , i s that

the paying theatre publi c l ike s thi s sort o f trumpedoup sensational i sm . The fact that “

The Fight ”

showed a very marked decline in revenue im m edia tely the authorities had cen sored the scene inpo int out o f the play, together with the fact thatthe box-o ffi ce disclose s a cons i stently heavy incomein such ca ses where the so -called sensational quali ti eshave not su ff ered the censor’ s scalpel-stroke to thesam e dam aging degree , se ems to prove this . Therefore , a s the Am eri can publi c— o r , at lea st, theNew York public (which , contradict i f you will , stilldoes exerci se the most profound influence on theAm erican drama , because the Am erican drama i sin the hands o f the New York thea tri cal mana erswho , in turn , a re in the hands of the New Y

go rk

publi c ) , patron i ze s l ibera lly thi s Speci es o f realism ,

” we must b e convinced that such reali smmust exert a tempting and malignant influence on thepens o f our stage scriveners .Bri efly to re i tera te , the situation i s thi s : the pub

li c that patron i ze s our theatre s mo st regularly andthus keeps our theatre s go ing, i s a publi c given toa fat admi ration for spurious “ real i sm, an ad

m ira tio n that i s reckoned with and gratified by o ur

POLISH VERSUS SHINE

AWDLING a t the window of a Londonclub and gaz ing with bored mien upon thethoroughfare , lounged two Engli sh dandi

pra ts and behind them , upon the long davenport,anothe r . An automobile wa s re sting a t the oppos ite curb . Presently and with a balmy languor, oneo f the Engli shm en a t the window adjusted hi smonocl e , sta red pains takingly at the car , noncha lan tly abstracted the crysta l and remarkedBuick . After a sedative period , the second Engl i shman , feel ing for his monocl e , finding it and withequal del iberation inserting i t in hi s eye , p ermittedhi s vi s ion to apprai se the motor and , having ap

prai sed it, withdrew his gla ss and remarkedMércedés.

”Another cata lepti c interlude , rent

only by the ticking of the clock upon the di stant mantel , and the Engli shm an upon the davenport arosea dagio and Slowly drew hi s ha t down upon his ears .The firs t Engli shman p ermitted his eye to li ft.Going ? ” he inquired. The other nodded .

Cawn’

t stand th i s bla rsted wrangling, he re

turned .

Wherewi th , a notion o f Al fred Sutro ’s comedyThe Two Virtue s .” Well-mannered a s a vale t,

220

Po lish Versus S hin e 22 1

un ruflled a s a poke colla r and exciting a s a girlwith nose-gla sses , the p i ece i s a t once typica l o f theste reotyp ed species o f London sugar-p ill which provides the Engli shm an with hi s even ing’ s excuse fordressing and the Ameri can manager with hi s yearlyexcuse fo r mi staking a drawing-room set for a politecomedy. The play was an immitigable fa ilurewhen pre sented oversea s by G eorge A lexander in th eSt . James ’ s Theatre . But, S ince the p i ece conta inedin its ca st a character with a title , a tea-pot and trayo f mu ffins , a l ine in which the hero says to a lady,a fter he ha s that-will-do ’d the butler “ Forgivemy correcting Bayli s before you , but I am very forgetful,

” a couple o f di sparaging allusions to money,a re ference to a Prince , a Count and an asn ifli sh statem ent by one of the lady characte rs thatone o f the othe r lady characters is of bourgeo is o r

igin, a charge by one o f the men cha racters that oneo f the other men characters ha s a cted l ike a greengrocer ” and s imila r component p arts o f wha t, onBroadway, i s known a s clas sy stuff to say nothing of the sub sti tution of the word pensio n for boarding-house i t wa s not altogether surpri s ing that thep i e ce Should b e forthwith snapped up by an American manager to enchant the native hoddy-doddie s .I t ha s been cla imed for the play that one o f i ts

m er its l ie s in the ci rcumstance that the autho r ha sno t apologized sentimentally fo r hi s lady with apast, that he ha s p erm i tted her rathe r to brave outher transgress ions with a pretty unconcern . But


where a greate r sentimentali ty than in this verySutro thing ? The unsentim enta l wri te r i s he whoallows hi s hero ine to apologi ze fo r her s ins . The

s entimenta l fellow, on the other hand, ever willrealize that by keep ing hi s hero ine f rom apologiz inghe will invest her with hi s audi ences’ melting sym

pathy, the sympathy always a ccorded an a ccu sedcharacter who shuts up . Again

,though tru e enough

,

Sutro’

s Mrs. Gui ldford does not expla in away hertem ptation in the u sual terms o f low lights , softChopin and scent o f l ilacs on the night a ir, She cannot res ist the not untyp ica l Sutro im pulse to

allude to hersel f somewhat patheti cally and wistfullya s a bi t o f se aweed . Do you ever go to the seas i de ? ” she a sks o f the hero

,nose-napkin ready.

“Then you may r emember having seen a b it o fseaweed— thrown up on the beach ? Well, that ’ sme . Just a b i t o f stranded seaweed .

‘

Butthough i t’ s fa r away from the sea and will neve rget back there— the sea s tanding for So ciety. andthe hall-marked woman,

”e t cetera . You rec

ogn ize the melody.The two virtue s o f wh ich Mr . Sutro compose s a reour old comrades , chastity and charity. And thephilosophy which Mr . Sutro vi s its upon them is ourold bed-fellow, I s-there-only-one-vir tue-in -womanO n e that i s paramount and its name i s chastity-I-thought-there-was-anothe r-called- charity. I t i sstaggering news that the play di sti ls . No r o f theother écla ir j u ice s o f the theatre i s there an undue


Briton ’ s knowledge o f the right times and place swhere in to u s e them . In plays by Ameri can writers

,

a ccordingly, the heroe s genera lly a ct and ta lk l ik ebutlers while the butlers a ct and talk like the kindo f butlers Charles Kle in used to make .Neverthe le ss , i t remain s that the best sam ple o f

good Briti sh comedy on the New York stage a t themoment o f writing i s an Am eri can comedy. To

wit, Mr . Langdon Mi tchell’ s “The New York

Idea . The reviva l o f this modi sh embroidery o fwit a ccents once aga in the integrity o f the contentiontha t i t i s unrea sonable and futile for us to expectpolite com edi e s from the droll ba r-brother s o fBroadway : tha t i t takes a gentleman to write agentlem an’ s play j ust a s certa inly a s i t takes a gentlem an to fox hunt, re ad Max Beerbohm or drinklight wine s . Some things , one must be born fo r .And nine-tenths o f our Amer ican rabble-writers werea ssuredly not born to the estate o f smart sati ri ccom posit ion . S i tting b e fore “

The New YorkIdea ,

” one neve r forgets that one is in the preSen ceo f a writing fe llow possessed o f the Pullm an attitude o f a fellow who , a s a youngste r , had a governess, went to a private school and looked, at hi suniversity, with amused tolerance upon such out-o fplace louts a s were work ing the i r way through college by wai ting on table and the like o f a fellowwho

,a s a man , belongs to smart club s but o f course

never enters them , doe s not feel i t necessa ry to t e

turn the bow o f any person who choose s to bow to

Po lish Versus S hine 225

h im , would never dre am o f eat ing l iver and doesnot wear hole-proo f ho s e . Of one, in short, whoha s the in stincts o f a well-bred , educated, well-po isedand altogethe r possible com pan ion .

I t take s such a soul to write a p ie ce l ike “The

New York Idea .” Publi c school boys do n o t growup to b e the authors o f satir i c drawing-room com edy .

I t be ing drawing-room comedy alone with which wea re here concerned— n o t other moulds o f drama .

Who but a man who ba ck at home knew the di ff erencebetween filets de tru ite grillés a la Jeanne d’Arc andfilets de trui te grillé s a l a Sév igné could have writtena Gay Lord Quex Who but one able to insultladie s with charm and skill , an Anatol ” ? Chicsatire i s born in a man , i t i sn’ t made . I t is born inhim j ust a s clean fingernai ls , a preference fo r themost secluded table in a re staurant, an aversion tothe sound of such words a s “ wart,” a di sl ike fo rtalking over the telephone and a taste for thin womenare born in him .

An interesting element concerned w i th the reviva lo f thi s

'

saucy specim en of thea tri ca l composi tioni s the performance in i t by Mi s s Grace George o fthe rOle o f Cyn thi a Ka rslake, or iginally divulged byMrs. Fiske . Interesting, I say, because , thoughfrom a strictly criti cal point o f V iew Mi ss George ’ sinterpretation i s inferior to Mrs. Fi ske ’ s , i t i s nonetheless a much better interpretation . Mrs. Fi skeplayed the part a ccurately, rea sonably, logi cally.

She knew she was p laying artific ial satir ic comedy


and so played from first to la st in the artifici al sa ti ri ccomedy spiri t . And as a consequence o f thi s soundand appropriate inte rpretation o f the rOle , becameexceedingly monotonou s and tiresome ere the second o f the four acts was done . Mi s s George , onthe othe r hand, plays the part inaccurately, unre asonably, i llogically. She forgets she i s playing artificial satiri c comedy and so p lays it w ith small regardfor the correct artifici a l sati ri c comedy sp irit. Instead , she inj ects periodically into her d el ineation o fthe rOle a perfectly inappropria te and erroneoussentiment and serious dramatic note . And , thoughthus from a techn i cal standpoint She presents an incorrect interpretation , she yet contr ives , by the fa lsevari e ty which She gives her labours , to hold the attenti on o f he r audience where Mrs. Fi ske lost i t . Doesthi s no t once more clearly exhibi t how inutile i t i sto regard acting a s a thing seriously to be cri ti cized ?I f Mrs. Fi ske ’ s performance wa s techn i cally ad

mirable and i f Mi s s G eorge ’ s performance i s techn ically full o f hole s and if Mi ss G eorge ’ s perform ancei s there fore va stly the better o f the two so far a sthe staging o f the Langdon Mi tchell manuscript i sconcerned—where wa s Montrose Mose s when thel ights went out ? Acting ha s only o ne re ason-to-beand tha t, obviously, i s to be e ffective upon a thea tr ica l audi ence . One cannot stay a t home and readacting a s o n e can stay a t home and read plays . Act

ing i s mere tr i ckery, l ike playing The Ro sary ona re sined str ing attached to an emp ty baking-powde r

THE CUT RATE MIND AND THEPREMIUM SEAT

UST a s one dislike s instinctively the sor t o fperson who se es say to b e gen ia l and popula ri s overly a s siduous , so does the mob audience

sim ilar ly fa i l to b e im pressed by the sort o f playwhose effort to stroke i ts fur i s too transparent .Like many another , I admit to having beli eved, ando ften written , the contrary . But more lately theconclusion ha s been harve sted that in order toachieve a Signa l box-o ffice prosper ity a p lay o f thegenre designated a s popula r must indulge itse l f in anescam o ter ie somewhat more suave and cagey.A play, for example , l ike Mr . Lee Wi lson Dodd ’ sPals First,

” to no sma ll degre e loses its audi ence byvirtue o f i ts unremitting eff ort to ple a se tha t audience .One has from it a constant im pression o f the manuscrip t le aning over the footl ights , fervently shakinghands with the audience , a ff ectiona tely call ing theaudience old man and giving i t Mason i c Slaps onthe back . And wh ile a ca sual deduction from thepopula r , or mob , plays might seem to indicate tha tthi s i s a frui t-bearing ta cti c, a clo se r scrutiny di sclo ses to the s ituation a rathe r different countenance .The long l ine a t a box-o ffice window means le s s a

228

The Cut Ra te Mind 229

p lay tha t i s plea sing an audience than an audi encetha t i s ple a s ing a play. When a playwr i ter with thebox-o ffice a s his sole a im addresse s himself to thecom pos ition o f a dollar-disti ll ing stage exhib i t, hi sfirst thought i s not that church bell s ringing onChri stm a s Ev e and bringing repentance to a wayward youth will arouse the noble r impulses o f hi saudi ence , but that hi s audience i s so given throughhabi t to remitting its familiari ty with the s ituationtha t the church be lls wi ll consti tute a s fetching a boxo ffi ce springle a s eve r. A mob play i s succe ssful tothe degree tha t its audi ence i s charitable in forgivingits banali tie s . The success o f such a p ie ce a s Turnto the Right i s ce rta inly not founded on the circums tance that i ts plo t

'

co ncerns the mediaeval l i fting o fa mortgage o ff the old fa rm so much a s on the circum stance tha t its audi ences a re plea sed to overlooktha t squashy wheez e because o f the humours withwhi ch the authors have re freshed it .The play designed for the wholesale consumptiono f the horde i s wri tten no t from the stage to the audien ce , but from the audience to the stage . I t mustnot ple a se i ts aud ience so much a s i ts audience mustplea se i t. W inchel l Smith , one o f the authors o fTurn to the Right,” and one o f the shrewde st o fna tive box-o ffi ce mesmeri sts , recently po inted thi sm ost a cutely while touching on the ca se o f HermannBahr ’ s “

The Ma ster . Thi s e stimable play, argued Smith , plea sed its audiences , but did not makemoney . Had he written the play, sa id Smith, he

230 Mr . Geo rge Jea n Na tha n Presen ts

would have made o f i t a stunning box-o ffice succes sby having a wom an rush out on the stage at onepo int in the tra ffi c, Slobber a round o n the floor atthe grea t surgeon ’ s fee t and beseech him with loudwa ils and whifllings to save her l ittle child

’ s l i fe .Thi s may sound Very si lly, but the truth rema insthat Sm i th i s a clever man and unquestionably knowswhat he i s ta lk ing about. And where Bahr, anarti st, wrote a play tha t merely plea sed i ts audi enceand so lost money, Smith , a busines s man , would havewritten an audi ence that pleased it s play and so

probably made a shapely fortune . For certa inly theso -called sympatheti c s i tu ation describ ed by Smitha s constituting the nece ssa ry inj ection o f box-o ffice

s trychnine doe s not belong in the play Smithpla inly granted a s much : i t belongs in the audience .

The S ituat ion indeed i s le s s a situation than it is anaudience . Originally a thing o f the stage , it ha s inone form o r anothe r rolled down the years l ike asnowball growing, growing and has b ecom e athing of the auditorium , a veritable part of the popula r theatregoing crowd . Thi s tradi tional s ituationand all i ts many tradit ional fellows have been transmuted , through endless and cea se le s s repet itions , intoso many component parts o f the popular theatre audience . And it i s thus that the popular playwright ofto-day must compose le ss a play than an audience .For years, an audience has been accustomed upon

seating itsel f to slide its hats into the wire holder sunder i ts seats . Mr Ames’ Little Theatre ha s be en


self. And fl atter itsel f by fooling itsel f. The audience must p retend : i t must read into the Old stage situa tio ns elements that a re not, and doubtles s werenever , there . It must pretend , with a chari tablewarmth , tha t fo r the time be ing i t i s not famil ia r withthe Cinderella s tory the inevi table a rrival o fthe Ninth Cavalry a t the stockade in the nick o f

tim e the you-don’ t-m ean oh-m y-poor-bravel ittle-woman im pending baby that i s destined to r e

un i te the hero and hero ine the ult im ate revealm ent o f the smug hypocri sy o f the deacon .

The more or le s s p revalent notion that an audiencea t a popula r play i s inte re sted in the solution o f theplot o f the pl ay i s surely a ridiculous one . What theaudience i s interested in i s not what will happen butwhat won’ t happen . One will qu ickly grant, for example , that no civi l i zed audience under the broadheavens expects fo r an in stant that the le ading ladyin Mr . Wu ” o r “ The Conquerors o r Toscao r any such play will b e ravi shed on the stage by thevilla in b efo re i ts very eyes . Why, then , i s the audience interested ? I t i s interested, sim ply enough , because a theatre audience i s interested ever more inthe p reventive o f an act than in the consummation oftha t a ct . I t i s n o t the hero ’ s trium ph over obstacle sthat intri gues the mob— the mob knows the herowill tr iumph when i t buys its ti ckets i t i s the obstacle s themselves . The popular play, in short, i s thatp lay whi ch most adroi tly employs the greatest number o f semi-colons in its narration of an o ld story.


What su sp ens ive inte re st might attach to such amob play a s “

The Man Who Cam e Back ” i s deleted from the play be fore the curta in ’ s r i se by thetitle . What su sp en sive intere s t might a ttach to sucha mob sp ecim en a s Experience is de leted from theplay imm edi ate ly the audience looks first a t its program and dete cts tha t the fina l scene i s la id in thesame sweet duchy a s the prologue . To argue , therefore , that the large commercia l prosperity o f the seplays i s due considerably to an interest in the solutiono f the i r storie s i s akin to a be l i e f tha t one i s les sam used at the spectacle o f a fat gentlem an fa ll ing onthe slippery pavement than in watch ing him get upagain .

To m ake the audience plea se the popul a r p lay i ti s necessary for the popular playwright to dramatizenot the audience ’ s b est impulse s and emotions , a scla imed by the pro fe ssors , but the audience ’ s worstimpulse s and em otion s . That p lay which cap ita li ze s , approves and justifie s most eff ectively the evi ls ide o f a mob audience ’ s moral nature i s the play thatmak e s the fortune for its sponsors . A l i a s J immyValentine ,” O flicer and Turn to theRight cap i ta li zed and countenanced the mob audien ce

’

s more o r les s repressed impulse to break thee ighth comm andment and steal Madame Xand “ On Tri al ,” l ike certa in o f the Sardou plays,the audience ’ s periodic impu ls e to break the sixth andkil l Mari e-O dile ,” “

Romance ” and “The

Lily, to break the seventh and commi t charming


and forgivabl e adulte rie s The U nchastenedWoman, the ninth Mary Jane ’ s Pa ,

” thefi fth The G reat Love r ” the covetous tenthand Kismet (a rare combination o f the first

rate and popula r p lay ) , the whole lot from one to

tenA popula r audience, l ike an old bachelor o r a

young girl , l ikes to be told , not that i t i s good, butthat i t i s b ad . And the audience , figuratively speaking, l ike s to tell i t back aga in to the play. And so itcomes about that the history o f the popula r, or mob ,play i s with o f course the usual reservations acata logue , not a s i s generally ma inta ined, o f v irtuousloves and holy preachment s and scowlings on sin so

much a s one o f crooks , seducers , swindlers and l ia rs .The popular p lay— the play manu fa ctured to

make money a s we have come in the la st fi fteenyears to know i t, must not puni sh sin : i t must condonei t, or approve i t, o r forgive i t. Your popular stagehero who i s a swindler i s not sent to j a il (a s he wa sIn old days when he was the v illa in ) , but instead i sr ewarded at eleven O ’clock with the hand o f a r ichand personable country la ss and the sight o f an illum ina ted trolley ca r running along the back drop.Your pro fessional seducer (the one-time o dious JemDalton , but now the bewitching Jean Paurel) nolonger exp iate s h i s s ins in the cold moonl it watersbeneath the Brooklyn Bridge . Tod ay a s the finalcurta in de scends o n him to loud hand-clapping, he i splanning still another a ss ignation with a mobile mar

236 Mr . Geo rge Jea n Natha n Pr esen ts

direct plagiar i sm of his work but subtly and not inconsiderably flattered ove r a mere imitation of i t, sowill an audience be di splea sed at a direct tran scription of its favourite s i tua tions and , contrariwi se ,greatly pleased at an imitative treatment . Sis

Hopkins, brought into New York to -day'

with Mi s sRose Melvi lle , would doubtle ss be a dismal fa ilure .But when Mi s s Laurette Taylor brings i t back totown and calls i t Peg O ’ MyHeart it a chieves analmost stupe fying popula r triumph .

I have observed that a popular audience resents atoo palpable stroking o f its fur . Though it may nota t fi rst glance so appear , i t i s yet probably true thatthe succes s o f the plays written by Mr . Willi amHodge i s due to the tactful hocus-pocus which thatgentleman vi s its upon them . For all that a lot o fimpudent boys like myself have in the past written tothe contra ry, one knows perfectly well that the average American is by no means so inconceivably vulgara buck a s he i s repre sented to b e in the person of theHodge heroes . Mr . Hodge i s unquestionably awareo f the fact himsel f and , by so exaggerating the v ulga rities o f the average Amer ican (which is to say

the popular audience ) , he wins hi s audi ences’ golden

hosannahs through the s imple stratagem of leadingthem in thi s e ssenti ally sly and obl ique manner to bel ieve that they are above the average . He permi tseach native so n in hi s audience to comp are himsel fwith an Engli sh nobleman and to the na tive son’ sla rge advantage by the le ft-handed tri ck of hir ing


a thi rty-fiv e-dolla r-a -week actor to play the nobleman , permitting the a ctor to go the lim i t in dress ingthe part the way the a ctor thinks i t ought to b edressed and so m aking the nobleman app ear to theunsu specting and subtly larded native so n approxi

m ately a s regal a s a shoe .Mr . Hodge , further , buys twenty-dolla r even ing

gown s for hi s chi c society belle s and so with a shrewdle ft hand s im i la rly fla tters his fatuous patron s am ongthe fem ale proletar ia t. The fellow, say what youwill , i s clever . He understands the pala te o f the

publikum . He knows that the popula r play cannota fford directly to flatt e r the mob . G eorge M.

Cohan tri ed the tri ck in hi s Mi ra cle Man andcam e a cropper . George Broadhurst tr ied i t with“What Money Can ’ t Buy ” and came a cropper a swe ll . Study George Coban ’ s successes and you willfind tha t they insult the mob , flout i t, make sport o fi ts vaunted shrewdness and acum en . Wa llingford ,

” Baldpate ,” “ Hit-the-Tra i l-Holliday ” and

o n down the li st.And so , a play such a s Pals Fir st,” by v irtu e o fi ts continuous prostra tion be fore the popula r audience

’

s optim i sms and benevolences and self-delusion s ,can neve r achi eve great popula r success . I t i s amere morali ty o f Magnan im i ty, Chiva lry, Honour,Loyalty, Faith , Virtue , Al trui sm , Self-Immolationand Handshaking told in terms o f a so -ca lle d crookplay. I t i s a Pollyanna without a John Pendleton . I t i s the Lord ’ s Prayer rewritten by Ori son

238 Mr . G eo rge Jea n Na tha n Presen ts

SwettMarden to be interpreted by the requ ired number o f Mary Pickfords in trousers Abendsternon a dozen ukelele s— the poetry o f Cale YoungRi ce recited in uni son by the sophom ore cla ss a tWelle sl ey E leanor Hallowell Abbott shopping inPage and Shaw ’ s .


a theatre n o t so l arge a s even the Punch and Judy.

The explanation o f the theory is s im ple . The

producer who presents hi s m elodram a in a b ig theatre does so under the impre s sion that the furtheran audience i s removed from the stage trapp ings andtr aflic the le ss flawful and more real these trappingsand tra ffi c w i ll seem to i t. And the producer i s , inthi s , correct ; but, be ing correct, he yet bamboozle shimself. Fo r hi s audience i s thus pla ced in the , inthi s instance , theatri cally le ss de sirable mood ofim agin ing and believing in the reali sm o f the proceedings than in the more prosp erous mood of deteeting, from a close r look , the holes in the oceanwaves and the shirt- sleeved and persp i ring O ’

B r ien

pushing the -ton pap i er-m aché battleshipa cross the backdrop and so be ing made safe ly appr ecia tiv e o f the entire a rtificia lity o f the drama i t i sbeholding. That the stuff o f me lodram a i s purelya rtificia l, an audien ce must b e made constantly tofeel . Just a s an audience will laugh hea rtily at thespectacle o f Fields poking his finger in Weber ’ s eyeso long a s i t knows Weber’ s eye i sn ’ t b eing hurt andjust a s the

—

same audi ence would , a s Fi elds him se l fha s observed , stop laughing imm ediately i f i t believ ed the pain were ac tual , so will an audi ence beple a surably thri lled by a m elodrama j ust so long a sit feel s the whole thing i s merely a Show, and sowi ll the audience cea se to be plea surably thrilled andbecome lo st to the producer the moment i t feel s ato o grea t sense o f illu sion and reali ty in the proceed

Mists of Delusio n 24 1

ings . C erta inly, m o s t succe s s ful melodramas haveowed the i r p rosperity to the i r clearly patent a rtificia lity. The audience natura lly knew that thethrill ing time-clock infernal machine of “ The FatalCard ” cou ld not poss ibly b e loaded and go o ff onthe s tage because , i f i t were and did , it would blowup with i t the first half dozen rows o f the audience .The audience naturally knew that the grea t cannonof The Cherry Pickers ” couldn ’ t po ssibly go o ff

while the hero wa s strapped to i ts mouth , because ,i f i t did , it would spatte r the hero a ll over the ladie s ’

dresse s out front. Maurey le ts you see clo sely thetrap -door covered with brown cloth repre s enting thepi t o f qu icksand , the obvious waxness o f the handunder which the vi lla in holds the l ighted candle .And Maurey ’ s ta sk i s adm i ttedly a sim p ler one thanwere he a caterer to the baby-blue sensib il i t ie s o f u sAm ericans .The two prime requi s ite s o f a success ful melodrama are , there fore , (I ) tha t i t sha ll la ck completeconVictio n and (2 ) that i t Shall make its audiencefe e l itsel f pro tem in the place o f the me lodram a ’ sstage producer . The ingenuity o f a melodrama ’ sp roduction i s o f infinite ly more inte rest to an audience than the melodrama itsel f. E lse why the lureo f the mechan i ca l big scene ” ? Was i t the storyor plausib il ity o f TheWhip that interested audiences or wa s i t the toy trickery o f the moving tra in ?Did not Lincoln Carter make all h is money out ofmechan i ca l automobile races and stereopti con fore st


fire s ? I s i t the plot o f The Sporting Duches s o ri s i t the hor se race tha t i s rem em bered ? I s it The

White Hea ther ” o r the ba lloon ? “The Span o f

Li fe or the three a crobats who formed the humanbridge ?Thi s be ing the case , why should not me lodrama bemore succes s ful in a sma ll theatre where in an audience i s m ade p rivy to its tri cks ? I s Ching Ling Fooles s amusing than Kellar b ecause he Shows you howthe trick s a re done ? A m elodrama audience i s anaudi ence in a youngster fram e o f mind . I t wantsto see what ’ s ins i de the doll .

I I

Just a s melodrama i s to be best viewed in a sm allshow-bourse , so i s a play by Shaw be st cri ti cally tobe viewed in a large one . For, whereas everym an who doesn’ t wea r coloured socks i s alreadythoroughly fam i l ia r with Shaw’ s p lays and therefore s ee s no rea son why he should go to the theatreand b e m i sled into im agin ing from garbled in terpreta tio n s that they aren ’ t so good a s he knows theyare , i t follows that the real spo rt o f an acted Shawplay i s not the play but the audience o f more orles s gap ing and sta rtled yahoos in attendance thereupon . And , obviou s ly, the larger the audi ence thegreate r the sport. A Shaw audience , in New Yorkat lea st, i s a love ly berry . To go s lumming amongstsuch a droll p eople , to give surreptitiou s e a r to i tsdeduction s and corollari e s , i s a br o che tte

’

o f treats .


Mencken ha s ni cely ob served The dram a i s a fa ci leand e asy art form (desp i te a ll the gabble abouttechn iqu e ’ tha t one hears from j itney dramati stswho couldn’ t write a decent triolet to s ave thei rh ides ) , and so i t is na tura l that i t should occa s i ona llyappe al to grea t a rti sts , particula rly in thei r momentso f fatigue and indolence .” I f dram ati c techn ique i s

,

forsooth , the di fficult th ing som e profes sors wouldhave u s beli eve , why i s i t that so many num skullssucceed a t i t ? Why are many o f the plays techn ica lly perfe ct the product o f write rs without a S ingleidea

,a tra ce o f imagination , an ounce o f characte r

sense o r a whi t o f fancy ? Why, in another dircetion

,i s it then that so many b eginners a chieve it with

apparently a stoni shing ea se and ausp iciou sness thevery first t im e they tackle i t ? Jean Web ster , awri te r

,o f magazine stori e s for young girls , did

“ Daddy Longlegs ” a t he r first try . CatherineChi sholm Cu shing followed up her Real Thing ”

with “ Kitty MacKay” and “ Jerry. Thompson

Buchanan dropped newspaper work and wrote theadroi t and equa lly succe s sful Wom an ’ 3 Way .

” A .

E. Thomas left the Sun and turned out the de ftHer Husband’ s Wife .” Young Reizenstein lefta lawyer ’ s offi ce and del ivered On T ri a l .” Marcinquit the Press and negotiated “ The House o fG la s s Robert McLaughlin was a s tock com panymanager and turned out The Eternal Magdalene .”

The l i st i s withou t end . Whatever the plays there inmay not be from a cri t ical point o f V i ew, they are

Mists of Delusio n 245

full o f the techn ique beloved o f the whiskeredcla s se s . Charle s K . Hoyt wa s a pre ss-agent. Hisfirst bout with Techn ique wa s eminently succe ss ful .So wa s Jam e s Forb es ’ , also a press-agent. HenryArthur Jone s wa s a travell ing salesm an. He qu itte ll ing naughty stor i e s in the sm oking-car anda chieved Technique a t the first crack . Charles RannKennedy was an acto r and hi s first try at T echn iquewa s The Servant in the House ” Thu s the S ituation ! And Shaw, Wedekind, Andreyev, Synge ,Dunsany, Tcheko v , et a l, still have the pe sky thingto m aste r !T re at le tr o isi em e . The notion , favour ite alwayso f Shaw ’ s audi ence of criti cs , that Shaw

’ s plays a redefic ient in the vi sualiz ing o f thi s o r that ep isode ,in permitting an audience to see thi s o r that thingrather a s i s the ca se than having the character smerely talk about its be ing, or having been , done .

Voila ! There , by the same hook , go Schiller’ s

Ma id o f Orleans , Shakespeare ’ s “Macbethand eight out o f ten o f the world’ s best p lays . To

vi suali z e everything in a play i s to compose mere lya cheap melodrama . The dram a o f ideas i s thedrama o f the e a r . The eye i s the l ittle brother o fKir a lfy and Bela sco . Sardou , the Charle s M.

Schwab o f cheap melodrama , cra ftily and not unsuccessfully sought to give a lo ftie r tone to hi s composit ions and so a ssure himsel f o f some l i terarystanding by inventing the action o f hi s plays anda s Shaw him sel f ha s expre ssed it— then carefully


keep ing it out o f s ight in the w ings and hav ing i tannounced by letters and telegrams .Maj o r B arbara ,

” a s already amply appreciated ,i s a mixture o f Ni etzsche and The B el le o f NewYork,

” done a fte r the formula o f Ari sto phanes ,Beaumarchai s and Will Cressy, and, while one ofthe le a st im portant o f Shaw ’ s satir ic com posit ions ,i s still better than the most im portant o f any nativedram a ti st I can sum m on to mind . The play’ senactm ent by the Playhouse repertory company wa sa valuable argum ent aga inst the theory tha t a perm anen t group o f modern actors may poss es s a sufficient fl ex ibi l i ty to interpret with skill such diversem oulds o f drama a s a repertory company i s calledupon to present .

I II

Several years ago they produced in the LongacreTheatre a play hight “ Are You a Crook ? ” Atthe dre s s rehea rsal, they saw that the incideqts o fthe p iece were so utte rly ridicu lou s that not even aBroadway audien ce would accept them a s they wereintended . A t the last mom ent, accordingly, i t wa sdecided to put in an addendum where in the wholeo f the enacted play wa s di sclo sed to the sp ecta torsto have been m erely a rehearsal for a motion p i cture .The play fai led .

Severa l months ago they produced in the CortTheatre , a play hight “ Pay Day .

” At one o f therehearsals , they saw that the incidents o f the p iece


ally be of finer fabri c than the original . Thus , wereMr . Cohan to attempt to sati r ize The G rea tLover in pl a ce o f s im ply burle squing that play

,he

would have to work out som e such idea as having thetenor who ha s lo st hi s vo ice go out upon the Metropol itan Op era House stage and achi eve a bigger a rtistic succe s s with the Ameri can publi c and cr iti csthan ever before !Such a me lodrama a s Pay Day i s intrinsi cally

not a whit more ridi culous than such melodramas a s“The House of G la ss ,

” which i t clo sely re sem blesand which was taken ser iou sly on Broadway for sixmonths . Having for its bas i s the venerable anci ento f the innocent girl a ccused of crime, convicted andsubsequently hounded by the vindictive gendarmes ,i t ha s sought to make i tsel f up-to -date merely byadding a revenge on the part o f its p ersecutedheroine tha t wa s pra cti sed in qu ite the s am e mannersix years ago in a yellow-back called “ Lady Jim ofCurzon Street ” and , s everal yea rs be fore that, ,in apocket-edition melodrama a t the Guignol . Thus , inshort

,the melodrama i s not a sati re on e ithe r the

Broadway melodrama o r the cinema melodrama .

I t is a Broadway melodrama ; i t is a cinema melodrama .

To summarize . A bad play may not be made intoa succe s s arb itrari ly by giving i t a so -called surprisetag. Such a tag, or curtain , o ff ends the audience .The audience wi ll like the bad play i f it i s left aloneand the play will so in all probab ili ty prove very

M ists of'

De lusion 249

succe ss ful but i t i s adding insult to injury to spoilthe audi ence ’ s plea sure by telling i t the play it l ike sand ha s been enj oying i s a bad one .

IV

One ofMr . David B elasco ’ s sterling contribut ionsto American dram ati c art and le tters is a play en

ti lted “The Heart o f Wetona ,” by Mr . G eorge

Scarborough, a work deal ing with the l i fe , cu stom sand ethica l and moral code o f the Am erican Indiano f to-day and refl ecting that l i fe , cod e , e t ce ter a , withthe sam e sea rching fidelity , vra i semblance and pertin aCIty tha t marked the treatm ent o f the subj ect byMessrs . Pixley and Luders in the Indian chorus numb er o f “ The Burgoma ster .”

Set forth not a s a m ere tin-pot m e lodram a fo rreuben revenue only— which in a ll hones ty i t i sbut, more seriously and elegantly, a s a new American p lay,” the pre sentation affo rds u s a not un excellen t instance o f and ins ight into the strapp ingess ences o f the B el a sco dramaturgy. As Originallyconce ived and written by Mr . Scarborough— andso prom ulgated in Atlanti c C i ty under the ti tle The

G irl the play, which treated o f a young wom an ’ sseduction and the atti tude o f he r father toward theenterta inm ent

,had a s its characters a ‘ set o f Puritan i c

Anglo-Saxons . The piece in thi s form appearingevidently to Mr . Bela sco to lack the gauds and prettyenam e ls neces sary to captivate the Broadway audience , Mr . Be la sco , alter ing the theme not a t all ,


s im ply shi fted the locale to an Indian re servation ,took o ff the chara cters’ Kuppenhe im ers and Dunlap sand by sti cking feather-dusters on thei r he ads

,sm ear

ing the ir Anglo-Saxon face s with He s s’ No . 1 7 wa r

pa int and decorating the walls o f the Anglo-Saxonhouse with a Frederi c Remington colour supplementand a couple o f Navaj o blankets o f the sort boughtthrough the Pullman window from the squaw vendersa t the ra ilroad station a t Albuquerqu e , a chievedpresto ! a new Amer ican play dealing with themodern Am erican Indian .

”

So much for the play a s an exhib i tion de serv ingseriou s o r re spectful cons ideration . As a cap-p istolmelodrama , i t probably serve s i ts purpose moreprettily, having a s its le ading elements a ll the philosophic and mechanical j ewe lry o f the ten-twentyfl am es . The villa in— a low fellow— wea rs riding boots and sm oke s cigarettes . When dared bythe contemptuous hero to “ take that revolver andshoot me

,i f you ’ re a man ! the villa in , foreseeing

the ab surdity and consequences o f su ch an a ct, natur ally i ssues the hero a laugh , whereupon the hero ,who wears a bandana drap ed a t hi s throa t, scorn shim for the coward he i s— to the rapturous ap

plause o f the clients . The innocent Indian heroine who has been unwittingly seduced (shebeli eved she wa s merely pi cking wi ld flowers in themoonl ight, so she te lls u s sophom ori c cyn i cs ) i s apoor l ittle flowe r to the hero , who ha s travelledin the fa r place s and knows a good woman when he


l ikeable performer, ha s, in hi s portraya l o f the hero ,j o ined the Liste rine school o f a ct ing and ga rgles hi srOle . With hi s exagge rated voice shadings , hi sa rpeggios from pia no to fo r te, the gentlem an givesone the impress ion of hav ing swal lowed a ukelele .Mr . Lowell Sherman would be a better actor i f herefra ined from indica ting doubt, nervou s a la rm anddeep cogitation each and a l l by turn ing himsel f s ideways and slowly brushing hi s hand acros s hi s lip s .

V

The score o f “ The Road to Mandalay,” a lucidlypoor mus ical com edy, i s yet to the ana lytica l f e llowan intere sting laboratory specimen . The work of aMr . Oreste Vessella , a musici an the prime years o fwhose li fe have been sp ent In a brave eff ort to drowno ut with a good bra s s p i er band the noi se of thewave s and gum chewers o f Atl anti c City , i t i s remarkable in tha t there a re included in i ts m anufa c

ture in var iable degree portion s o f the thirty-twocompositions which mark the grand total o f theschola rship o f the average Am eri can m usi c love r .Whethe r or not the thing wa s done del ibera tely byway o f sa ti re by thi s Mr . Vessella a beli e f somewhat difficult to conj ure up— whether that gentlem an thought thus to guarante e the applauding earo f the mob o r whether , on the other hand , the wholething wa s Sheer accident, is not given the strangerto re cord . Yet the fa ct rem a ins that, fortui tou s lyo r otherwise , the score o f thi s pi ece i s a s clever a


sati re o f the native musica l taste , a s good a lampoonof the Broadway musi ca l education , a s one may pagein the rece sse s o f memory .

In the score , as I have sa id , one discovers thepresence o f samples som e o f the sam ples o f l ibera ls i ze indeed o f the thi rty-two com pos itions which ,by and large , com promise the musi cal tute lage o fthe average local . The wh ich th ir ty-two are a sfollows :

1 . The Rosary.

2 . To sti’

s Good-bye .

3 . Hearts and Flowers .4 . Schubert’ s Serenade .5 . Mendelssohn ’ s Spring Song.

6 . Dv o i'ék’

s Humoreske (Op. 1 0 1 , No .

Mi chaeli s ’ “Turkish Patrol .

Mendelssohn ’ s Wedding March .

Chopin’ s Funeral March .

9 . Ha‘ndel ’ s “ Largo .

”

10. Ma scagn i’

s Intermezzo from Cavaller iaRusti cana .

1 1 . The Merry Widow Waltz .

1 2 . Narci ssu s .1 3 . The clog dance .1 4 . Straus s ’ “ Blue Danube .1 5 . Asthore .1 6 . Rub inste in ’ s Melody in F .

1 7 . The“ Donna é Mobile ” from Rigol etto .

1 8 . The Night o f Love ” from “ The Tale s o fHoffman .

”

254 Mr . George Jea n Na tha n Presen ts

The Evening Sta r from “ Tannhauser .I Dream t I Dwe lt in Marble Halls fromThe Bohemian G i rl .”

The Toreador Song from Carmen .

Sull ivan’ s “ The Lost Chord .

Rocked in the Cradle o f the Deep .

La Paloma .”

Schumann’ s Tréium erei .

Beli eve Me I f All Those Endear ing YoungCharms .”

Drink to Me OnlyWi th Thine Eyes .“ Old Black Joe .”

Ach Du Lieber Augustin .

B ada rczev ska’

s“The Ma iden’s Prayer .

The Sextette from Luc ia .”

The Ho o chee-Co o chee .

As ide from thi s ingeniou s mus ical spoofing o f themob palate, the enterta inment harks back to themusi c Show days o f Pauline Hall , Ne lla B er gen ,Z elma Rawlston , Della Fox, Mari e Jansen , RuthPeeble s , Madge Les s ing, Mabel Carrie r , Paula Edwards

, Mabelle G i lm an , E le anor Mayo , Franki eRaymond, Jeanette Lowr ie , the days o f John T .

Kelly and Franci s Wilson , Se abrooke and JeromeSykes , the days of Panj andrum and Tobasco ,

”

The Q olah,” “

The G rand Mogul and “The

Begum , the days when the leading comedian stillbore such nomencla ture a s the Szetzetze o f Szut

zutzu o r something of the sor t.

256 Mr . Geo rge Jea n Na tha n Presen ts

the exhib it ion of The Taming o f the Shrew in thelatter p layhouse , text uncut, stage demeanour una ltered, atmosphere pol itely and rigidly reta ined , wa sthe one actua l Shakespearean r epresentation vouchsa fed New York excepting, a s I say, the dign ifiedproductions in the se theatre s , the Shakespeare ann iv ersa ry wa s marked in celebration with a fuddledhypocri sy, much fine talking and not a l ittle gushingignorance . Were George Wash ington’ s b irthday tobe celebrated by complimenting Mr . Hepne r forhaving designed a more lovely wig than that wornby Mr . Washington , the procedure were not a whitles s gen i a l than the busine ss o f celebrating theShake spearean anniversary by com plimenting Mr .

Norman Wilk inson for having designed a morelovely scen i c investi ture than that which originallyadorned the Globe Theatre . Certa inly when , froma pre sentation o f King Henry VII I ,” such l ine s a s“ And those about her from her shall read the perf ect ways o f honour , and by these cla im thei r gre atness , not by blood,

” are deleted on the ground thatthe un interrupted text were to o long to hold anaudience in a modern theatre , and in thei r place yetsub stituted a twenty-minute curta in speech by thema in a cto r deta i ling the source and num ber o f congratulatory telegrams and cablegrams the maina cto r ha s rece ived from hi s fellow actors , certa inlythen does the whole enterpr i se become somewhatwell , let u s say, droll . I f Shakespeare i s to be cutand that he may to theatri ca l advantage b e cut i s


not to be disputed —let him be cut for thi s r e a sonand to thi s pro speri ty. But let not Shakespeare becut m erely to grati fy the incom petence o f sceneshi fte rs and the sta r gentleman ’ s de s i re to inform u sAm eri can yoke ls tha t he is actually a warm fri endto the grea t Mr . Asqui th !

VII

Just a s in Mr . Herm an Sheff auer’

s belated,credulou s and sopo r ific play

“The Barga in,” Mi s s

Dorothy Donnelly ’ s idea o f inte rpreting the rule ofa Jewe s s wa s to a ct without a corset, so i t wou ld seemin the Goddard-Dickey anthology, “ Mi s s Inform ation ,

” to be Mi ss Els i e Jan i s ’ ide a o f versatil ity thatversatil i ty con si sts mere ly in doing a whole lot o f pe rfectly i rre levant things . Just why j umping in andout o f half a dozen costum es , achiev ing a somersault,s inging a song and giving an imi ta tion o f Mi s s EthelBarrym ore should be rega rded a s marks o f virtuo sityand versatili ty, I am somewha t unable to comprehend . I

,for exam ple , am beli eved by some persons

(about whom I have wri tten nice things ) to be adramati c cr itic. Now, i f, during the rev i ewing of aplay, I were suddenly to j ump out o f my seat and doa spl it in the a isle and while in thi s gay posture givean imitation o fMi s s Dorothy G i sh , would i t indicatethat I wa s versatile o r wou ld i t indicate simply that lwa s a

'

pla in idiot ? A dramati c criti c is a dramati ccr iti c (at lea st ca s e s have b een known ) a plum beri s a plumber ; a bee r-wagon driver i s a bee r-wagon


dr iver . And a music-hall mimi c i s a music-hallmim i c. On e doesn ’ t regard the plumber a s agreater plumber i f he can also drive a b eer-wagonor the beer-wagon driver a s a greater beer-wagondriver i f he knows how to perform upon the bathroom. Nor do I quite see why one should regard amu s i c-hall m im i c a s som ething grea ter than a musichall mimi c because in addi tion to her talent for goodmimicry She possesse s a ta lent for bad somersaulting.

The truth about Elsi e Jan i s is tha t She i s a cleverl ittle vaudeville wom an with an unquestioned knackfor imitating the manneri sms o f her fe llow sn iflle rs,

fa ce-makers and gesture-chefs , and that beyond thisshe owns nothing o f genu ine versatili ty. Whatthey otherwi se call versati l ity in impersonation inMi s s Jan i s i s a ctually merely a faculty for changingco stum e s wi th rap idity. Thi s confusion of ver satility with costume s being a not uncommon practi ceo f the revi ewing mind . Mi s s Jan i s , true , can s inga b it and dance a b i t, besides mim i c ; but she

'

can

ne i ther s ing nor dance so well a s young women whohave speciali zed in singing or dancing, or both .

The Els i e Jan i s versa ti lity hallucination i s , in short,a triumph of press-agent ove r newspaper reviewer ’ swaste-ba sket.

VIII

A poor p l ay that i s habi tually threaten ing to begood , and never remain s anything but poor, i s thebest e stimate o f Mr . Loui s K . Anspacher

’

s la test


ford and So n a ccla im ed a noteworthy play ? And

why, otherwise , do p erson s wi th hom e s and homecooking now and aga in reli sh a bad meal in a restaurant ? The Anspacher masque is, in shor t, the

college boy ’ s notion o f a strong play.

The chara cter which the author ha s manoeuvredw ith so considerabl e an adro i tne ss i s a sort o f lightcomedy re incarnation o f the prem iere hussy out o fBernste in ’ s Secret,” a sort o f tame vampire . The

type i s a familia r one— the married salam ander ,the lady who i s will ing to play football, but withoutgoal posts . The story in which the playwright ha sp la ced thi s p ersonage is a commonplace potpourrio f young arti st love r, indulgent husband and 1 1 p . m .

worm-turn .

IX

The Mark o f the Bea st i s a sex play by twoAmeri can ladie s , the Mesdames G eorgi a Earle a ndFanny Cannon , and hence twice a s s i lly a s i f i t hadbeen written by but one . Like nine out o f ten suchdomesti c composit ions , i t commits the familia r mistake o f viewing women a s a problem instead o f a s anamusement. The play i s so solemnly serious thatthe authors would seem to have a fortune in storefor them i f they will wa i t until the war i s over, translate it word for word and produce it in Pari s a s afarce . Conside r the mea t. A man’s wi fe goesbachelo r ing. The man finds her out . He , adam ant to her tear s , determine s a t once to d ivorce her .

Mists of De lusio n 26 1

He r counsel , a lea rned judge , seeks out the husbandand , by the exerci se of the celebrated “ you neglected her for your business and a woman must havelove theorem , succeeds in persuading him to relent .Thi s no sooner a ccompli shed than the j udge le arn stha t hi s own wi fe ha s a lso been bachelo r ing andoh m y G o d how could she where i s tha t revolver I

’ llkil l the scoundrel ! But Husband I now into thebreach . The baby-colla r, blue-eyed philosophy onceaga in to the fore , and Hu sband II , l ike Husband Ibe fore him, falls . A pro foundly impre ssive specta cle fo r al l gi rl s under eleven and over forty, andfor a ll p ersons who use the double negative , b el i evei t i s unlucky to walk under a ladder, adm i re p ianoswith mandolin attachments , beli eve that fi fteen drop sof cam phor in half a gla ss o f water wi ll preventcolds o r think that ki ss ing a girl in the ear is immoral . The stella r rOle in thi s trump was occup iedby Mr . George Na sh , one o f the school o f actorswho , when the butler brings in a vi s itor

’ s card , medita tiv ely fl i cks it thre e times against hi s thumb befor eb idding the servant Show the caller in .

CURTAIN-RAISERS AND HAIR-RAISERS

PEAKING broadly o f the current theatre , aone-act p lay may be defined a s a play whichi s only one-thi rd a s ti re some a s a three-a ct

p lay. That i s , o f course , a one-act play not writtento serve its purpose a s a curta in-ra iser in the London theatres . For, a s every one knows , such a oneact play i s de signed with what would seem to be adeliberate purpose fulness to be thre e time s a s tiresom e a s the long play which follows it . 1I f one enters a London playhouse in time for the

curta in-ra i ser (something tha t no gentleman does ) ,one i s a s generally certain to witness a witless exhibition a s one i s generally certa in , upon pi cking up anAmerican newsp aper, to encounte r a p ie ce concerning a rom ance b etween two lowly souls which cameout o f the finding, in the pocket o f a sui t o f overa ll s , o f a random note that had been p laced thereby the sweatshop girl who made the garment. O r

a s one i s genera lly certain , a fter mentally enveloping a newly met and beautiful morsel with theromanti c fumes o f a fragrant fancy, with the im aginative perfumes o f the kingdom of Micom icon and1 Thus

,in compa rison , causing the long play to appea r som ewha t

less tedious than it actua lly is.

262


For exam ple , the moon bus iness , a s follows

TAKEJ IRO . Oh, Sugihara, you are very cruel. I singto you My Lady Mo on ,” and you a re j ust like the m oon—j ust as beautiful and radiant, but j ust as co ld and fa r

away.SUGIHARA SAN. And you, Takej i ro , are like the chil

dren crying in the night because they canno t call the m oonout o f the Sky to com e and play w ith them ! How can the

m oon , fo r a ll she loves them , leave her sky?

For example , the cherry blossom bus ine ss, withthe u sua l John Luther Long Japanese orchestra tion ,a s follows

TAKEJ IRO . I could never be angry w ith you , Sugihara.I would m ake your life like the blossom ing o f the cherrytrees fo r happiness ; and we would sit by the sea where thepines sway like girls in the dance, o r wander under the highwoods and listen to the water leaping down the rocks ; andthe fireflies would be our lanterns, and the birds our fluteplayers, as they called to one another in the darkness,Sugihara, O Sugihara San ! ”

In addition to these many novelti es , Mr . Dunnhas conce ived the dramati c innovation o f having onechara cter narrate , in the form o f fable , to anotherand unsuspecting character events that have actuallyhappened . Lest you forge t the formula , observe

Listen and hear the sto ry o f a clever wom an. Oh, yes ;she was very clever, m uch cleverer than Sugihara, and she

had a husband n o , n o t at all like you , Hagiyam a ! - who

was full o f fancies and jealousies and not a t all a nice kindo f husband, because he suspected that his w ife was unfaithful. Et cetera.”

Cur ta in -Ra isers a ndHa ir -Ra isers 265

But let u s no t ta rry longer in Sha ftsbury Avenuew i th Ge rald and hi s Sugihara . On to the Vaudeville and to “

The Re st Cure o f Mi s s GertrudeJennings . Mi s s Jenn ings would appear to be a p rolific mother in the matter o f these cu rta in-rai sers .A round o f the London theatre s d iscovers her a s api t-masseuse o f a larm ing fructifica tio n . In additi onto

“The Re st Cure ,

” her Ac id Drop s ha s tea sedthe a sbestos a t the Royalty, her Between the Soupand the Savoury ” ha s been done at the Playhouseand her “ Pros and Cons ” has similarly been inv oked to begu ile the Two -and-Sixpence s . I f thesep i ece s a re ever done in Ameri ca , our criti cs wi ll sayo f Mi s s Jennings that she “ a ssuredly posses ses theknack o f the the atre .” Th i s, ala s , is true . Mi s sJennings ha s ev idently been an om n ivorous studento f “ manuals o f playm aking,

” the Manual Movement be ing d istinctly observable In the bulk of herwork. She

“ bui lds up laughs ,” mixes comedyw ith a tea r,” and so on , with so zealous an obedienceto book rule s and injunctions that her characte rs arer esolved into the conventiona l artificial puppets borno f such a dramat ic educat ion .

I am sca rcely one o f the pro found dolts who loudlydebates fo r “

d iving,” “

real ,” “ flesh and blood

cha racte rs in the drama , be ing aware that i f a playwright has anyt hing genu inely intere sting, o r evenmerely diverting, to say, he i s a t whole l iberty to putthat som ething into the mouths o f the stock sawdustdoll s o f the s tage— s ince a s proportionately few


l iving, re al , fl esh and blood p ersons ever have anything worth while to say, i t follows that a careles semploym ent o f too “ rea l ” play characters by thedram ati st must succeed in lending to his work amarked ai r o f spuriousness and a rtificia lity. Wildereal i zed thi s ye sterday a s Molnar, Shaw, et a i . realize i t to-day. On the other hand, however , whenalong come play-m akers l ike Mi s s Jenn ings , whohave li ttle more in thei r mouths than a tongue andsome teeth and a couple o f tons ils , i t follows that,having nothing intere sting to arti culate , they needsmu s t place tha t l ack of something intere sting in them ouths o f living characters , characters taken outo f li fe , i f they would have thei r p lays seem notspurious and not a rtifici al

,but r eal . Or at least

partly o r vaguely suggestive o f l i fe .G iven the title The Re st Cure , appri sed

that the scene i s a bedroom in a nursing homeand that the pie ce i s a comedy, i t should be a ma tte rfo r your left hand to deduce the materia ls o fthe p lay. Certa inly. Man , worn down by overwork , goes to nursing home for quie t and re cuperation

,and i s so di sturbed by noise s , nurses and nuis

ances o f the e stabl ishment that he makes e s cap eback to comparative pea ce o f hi s home with deepbreathed pleasure . Ward and Voke s r ediv iv i/

H earken to Mi s s Jennings’ way o f “ laughs ”

MURIEL . Yes, nurse. ! Go ing r elucta n tly to the do or . ]That there gent in No . 5 ho llers at m e som ethin

’ aw ful.He says if I com e into the room again he’ll wring my neck.


l ive ti ll Sunday but (sm iling)“ I ’m not a feard to

go , my dears , I’m not a feard to go ! But the real

tea r, the salt drop mai tre d ’hOtel, i s yet to come .The old girl , a s many a character l ike her on thestage in days gone by, begins TheMo se Toban i cu e . The Ma i son Blanc cue .Thus , Mrs. G ilb ert : “ I mind the days when Iwas a maid a s clea r a s yesterday. In Kent i t were— n igh to Benenden . I mind one day in Maymonth when Jim spoke to me first. ‘You ’ re myli ttle la ss now, a in ’ t you ? ’ he sez, and I sez, Yes ,Jim .

’There wa s a wo nner ful blue sky that day,

I mind, and a gre at s ingin’ o f b irds , and the blossomswa s som ethin

’ fine . There ’ s not many can rem emb er a s fur as that, mydear, nor see the apple orcharda s pla in a s I can now. The Lord ’ s been wo nn er fulgood to me (Mrs. G i lb ert, rem emb er, i s in the workhouse ) and He

’ ll be the same to you , my dear .”

But wa it, the s aline solution o f which I have in ademention ha s not ye t been coaxed into flow. Are youready ? Then

MRS. G ILB ERT. I’

v e been turn in ’ over just a few thingsin my m ind as I’v e bin lyin ’ here ; I’v e been thinkin ’

overmy life’s do ings, and ’

ow wonnerful blessed I’v e bin . Themthat ’s young and

’asty don’t always know the joyfulness o flife. When I was a girl I ’

ad J im , but I didn’t ’

a rdly realize, no t till I lo st him . We never go t m arr ied, J im an d

m e. We was courtin ’ in the Spr ing, sam e as I to ld youthen cam e the f ruit season. We was picking the cherr ies,J im and m e, and we fell out , and I spoke ’

a rshly to him .

J im was a lwuz qu ick to take hurt. “Then it ’s good-bye,

”


he sez to m e at last. You ’ll never see m e no m o re, he

sez, and o ff he goes down the long road that led to Cranbrook. I wouldn ’t call after ’

im , m y dear, fo r I was ’

a rd

o f’

ea rt tho se days, but I climbed up to m y little bedroomw inder that I could see the road f rom , hop in’ he’d com eback.

FLORA . And did he ?

MRS . G ILB ERT. No , dear ie. He never com e back again—never. I looked down that long road m any a day, but’twas a ll in vain. It giv m e a so rt o f feelin ’ even now to

think o f it , tho’

J im’s been dead and gone m any a long year .

I m arr ied in m y t im e, and m y m an turned out pro perenough ; but som ehow I

’

m thinkin’

it’ll be J im that’ll m eetm e when I’v e cro ssed the o ther side. “ You ’re m y littlelass n ow, he’ll say, and I

’

ll say, “ Yes, J im .

”

! Pa use ]I’

v e o f ten w ished when I ’ear o f young fo lks falling out thatthey could ’ear tell o f those m any t im es I climbed up to m ylittle w inder, fo r , thinks I , they’d never want to do the like.There, there, m y dear, you ’re crying.

Let us pause to dry an eye .

Between the Soup and the Savoury beginsrathe r enterta iningly with a scene in the kitchen o f amoderate ly smart Engli sh house dur ing the servi ceo f dinne r, but quickly remembers i t i s a London curta in-ra i ser and corrects i tsel f. The

“ tea r in thecomedy ” here a ssum e s the shape o f a pla in drabo f a s lavey who longs vainly to be loved , who istaunted by he r servant a ssocia tes and who , unablelonger to endure the i r gibe s , steals the love lettersb e longing to the daughter o f the house and pa sse sthem o ff a s her own .

But time presse s and we must leave Mi s s Ger

270 Mr . George Jea n Na than Presen ts

trude and her Mrs. G ilbert and her Clarence andher slavey with Gerald and hi s Sugihara and proceed to Wilfred T . Co leby

’

s“The S i lver Lining,

”

which introduce s the play at the Haymarket. ThisMr. Coleby, you will recall , was Edward Knoblauch’ s collaborator in The Headmaster .” Now,

although i t i s an uncomforting and pro fitless dutyfo r a cri ti c to speak ill and find fault to the extentwhich I have in the pre sent chapter for any criti cmay sneak out for him self

'

a name for “ fa irne ss ,”

broadness ,” sympathy,

” “ impartial i ty ” and allthe other intr ins ically absurd things o f which thepubli c in its cr itica l ignorance speaks , by the S im pletri ck o f arb itrari ly spr inkl ing hi s adverse appra i salswi th p inche s o f magnanimous allowance and charitable amiab il ity—I am in the sad plight o f findingmysel f a t the moment so ridiculously upright tha tI cannot persuade myself into deceiving you , by theuse o f the above tri ck, to r ate me higher in yourcriti cal e stimation than, after reading thi s chapte r,you will .Mr . Co leby

’

s p i ece'

i s a j og trot with ennui ; awar o f words ; a Derby day in which a cluster o fmore o r le s s obvious characteri zations race aga instsomnolence . The obtruding fable i s o f a gra spingold woman who blackma i ls a clergyman out o f several pounds and , through p aving the way for theinstitution o f a similar stratagem , contr ives to matchup her daughter with a weal thy young man . The

pi ece i s o f perfe ctly patent fabri cation ; the comedy


seen h im send the spIn e Into a chill by suggesting the supern a tura l

~ through the s imple tri ck o fcaus ing the door o f an empty chamber to be slowlyand mysteriou s ly pulled aj ar by an invi sible bla ckthread . I have seen him suggest the dead cold o f awinte r n ight by making a slyly taken puff at a cigarettein exhal ation app ear to be frosted breath . An innocent and som ewha t boyish business , all thi s , true ;yet one which , taken in the tota l of the two hundredand seventy-thre e plays produced at the Guignol tothe present tim e , amounts to a maste ry of the cyclopedia o f theatrica l effect, a virtuo sity in the surfacea spects o f the acted dram a .

But Maurey ha s othe r talents than thes e . Inaddition to hi s abi l iti e s a s a writer o f am i able

,i f

qui te inconsequent, small p i ece s fo r hi s playhouse ,he i s a director o f peculi a r intel l igence and a cum en .

In the m atter o f a ctors , Maurey, instead o f hi ringineffi ci ent clowns and posturers a t exaggera ted wage ,has gathered about him a com pany o f able p erformers who work in wel l o i led a ccord and to e le ctr i cre sult. Some a ctor s and som e a ctre s ses a re bornstars , others achi eve sta rdom and others know abroke r . None o f thi s crew for Max. No sta rs forh im . Me re ly capable a cto rs . Look down hi s l i stRa tin eau and Vigui er and Brizard , Mercelle

B arry and Delville and the rest o f them and notethe diff erence .Mi rette a SeS Rai sons , o r Mi rette Has Her


Reasons , to i llustrate the Guignol style o f fa rce ,i s a typical Paris ian t idbit by Romain Coolus ,o f the sort known to Vis iting American schoolteachers a s “ sp i cy.

”The trouble with thi s par

t icula r l ittle p i ece i s in the circum stance that theenti re plot li e s in one l ine , and that once that particula r l ine i s spoken , nothing remains to the play .

Mi rette , though domici led in the quarters o f herchie f love r, Fred , is in the hab i t o f lia ison ingclandestinely with Fred’ s fri end , A lbert . Fred di scovers what has been going on and then the l ine .Mirette sweetly confides to him that she is terriblysupersti tious , that she already ha s had a dozen lo vers , and that i f he r dear Fred had rema ined thethirteenth i t would have b een awfully unlucky, so ,

m o n cher zigue, she took on A lbert in order thatm is fortune might not befall her loved one . And

o f course Fred , a s any true love r would , b egs herforgive him for h i s rude doubts a s to her virtue .

The outline o f the p iece has a mo re entrancing a irthan the play in a ctua l movement. Whatever hisplay ’ s deficienci es , i t must be admitted , however, tha tCoolus ha s devised a more ingenious defence fo radultery than did two o f the stella r p ioneers in thatdirection o f dramati c theme , Marsten The DutchCourtezan , 1 605 ) and G eorge Li l lo (

“The Mer

chant o f London ,”

Here , the kind of play that in England andAmerica would be dubbed immoral . Your An


glo-Saxon regards a s immoral any play in whicha loose woman does not account for the fact o f herunchasti ty in one o f four specific ways :

1 . That she “ wa s very young and innocent andknew nothing of the world and bel ieved him .

2 . That she had trusted him (he was so kindto her ) and had bel i eved him when he told her the irmarri age was legal .”

3 . That “ he had taken her by the hand andpromi sed to marry her immediately the divorce wa sgranted .

4 . That she didn’ t know, she didn ’ t know whatshe was doing— i t ’ s all l ike a terrible dreamand then one day, one day word cam e to her thathe , that he had been— lost a t sea .

”

Your Anglo-Saxon re fuses to admi t to himselfthat any condit ion o f a ffa irs other than these m ay

expla in a lady’ s dereli ction or dereli ct ion s from thepath o f continence and , a s a consequence , pretendsto a se izure o f shock when vi s i ted with a themewhi ch da re s suggest that a lady’ s appetite f o r ca r

do ns it la Sa v oya rde and for sex may be generi callyo f quite the same normal , matter o f fact and un

dramati c na ture . In additi on to thi s point o f view,

there i s , patently, another rea son for the AngloSaxon attitude toward French farce o f the cla ss typified by the Coolus p iece . The oft repea ted ep igram o f Walpole to the e ff ect that l i fe i s a comedyto the man who thinks and a tragedy to the manwho feel s i s here in good po int : for, in personal


can authors ) invar iably fa i l . The comedy o f sexin thi s kind rests, roughly, upon an a ssumption whichn o good m odern Engl i shman writing for the m odernEngli sh theatre dare honestly and wi thout ve i l ingaccep t— the a ssum ption tha t men and wom en arepolygamous by nature and monogamous by n eces

sity. I f thi s a ssumption i s to b e taken a s a j okeand lead to laughte r, we must clearly avo id anything in the way o f emotion o r rom ance . The

comic treatment o f sex in socia l comedy m ust b epassionless . In a comedy o f sex there must be nosex feel ing. Bre ache s o f the seventh commandment are only funny so long a s they are never serious . Thi s may sound like a pleona sm ; but i t i sra rely realiz ed by Engli sh authors who write themodern comedy o f sex .

”

In part, re a sonable words , but Mr . Palm er ,l ike the authors with whom he here deals , is anEnglishm an ; and must we not b ear in m ind. thepossib i lity that an Engli sh criti c may unconsciouslysuff er from native traces o f the same AngloSaxonism which he lays aga inst tho se otherEngli shmen he criti ci zes ? I t would seem to me ,who am no Englishman, tha t the idea that breacheso f No . 7 a re only humorous so long a s they arenever ser iou s i s to o chara cter i sti ca lly Brit ish and ,hence , la rgely preposterous . Can i t b e that my admirable colleague ha s neve r seen o r read theexcellent Continental piece s in which breache so f the specie s in po int are at once ser ious and


genu inely funny ? Happy com edie s o f sex , l ikeSchmidt ’ s , for example , in which there is sex feel ing?Happy comedie s and farcical comedie s l ike those ofSchnitzle r, in which there is emotion and romance ?I s i t po ss ible that the good Palm e r is , a n fo nd, something o f a sentimentali st and blue stocking ?

THE CASE OF MR . WINTHROP AMES

R. HENRY MILLER once sa id thatthe trouble with the busine ss he wa s in wasthat i t was too theatri cal . One some

times fe el s that the trouble with the busine ss Mr .

Winthrop Ames i s in i s tha t i t i sn ’ t theatri calenough . There i s a something to the e fforts of thelatte r a sl ight aloo fne ss , an undue reti cence , mayhap tha t one feel s handicap s in a mea sure the theatre he ci cerones. A talented , educated fellow andone plea sant to behold in a play world peopled , a s i sthe p re sent day play world , so largely by ex-s idewalksol i ci tors fo r the Newsboys’ Hom e , Ame s brings tohi s work a sense o f discr im ina tion , a Sense o f beautyand ideals , a t once charming and time ful . Ahd a sfo r the contention one hears now and aga in fromseriou s clowns that he i s impracti cable , i t may be di smissed with the statement that the di ffi culty with thetheatre a t the present t im e is that there a re alreadyaltogethe r too many practi cal produce rs in it . A S

a writer for a be tter theatre , give me any day a socalled im practi cable man like Am es above a hundredpracti cal Mo ro sco s. But what one wi shes Mr .

Am e s had more o f i s that di rect bluntness , thatsaucy fire , which inj e ct s into even the best o f actedplays a bette r and a warme r glow.

278


and , in the main , ca st i t effici ently, but one mi ssed ini ts exhib ition and m anoeuvring the nearness andwarmth that o n e must fee l in the playhouse . The

Little Theatre stage was probably n o t more thantwenty-fiv e feet from my sea t on the a isle in J , buti t seemed a full quarter o f a mile away. I could seepla inly ; I could he ar clea rly ; but I couldn’ t feel a tall . In the grea t space s o f the late New TheatreMr . Ames once made two manuscripts glow“The Piper ” of Josephine Preston Peabody andthe Stri fe o f John Galsworthy two of the veryfinest instance s o f staging the modern theatre ha sknown . The paradox o f the very vastly les s grea tspa ce s o f the Littl e Theatre and the correspondingdiminution of the sense o f warm prop inqui ty, I le avef o r explanati on to some criti c more penetratingthan I .The notion , incidentally, that the New Theatrefa i led because its auditorium was to o big i s the merestgabble . The auditoriums o f the famous theatreso f thi rty years and more ago— the parti cula r thea tres, that i s , from which have come down to us thebest tradit ions o f our stage— were in several ca se sa s hulky a s the audi torium of the New The a tre .The notion tha t the New Theatre fa i led, ~ further ,because the plays presented there were poor plays i sequally sorry. Look over the l i st o f productionsmade in that theatre and compare them , in any wayyou choose , with the li st o f production s made in acorresponding period o f t ime in any other theatre in

The Ca se ofMr . Win thr op Am es 28 1

America . Ames prob ably did a s well with the New

Theatre a s any man one can summ on to m ind couldhave done with it . The New Theatre fa i led, verys im ply and very uncriti cally, for the same reasontha t the Ritz hote l s have succeeded . I t was toodem ocra tic and not sufli cien tly exclus ive . I t made agood start and then slipped . For, a fter i ts firstmonth and w ith high pro sp eri ty staring i t in the face ,i t began with dil igent gusto to inform the yokelrythat i t did not have to put on evening dress to get in .

And the yokelry, thus persuaded that any mere bool igan might a ttend, rema ined sn ifli shly away. Hadthe New Theatre let i t be fe lt that no person un

adorned with a bo iled Sh irt could ente r, i t would havebeen qu ite a s imposs ible to get a sea t at i ts box-o flicea s i t wa s to get a table in the Savoy supp er room inLondon during the American trave lling sea son .

Such i s the republi can essence .

A CLINICAL REPORT

MONG all the many three or four act playsproduced in New York in the course o fthi rty recent typ ica l even ings selected for

cl in i ca l investigation , there was revealed but one ofsu fficient mettle to interest the non-theatregoing,which i s to say the dram a-lov ing, person . With thissingle exception , the pre senta tions were so -called upl i fting, o r depress ing, comedi es l ike “ The Road toHappiness , which guggle such mellow drops o f wisdom a s “ A sm i l ing face cure s lumbago so -calledfarces l ike “

See My Lawyer” in which the m a t

Thi s i s a wedding, not a funeral ” vies for chuckleprecedence with the busines s o f the gentleman-who ,be ing handed an expens ive ciga r, places it in hi spocket and continues sm oking his own frowzy stogie ;to say nothing o f so -called drama s like “ Comm onClay in which the author , se ized with a r ev o lu

tio n a ry sp i r it, contends that poor people have a muchle ss p lea sant time in thi s world than r ich peopleand say what you will against him — proves i t .The exception to thi s v esuv ia tion of mediocri tywa s from the hand o f Frederick Ballard and bearsthe nam e “ Young Ameri ca .

” Crude a s i t i s andsketchy

,and though in sma l l degre e departing the

282


in the pockets o f hi s dinne r j acket and m aking awi stful m oué. I t i s a p l ay without a single scene ,alas , in which the stella r pantaloon re fers to a gentlem an

’

s whi skers a s al falfa o r in which , when thecompose r Wagner i s mentioned , a chara cter mi stake s him for the shortstop on the Pi ttsburgh baseball team . But, in sp ite o f these fl aws

,Mr . Bal

lard’ s e ffort (doubtles s min i stered to in pa ssing byG eorge M. Cohan ) i s so com pletely un forced aneffort, so l ike a simple and un important sto ry tolds imply and ca sually, that it leave s one merry a nd

grate ful .Many o f the comedy epi sode s o f the pi ece call

fo r especi a l mention , a s for example , the cross-examination by the j udge o f the juven i le court o f asmall coloured boy with the latter ’ s fat, hot, blackmother gua rding he r li ttle angel from the re ar ; a sfo r exam ple , the de ft bringing o f the a ction to asolution through the wild m anoeuvring of the en

t i re ca st to bring back to l i fe a dog that ha s beenrun down by an automobi le ; a s for example , thescene where in thre e marrie d couples , close fri ends ,are sudden ly proj ected into a violent and deva statingquarrel over absolute ly nothing. But of pa rt i cula rplea sure wa s the performance in thi s play of a ladrej oi cing in the nabob patronymic o f B enny Sweeney,a youngste r who , so goe s the ta l e , was captured ina ciga r factory and impres sed into thespian service .Loth a s I am to encourage such depredations andblighting o f young m en ’ s ca re ers , I cannot res i st the

A Clin ica l R ep o r t 285

temptat ion to com pliment young Mr . Sweeney a s ana ctor — though in so do ing I probably become afurthe r factor in his de'gr ingo lade .

A second exception to the preva i ling panorama o fennu i—but an exception for a rea son quite otherthan tha t a ttaching to “ Young America ” and so

in i tself a thing enti rely ap art from thi s generalp roces s o f appra i sa l— wa s Mr . Coban’ s own play,Hit-the-T ra i l Holliday .

” On the n ight o f the firstpresentation o f thi s p iece , Mr . Cohan , in re spons eto a dea fenin g pounding of palms , stepped out uponthe stage from the wings , bowed , s igna ll ed forsi lence and did not say

“Y ou— poor— boobs ,

so you ’ve fallen for the old bunk once aga in andfallen a s hard a s eve r, have yo u ?— even i f youdon ’ t know it ! Thi s doubtle ss i s what was in thekeen Mr . Cohan

’

s mind , even though wha t he a ctua lly sa id was li ttle else than a pseudo-ba shful andsurpri sed thank-you . Fo r , in thi s late st play o f hi s ,Mr . Cohan ha s composed a bravura p iece o f theba llyhoo order ; a pi ece made up , from first to last,o f a ll the anci ent stuff which he himsel f has fr equently pointed out i s sure-fire with the nativeMe ssrs . Snooks , Tony Lumpkins and their fellowbogtrotters . As an example o f theatri cal challengeto the individual known a s l’homm e sur la rue

,Mr .

Coban’ s exhib it marks a rea l fea t. And it suc

cinctly demonstrate s once aga in that he knows theAmerican publi c a s probably no other theatri cian o fthe day knows that fowl .


Hit-the-Tra i l Holl iday i s Bro adway Jones .Broadway Jone s ” was Get-Ri ch-Quick Wallingford .

”G et-Ri ch-Qui ck Wa ll ingford was “ The

Fortune Hunte r .” “The Fortune Hunter wa s

Quincy Adams Sawyer .” And “ Qu incy AdamsSawyer wa s Hit-the-Tra i l Holliday .

”The only

difference i s tha t, though the mortgage i s l i fted bythe hero o f Hit- the-Tra i l Holliday j ust a s i t wasby the hero o f Quincy Adams Sawyer ,” the hero ofHit-the-Tra i l Holliday l i fts i t o ff an hotel insteado f a farm house . And the only o ther diff erence i stha t, where in

“ Broadway Jone s the hero wa s aBroadway rounder who re formed both himself anda country town , in the la test Cohan pi ece he i s aB roadway bartender who re forms both himself anda country town .

Consider these sure-fir e ingred ients out o f whichMr . Cohan has fa shioned the play

1 . The landlord villa in who bulldozes his poortenant, who speaks in a loud, gruff voice , who wearsa heavy gold watch-cha in and who , turn ing a t thedoo r

,tell s the poor tenant that i f he doesn ’ t do

soandso by to-morrow he ’ ll have to suff e r the consequences .

2 . The noble hero with curly ha ir and a blue su itwho turn s to the poor tenant, says “Will you le avethi s matter to me ? Thank you ,” steps no s e to nosewith the Vi lla in and t ells him to go to hell .3 . The villa in’ s equ ally vill a inous son who bulldoze s the poor tenant and the poor heroine , who


1 8 . The com i c poli ceman .

1 9. The re iteration o f the com m and to sit down .

20. The triumph o f virtue over vi lla iny.

These , but a f ew i llustrations , yet sufficing to servea s a cri terion . All Mr . Cohan has done to begu il ethe grea t unwashed i s to sketch , in his hero , 2 sup erficia l para lle l to B i lly Sunday. And the greatunwashed , a s a lways , has , a s Mr . Cohan a ccura tely knew i t would , swallowed i ts favouri te ba i thook, l ine , S inker and row-boat.The seri e s o f de liberately unfriendly acts and anepi logu e called Common Clay,” I have alreadybriefly alluded to . This , the handiwork o f a Mr .

Cleves Kinkead , who , appra is ing himself from hiscurta in speech on the open ing night o f hi s trump , i sthe sort o f author who believes that a playwrightowes everything to the a cto rs . Mr . Kinkead i s agraduate mem be r o f the legi sla ture o f a middlewe stern Sta te , an a lumnu s of playwriting under Professo r Baker o f Harvard College , a winner withthis play o f the Bostonian Cra ig grand prix, and , a ssuch and probably in view o f which , the m ost promi sing candidate fo r the authorship o f drama s forservant girls that Broadway has seen in some time .Aside from one well-written sl i ce o f dia loguein which the centra l figure o f the play describ es thedingy emptiness o f he r l i fe preceding the epoch o fher deflo r a tio n , hi s work i s a mere comm onplace andShabby reflex o f Coppée

’

s“Gui lty Man ,

” descending at time s to the limit o f preci sely tha t . species of

A Clin ica l R epo r t 289

sweetened concubinage which so irre si st ibly captivate s the fanci e s o f upsta ir s maids , butle rs , footmenand the average Broadway theatregoer .The ta le i s o f a poor girl violated by the gaudyson o f the household in whi ch she is employed , o fthe attempt o n the part o f the young man ’ s fatherto Shelter him from re spon s ibi l i ty fo r the act andthe concomitant scandal , o f the girl ’ s d iscovery thatshe i s the i llegitimate o ff spring o f a man high inpubli c a ff a i rs , o f the latter

’ s “ atonement,” o f thegi rl ’ s decision hence forth to abandon the sex moti fand lead a pure and moral l i fe and o f her reconsider ing thi s deci s ion and becoming an opera singer.Such the prize-winning tooth of our conterraneousdram a ; such the confection s sponsored by the ma ste ro f the drama in Amer ica ’ s leading univers i ty. Hown ow about thi s Pro fe ssor Baker, he who has beenpress-agented so cop iously and , Shall we not - say,

persuas ively ? Con side r h i s producers and thei rproducts , not in the ir ' late r years when hi s influenceupon them may or may not have been di s sipated, a sin the ca se s o f Sheldon and Ballard , but fresh fromhis class-room . In all honesty, has this toutedpro fesso r done one thing, soever small, to improvethe American drama ? I doubt i t. True , he hastaught numerou s young fellows the faci le tri ck o fbuilding shows , but ha s he taught them how to writeplays ? A di ff erent thing thi s latter , and va stly.

Has one single dramatic e ff ort conta in ing an ounceo f philosophy, an ounce o f sober theme , a da sh o f


cultured wit o r a trace o f smart observation andpene tration come dire ctly from hi s l ecture cham ber ?Have hi s products not been rather the products ofthe cheap showshop mind ? What the use oftea ching young men how to write plays i f the youngmen have no plays to write ? You can ’ t be a conductor unless you’ve got a street-ca r.

The Road to Happ ines s i s a play whose scenesare la id in the country, whose plo t conce rns theparentage of an illegitimate baby and whose chara cters are a congregation o f ignoramuses a play,to wi t, wh ich i s dubbed “ optimi sti c ” and wholesome .” In a word, i t i s the kind o f thing in whichthe ma in actor in the rOle o f one o f God ’ s noblemenstands under the old che stnut tree in a sui t o f overalls for a couple o f hours and , with eyes half clo seda s i f meditating upon the exqui s i te b eauty of thesentiments conta ined there in , exude s such benevolentgumdrops a s “Wha t diff erence does i t m ak e

'

who

has a ll the m oney a s long a s everybody’ s happy ?Cheerfulness i s better than money. Y ou m ight lo seyour money, but you can keep on bein’ cheerful i fyou only keep up hope .”

The play, on the whole , amounts to nothing buta monologue o f mush . From to 1 1 the hero icfigure of the traffi c i s busy taking under hi s wing thegirl who has been driven forth into the n ight by thecruel s tep father she shall come hom e with m e !

defiantly procla ims our hero holding hi s crippledo ld white-haired mother’ s hand and te ll ing her She


The speech of the middle-aged actre ss to her younglover

,in which the a ctre ss , moi s t o f eye , indulges in

the stereotyped lament over what- i s-fame-a fter-a llwhen one compare s i t with what might havebeen kiddie s tugging at my apron strings anda little home by the sea and contentmentmi s ses coaxing a di srespectful sn i cker only by virtueo f the dramati s

'

t’ s pol ished writing of it. And so ,

to o , does thi s hold in the instance o f several o f therelated reci tals and episodes .

AUDIENCES,ACTING AND SOME ‘

OTHER FARCES

T i s f requen tly‘

recomm ended by the more drollamong our dramati c reviewers that audiences ,in orde r to enj oy thi s or tha t Broadway play,

ought, b e fore they ente r the theatre , check the i rbra in s in the coat-room . Say what you will aga instthe i dea , you mu st yet adm it i ts thorough practicability. There would sti ll b e lots o f room le ft for thecoats .I allude , o f course , to New York audi ences , and

more pa rti cularly to New York fir st-n ight audiences :tho se gaudy and ribald com pounds of kept women ,Mosa i c men-about-town , overdre ssed , chattering, ogl ing actors out o f j obs , l adie s’ underwear im presario sand such l ike metropoli tan provo sts o f the drama .The stratagem of the Me ssrs . Shubert in suddenlyopening Mr . Harold Brighouse ’ s comedy “ Hobson’ s Choi ce in the Prince ss Theatre a t a matinée ,while the fancy girls were sti ll snoozing, the crescentnosed men-about-town busy m a tching

‘

lin ings in EastHouston Stree t and the out-o f -work grimaci ers j ustgo ing to bed, not only a ccounts fo r the intelligentaudition perm i tted that play but also , doubtle s s , fo rwhat consequent succe ss i t deservedly a chieved .

293


In all my years o f New York cri ti ca l se rvice, I havenot seen so respectable and so sati s fying an audiencea s the one in point. Even some of the regula r dramati c criti cs were ab sent. Mr . Brighouse ’ s p ie ce i sso uniform ly engaging a com pos ition that i t wouldnot have stood much o f a chance with a New Yorkfirst-night audience . In the first pla ce , it i s a playo f characte r a cted by expert character a ctors in placeo f a play o f Russ Whyta ls in whi te wigs a cted byRussWhyta ls in white wigs . In the second place , iti s a play in which the he roine , called by the manuscript to wear severely pla in frocks throughout thepresentat ion , does not waddle out in a bogus epi logu ewri tten by Luci le to rega le and bewitch the numskulls . And in the third place , i ts r i squé thi rd a ctclimax might o ff end the first-night kept ladie s .Thi s climax , with i ts accompanying saucy line o fdialogue (probably the most Rabela i si an spoken. intoan audience ’ s e a r from the American panta loon platform ) i s an integral part o f a comedy o f Lanca shirein the e arly ’

80’

s, a com edy o f bru sque manners andmotives told wi th fluency ye t admirable a rti sti c r estra int. I ts materi a ls in themselve s commonplaceenough and suff ering dramati cally from som ewhatundue expansion

,the play i s given the dew of vital

i ty by the humorous and unromanti c twinkle o f i tscreator ’ s eye , past which gay orb the ancient mater ia ls are made to goose-step . Thus , to the oldthem e o f the ugly duckling who achieve s a mate andsets herse l f to develop him from the dull lout he i s


tha t a re di scussed , when a t all , only by young girlsand then only in publi c .But Hopwood ’ s sugge stiveness i s gorgeously forth

right and inde l i ca te . His not the mincing suggestivene ss o f the old ma id playwright, nor on the othe rhand the unhum orous dirt o f the ha ck Broadwaywhortleberry. H i s rather the touch o f a Sacha.Guitry, a Rip and Bousquet, a Max Maurey, a Lothar Schm idt, a Roma in Coolus . He indulge s in notimid equivoque , no falsetto synonym . His b edroomi s a bedroom , not a boudoi r . His intruder into thebedroom takes another and more plausible form thanthat o f the usua l stage burglar . One o f the indeedunjust cr iti ci sms which ha s b een vi si ted upon Mr .

Hopwood by the precisi ans o f the da ily pres s concerns i tse lf with complimenting him upon his devi ceo f letting the audi ence know beforehand that everything, desp ite i ts naughty a ir , i s perfectly innocent .Mr . Hopwood , in the prepara tion o f hi s play, a ssuredly had no such intention o f e a sing any potentia lauditor ium shock . And he Should not b e made tosuffe r such silly and groundles s p ra i se . He is a l

together too much a schola r o f the world not to haveknown , and knowing to have appreci ated , the doubledri squé force and greate r sugge stiveness o f a m o t

which precede s the fact over a m o t which follows thefact. The n ight b efore i s ever infinitely more suggestiv e than the morn ing a fte r. To argue tha t thenaught ines s i s le ss naughty because there i s nothingback o f it

,b ecause i t is founded on innocence , a s in

Audien ces, A cting a nd S om e O ther Fa r ces 297

the present instance have some o f the loca l b luenoses, i s to a rgue that Resurrection ” i s a moreri squé p lay than Have You Anything to Declare ? ”

And to argue further that the naughtines s o f the dialogue i s m ade less naughty by the Hopwood device o fca sting the leading figure in the p erson o f a babyeyed ingénue i s to argue that a young cuti e readingDroll Stori e s aloud i s a le ss disqui eting spectaclethan a hag o f twenty-fiv e engaged in the same business .Thi s Hopwood i s a fa rce composer o f the fi rstnative order . He ha s a quick eye to the crazy-quilto f sex hum ours and a keen vi s ion to the foible s o f theco smopol ite . I f he mainta ins hi s French franknessand abjure s the puritan i ca l Anglo-Saxon pettine sse stha t in time seem to a s sa il the writers for our American stage , he i s headed fo r high farce estate .Anothe r excellent fa rce albe i t promulgated a sseriou s drama i s Mr . RobertMcLaughlin

’

s The

Eterna l Magdalene , a kind o f ge le’

e o f The Servant in the House ,” The Passing o f the Third FloorBack,

” Mrs. Warren ’ s Pro fess ion ” and Pr imroseand Do ckstader ’s Minstrels . The play is so unm is

takably draggleta i led tha t it ca ll s fo r li ttle cri tici sm .

To say s imply that an egg is bad i s suffi ci ent. Andassuredly a sati s fying enough characte ri za tion . I t i sfru itle ss to go into the reasons fo r the egg’ s badnessto discuss the egg’ s parentage , itsWassermann r ea ction

,i ts childhood

,college career and amours . And

yet so superio r in its badness i s the stage work men


tioned that, by this ve ry excess o f virtuosi ty, a briefeye to its anatomy may no t be w ithout tonic result.In a sto ry which Mr . Charle s B elmont Davis

wrote for one o f the magazines , appeared the following r emarks (addre ssed by a man to a womanwho ha s been hoisting sweet sex mush in hi s di rcetion )

“Mi s s Lesl i e, when I was much younger Isaw a good deal o f women— good and bad allkinds . I have known the kind of women whoowned the ir carriage s and the i r sealskin coats andwho hung diamond necklace s and such j unk aroundthe i r throats . And I have known the lowest clas s—poor devil s who worked in dance-halls and backroom saloons and such l ike . But I found that bothkinds a ll k inds had generally one tra it in common , and i t usually broke o ut in the sordid, earlymorning hours when the talk had become personaland maudl in . The l ie they told, and pretty,m uch

all o f them told the same li e, was to excuse the i rpresent socia l pos ition . They cla imed they werewhat they were becauseMr . McLaughlin

’

s play indicates tha t Mr . Mc

Laughl in ha s succumbed to the gi rls’ e arly morning sob sonata , the-story-o f-my-l i fe nocturne , theYale and Pr inceton fl ags on the wall intermezzo . H is play i s the p lay every sophomore, a ftera week-end vis i t to New York , plans sometime towri te . In brie f, a de fence o f the slipped si ster . ButMr . McLaughlin

’

s defence is, stri ctly speaking, le ssMr . McLaughlin

’s than the sl ipped si ster ’s own .


plays a ll the a ttr ibute s o f a poker save i ts occa siona lwarmth . The balance o f the histrion i c congregationlends the two central figure s appropriately b ad supportLet u s pursue the pertinent subj ect o f contempo

r aneo us native mummer art a trifl e further . Where ,fo r instance , more bizarre specta cle s than in the person s o f the young male a ctors o f home manufa cturecurrently cavorting behind the metropoli tan incandescent troughs ? The young native ladies , as a genera l th ing, are a mea surably loveli e r and more prohcient set— though still quite a s conspicuously deficien t in the matter o f good taste in dre s s a s a re the i ryoung male a ssocia te s . The average young American actor dresse s himsel f up a fte r the r ecipé o f theaffluent Ameri can negro . And the young ladie s , fourout o f five o f the sweet dears , bead and garte r themselve s l ike the cocotte s o f the Théfitre Marigny.

‘

And what do they know o f the histr ion i c a rt ?From a stud ious contem plation o f the young fellows ’

anti cs on the stage o f the hour, I gather that i f onewere suddenly to take away from them the i r c igarette ca se s , and th e ’kerchi e fs from the pockets o fthe i r dinne r j a ckets , they would be unable to a ct atall . A cigarette ca s e and a ’kerchi e f are fi rst a idsto the young Am eri can actor . Such a pi ckle-herringplays hi s part a fte r thi s fa shion ° I beg your p ardon all o f you ! (Ta kes o ut

’kerchief a nd m ops

br ow. ) That woman (ta kes o ut ciga r e tte ca se ) isOlympe Taverny ! (Opens ca se a nd extr a cts ciga

A udiences, A cting a nd S om e O ther Fa r ces 30 1

r e tte . ) Forgive me , father , for having di shono ur ed the name you bear (clo ses ca se a nd kno cks

bo ttom o f ciga re tte sev en o r e ight tim es upo n it) ,fo r having allowed that wom an to impose on me(thr ows ciga re tte v io lently in to the fire-pla ce ) , fo rhaving polluted thi s pure house (opens ca se a nd

ta kes out a no ther ciga rette ) by her pre sence !

(Lights ciga r ette, puffs, ta kes o ut’kerchief aga in

a nd wipes of br ow,fa ce

,no se

,ea rs a nd neck . )

The young ladi e s , on the othe r hand , at le a stmany o f them— though a s I have ob served theycom pose in the aggregate a vastly more able j untathan the i r longer-haired colle ague s— would be unable to continue with thei r pe rforming were som escamp to take them out o f a ra iny n ight and permitthem to catch the rheumati sm in thei r right legs .A young American actress’ r ight leg i s used le ssfor standing purpose s than for purpose s of curlingup , when se ated , under the nethe r physiology inorder to denote a coy and i rresponsibl e gi rl i shness .Many o f these l ittle dea rs are a lso o f the Opiniontha t the best manner in which to point the emphati cpo r tIo n S of a speech i s to r i s e a t such times uponthe toe s . The recita l o f dramatic dialogue by theseyoung persons accordingly takes on the appearanceo f a Swoboda le sson .

Com pared with the postur ings and legerdemainindulged in by the young male mimes , however , the sefeminine faults seem trivi al enough and few andfar be tween . For every young actor lady who has,

302 Mr . George Jea n Na than Pr esen ts

for example , sought to register affection by fixingthe j uvenile ’ s t ie , think o f the young Am erican troubadours one ha s envi saged whose notion o f the beau ,the swell , ha s chi efly cons i sted in not pulling up thetrouser s when s itting down . For every m adem o i

se lle who ha s , fo r example , registered annoyanceby stamping her foot, turning her b ack and smelling the rose s , recall the native young buff oons whoseidea o f draw ing-room sa v o ir fa ire is keep ing thehands out o f the pockets . And for eve ry youngswe etmeat whose words ending in “ S ” sound l ikeso many p eanut machines and for every one who isgiven to expre ssing emotion ma inly by a sudden contraction and distension o f her Li ttle Mary, considerthe young American Jack Puddings whose notion ofdelinea ting the t ale o f a fine gentlem an i s buyinga dre ss shirt l ike Sir George Alexander ’ s .

’


merely shuts up and goes to sleep . But when aShakespeare writes a Henry VIII ,

” the world si tsup o n i t s haunche s enchanted and bespa rkled by itsennuis

,and cha tters and chronicles about the phe

nom en o n years on without end and make s o f i tsboredom a proscen ium and literary cause ce

’

lébr e .

And so , l ightly to pass over the contemporaneousinan i ty o f the local stage and become flippan t in i tsp resence i s to be a t once m audl in and unj u st. G rea tstup idity i s vastly more noteworthy, more epochmaking, than mere great brill i ance . The indiscre

tions o f Napoleon , not the discretions o f B lucher ,turned the tide a t Waterloo and changed the hi storyo f the world . The thi ck stupidi ty o f the da i ryma idsa t Berkeley, more than the viv i d intell igence of Edward Jenner

,wa s respon s ible for the giving to the

world o f medicine o f va ccination . I t was the darks tup idi ty of the a ctor s who first did Ibsen m theAnglo-Saxon countr ie s (certa inly not the luminosi tyof Ibsen ’ s scripts ) tha t helped these communitie smisunderstand the dram ati st suffi ciently to guarante ehim a measure o f popula r l i fe in the English- speaking theatre and so a ssi s t that theatre , thu s le ft-handedly, to i t s bette rment.The stup idity o f ou r profess ional theatre at the

present time , with but l ittle qual ification , i s o f an excellence so S ignal and arresting that i t i s ce rta in to r eawaken the latent interest in the playhouse . By v irtue o f i ts very a stounding magnitude i t i s certa in to a ttract aga in to the theatre such erstwhile rebels a s , ex

S tup idi ty a s a Fin e A r t 305

a sperated by merely mediocre plays and merelymediocre m umm er ing, unti l now have rema ineds teadfastly away. Thi s intell igent element in thecommun i ty m ust a ssuredly be tem pted by the currentcom plete idiocie s tha t strut our stage s , j u st a s one ’ scurio s ity and intere st are more deeply p iqued inwatching the im beci le actions o f the inm ate s o f aninsane a sylum than (a s with merely m ediocre plays )in watching the comparatively sane actions o f theinm ate s o f an Old Soldi er s ’ Hom e .U ndiluted stupidity i s ever a more interesting

specta cle than diluted sap ience , fo r the same re a sontha t a girl o f sixte en i s m ore intere sting than awoman o f twenty-seven . On e i s new

,re fre shing,

artless , n a Iv e alm ost to the po int o f lovablene s s ;the other i s l ike trying to Sit through a Bela sco playfo r a s econd tim e . An ignorant negro i s certa inlymore amu s ing than an educated negro . A drumcorp s sounds b ette r than a ca fé trio o f mandolin ,p iano and flute . A nove l on l i fe in the harem written by an old ma i d l iv ing in Brooklyn i s louderam usement than one written by som e Turk i shHarold B el l Wright. And just so must the sut

prem e stup idi tie s of the theatre enterta in our b ette relem ent o f theatregoers where the diluted stupiditi e s have fa iled . B ism arck to ssed a s ide MarcusAure liu s to read Die Famili e Buchholz.

”

As a sp ecim en o f the noteworthy nonesuchs thathave been exhibited lately at two dollar s the headupon the mun i cipa l platforms , let u s first engage


The Flam e , by Mr . Ri cha rd Walton Tully, andstudy preci sely what happens dur ing the course o fthe even ing .

The scene o f thi s opus i s la id somewhere in C entra l America . When the curta in goes up , we di scern a ma iden hight Maya , whose fa ce and a rmsare smeared with brown pa int and who , by way ofb e ing in character

,talks l ike a Dolly S i ste r . Maya ,

i t appears , i s the j i lted lady- love o f Geron im oZab ina , a revolutioni st who ha s been educated inan American un Iv er SIty and who , accordingly, wearsa fancy ha t-band . G eron imo Zab ina p resently love sPam ela Cabot, a blonde be auty who has come downon a yacht with an American multi -milliona ire desirous o f bringing peace to the stewing land . Butthe Cabot im p eriously rej ects the proposa l o f G eron imo Zab ina and G eron imo Zabina , with a soursni cke r tha t p romise s som e sa rdouing in the n ea rfuture , make s sneeringly o ff . The Cabot ha s meantim e set eye on one Wayne Putnam , a young Am ericano in gli sten ing puttees , whom she ha s not seen inyears and , following the advice o f Maya , who live sin a deep wel l consecrated to the sun god, decide sto run a foul o f her soci ety mother ’ s wi sh and goo ff to the mounta ins with the young gringo a s hi swi fe . Thi s ends the first act.The second act brings news that the Cabot i ssoon to have a baby and Maya , appearing myster io usly in a pale green light, im plore s the young wi feto have the baby even i f Cabot, m ére, urge s to the


that the old padre , Fernando , who these m any yearshas b een in charge o f the loca l tabernacle

,i s none

other than her own long lost father . G eron im o ,a lso learning thi s , has Fernando hauled o ff -stage andwhopped . Putnam and hi s br ide a re res igned todi e . When— appears the ever tim ely Maya upfrom the bottom of the wel l ! “ I will save you ,crie s Maya . And, while the v illa inou s G eron im oZ abin a

’

s back i s turned, she le ads the young folksdown into the we ll to sa fe ty and presents them witha baby which she found in the green j ungle .Thi s stunning, i f somewhat subtle , co n te is intersp ersed in the telling with severa l presumably a tm ospher ic dance s on the pa rt o f ladie s in opalescentChem i se s and drawers , dances o f the famili a r sp ecie swhich put one in m ind of a stout woman attemptingto wriggle hersel f into a sm all- s iz e corse t ; oppo rtune sightings in the harbour o f an Am eri can battleship ou the several occa sions when the bandits havethe hero at bay ; and much pounding on tom-toms .A second sp ecim en “

The Man Who Cam eBack,

” byMr . Jule s Eckert Goodman out o f a fifteencent periodical parable . At e ight-thi rty, an actorplaying a New York mill iona ire bids hi s di ssoluteson not aga in to darken the portals o f hi s man sionunti l such a t im e a s he ha s proved his worth . At

nine-thirty, the di ssolute so n i s ca rrying on with acha n teuse in a San Franci sco cabaret . He suggeststhat she become hi s mi stress , but the lady shrinksfrom him in righteous wrath So ! I t was tha t

S tup id i ty a s a Fin e A r t 309

you meant when you made love to me and led m e

to beli eve you respected m e and desi red to m ake meyour wi fe ! and, agents o f the dis solute youngman’ s father he aving at thi s juncture upon the pla tform , the young m an is shangha ied and put aboarda s team er bound for China . There

,in an opium

dive , an half-hour later we find him . And,too

,in

a dark corner , the cha n teuse . They come face toface . “ You ! Then thus the lady : “ Yes

, I !

I wa s determined to get even wi th you . Look a tme ! I ’ve smoked opium and soaked myself instrong liquor and sunk to the lowe st depths o f degradation . I ’ve become the most notoriou s , most de

prav ed wh ite woman in all o f China . But therei s o ne th ing I have kept, o ne thing that I have neverdefiled ! The young man grasp s the edge o f the.table And tha t i sMy v ir tue !

” booms the ange l .The young man , recal ling Sam uel French

’ s SelectL i st o f Plays , n ow grab s the remarkable one p a ssio n a tely to him ,

proposes that they get marri edand fight i t out side by side , and— fifteen minuteslate r—we glim pse the couple in thei r home inHonolulu . Comes news that the young man’ sfather i s dying, tha t the young man must make hi scho ice between going to the bedside or remainingwi th hi s wi fe . The latter overhears and , recall ing“ David Garr ick,” pretends she has resumed theopium habi t in o rder to d isgust her belo v éd anddr ive him from her . And so on until the con


v en tion a l eleven o ’clock lancers with every one bowing low to every o n e e lse .A third , and finally illu strative

,specimen

Somebody’ s Luggage , by the Messrs . MarkSwan and F . J . Randall, di sclosing Mr . James T .

Powers in the fa t part . Mr . Powers belongs tothe now di stant theatri cal day when any actor wasregarded a s a comedian i f he appeared on the stagewearing one red sock and one green sock . Hi smethods are un i formly suggestive o f the musi ca lcom edy era when the grand entrance o f the stella rcom ique was brought about by having the enti rechoru s line up facing L 3 and singing Hai l, Hail ,To the Shah , and then having the stella r com iquecome on from R 1 . Mr . Powers ’ com edi c technique cons i sts in extra cting laughter not from hi sl ines , but from movem ents o f hi s bottom accom

panying the lines . The fa rce in which the.gen

tlem an appears ha s to do with the ep ic o f mixedup baggage and consequent m ixing up o f i denti tie s .The humour relie s almost entire ly upon s imulatedsea -s ickness and intoxi cation , a whi skey fl ask f a stened to the trouser pocket with a cha in , suddencoll i s ions with persons walking backward, detachablecu ffs , and a top hat that fa ll s down overMr . Powers ’

eyes .

THE END

mr. george jean nathan presents - forgotten books

Documents