This dissertation has been microfihned exactly as received 67-16,333

SCHAFFER, Jr., Byron Smith, 1932- THE STAGE MANAGEMENT OF HENRY IRVING IN AMERICA 1883-1904.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1967 %)eech-Theater

I University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan I Copyright by

Byron Smith Schaffer, Jr.

1967 THE STAGE MANAGEMENT OF HENRY IRVING

IN AMERICA 1883-1904

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Etyron Smith S ch affer, J r . , B .A ., M.A.

The Ohio S ta te U n iv ersity 1967

Approved by

A dviser Department of Speech ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To Dr. Allen Jackson for -work in England locating the Bram

Stoker Scrapbooks, to Emily Parcher, Boston, Massachusetts for aid in locating newspaper accounts, to Mrs. Grace Schaffer for her co-operation with research in Washington, D. C. I am very grateful.

I must acknowledge, too, the great aid given by The Ohio

State Iftiiversity Theatre Collection whose financial assistance made the

Bram Stoker Scrapbooks available to me.

i i VITA.

August 10, 1932 Bom - Lake Forest, Illinois

1954 B.A., Beloit College, Beloit, Wisconsin

1958-1959 Teaching A ssistant, Department of Theatre Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

1959 M.A., Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois

1959-1962 Assistant Professor, West Virginia Institute of Technology Montgomery, West Virginia

1962-1965 Teaching Assistant, Department of Speech The Ohio State University, Coltmbus, Ohio

1965-1967 Assistant Professor, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois

FIELDS OF STÜDÏ

Theatre History Dr. John McDowell Dr. John Morrow

Dramatic Literature Dr. Charles Ritter

Theatre Production Dr. Roy C. Bowen Dr. Walter S. Dewey

i i i lABLE OF C3DNTENTS

Page

ACKNGWLEDOIENTS...... i i v m ...... i i i

FIELDS OF ST D D Ï...... i i i

GUIDE TO APPENDIX...... v

CHAPTER

I . INTRODUCTION...... 1

A Justification of the Study, An Analysis of M aterials, A Short History of Henry Irving’s Career in Bigland Prior to 1883

n . PREPARATION AND ANTICIPATION ...... 24

The Condition of the American Theatre in 1883 and Hairy Irving’s Preparations for tke ^ American Tours

m . THE OLD LYCEUM IN THE NEW WORLD...... 4?

American Reaction to the F irst Two Irving Tours, 1883-1884, and 1884-1885

IV. A BOW TO THE AUDIENCE...... 86

Henry Irving’s Theories of Stage Management as Expressed in Newspaper Interviews, Feature Articles, and Speeches in the United States

V. ILLUSION AND DISILLUSION ...... 120

Irving’s Final Tours and the American Response, 1887-1888, 1893-1894, 1899-1900, 1901-1902, 1903-1904

VI. CONCLUSION...... 154

APPENDIX...... •...... 157

BIBLIOGRAPHr...... 230

iv GUIDE TO APPENDIX

Page

FIRST TOUR, 1883-1884 ...... 157

SECOND TOUR, 1884-1885 ...... 166

THIRD TOUR, 188?-1888 ...... 175

FOURTH TOUR, 1893-1894 ...... 182

FIFTH TOUR, 1895-1896 ...... 192

SIXTH TOUR, 1899-1900 ...... 204

SEVENTH TOUR, 1901-1902 ...... 213

EIGHTH TOUR, 1903-1904...... 222 CmPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY, AN ANALYSIS

OF MATERIAIS, AND A SHORT HISTORY OF

HENRY IRVING’S CAREER IN ENGIAND

PRIOR TO 1883

During a period of twenty-one years, from October 29, 1883, to

March 25, 1904, the English actor-^nanager Henry Irving and the company

•under his leadership conducted eight extensive tours of the United

States and Canada. The Irving "tours brought to America the first

complete European productions in i t s h is to ry . The Lyceum company

arrived in this country fully equipped with the costumes, scenery,

lighting equipment, and trained technical personnel it had emplo]red

in the mounting of its English successes. Such attention to harmonious

detail and emphasis on ensemble staging, such lavish quality in

presentation had never before been revealed to American audiences. The

impact of Irving’s disciplined, consistent staging techniques was

enormous, not only upon the select audiences of a few influential popu­

lation centers, but upon the entire continent from Ontario to Louisiana,

and from Massachusetts to California.

In essence, the American tours represent •the best of Henry

Irving’s career in microcosm. Irving never introduced a major produc­

tion in this country "that had not already been subjected to -the

scrutiny of his English critics. His failures he left on •the other side

1 2

of the Atlantic; the presentations he considered most representative

and snooessfnl he brought to the United States, A consideration of

these successes should provide an important evaluation of the

Englishman’s achievements both here and in his homeland. More signifi­

cant, however, is that Irving's pronouncements upon his own work in this

country were already tempered by the critical response in London, Ey

the time he brought a production here he could predict within relatively narrow lim its the nature of the reception it would receive from audimaces and critics. His pronouncements on his methods, were, there­ fore, colored by extensive experience with the plays in production, and

constituted a kind of defense-in-advance against those vho might attack his efforts. As a result, Irving's American analyses of his own work and methods were most indicative of his considered judgments, free from the hopes and pressures of opening night, Irving's discussions with the

American press provide a unique explanation of his artistic theories.

The English actor-manager's theories and practice of stage management and their influence upon the United States stage as perceived by his

American contemporaries w ill be the principal concern of the following pages.

H eretofore, s c h o la rly comment upon I r v in g 's stag e management in this country has been inadequate. Major American theatre historians have slighted the Irving contributions to native staging, Homblow, for instance, dispenses with the Englishman's tours in less than three fu ll pages devoted to his acting, and nowhere mentions the Lyceum's 3 splendid mountings.^ Bernard Hewitt provides a long quotation on the 2 stage effects in Louis XI. but then, undoubtedly influenced by Vardac,

dismisses the Englishman’s contribution with the terse: "Later the moving picture theatre picked up where Irving le ft off."^

fhe d e a rth o f American comment i s n o t rem arkable. ¥e s h a ll see

that there were numerous factors within Irving’s American career that

tended to obscure his in itial influence upon United States stage

management. Not the least of those factors is the content of the many

biographies that have been written about the Englishman both during his

career and since his death.

Henry Irving le ft no memoirs. Although i t was reported -Idxat he

was dictating an account of his early career to Austin Brereton,

Irving’s unexpected demise limited the recitation to his "early, childish

days. His life did not go unrecorded, however. Between 1883 and the

present, twenty book-length accounts were written about Henry Irving’s

career; of those twenty, eleven were published in England by men idio bad

worked closely with Irving and were sympathetic with his undertakings,^

^Arthur Homblow, A History of the Theatre in America (Phila­ delphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1919), H , pp. 235-37. 2 A. N. Vardac, From Stage to Screen. Theatrical Method from Garrick to G riffith (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959).

^Bernard Hewitt, Theatre U.S.A. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, I n c ., 1959), p. 253.

^Fercy Fitzgerald, Sir Henry Irving (Philadelphia; G. W. Jacobs & Co., 1906), p. 3.

^L. F. Austin, Austin Brereton (3 books), Gordon Craig, Percy Fitzgerald, Charles Hiatt, Mortimer Menpes, Walter H. Pollock, Clement S c o tt, Bram S toker. g four were •written in America by persons of similar convictions, two were n composed by Englishmen who disagreed with Irving’s dramatic objectives, and •the remaining •three were "the work of an anonymous suppor'ter, a g grandchild, and a s-tudent of public speaking from Arkansas,

Curiously enough few of the accounts of his life give extensive treatment to his stage management. Indeed, there is a kind of inverse relationship between the degree of enthusiasm for Irving displayed by

•the biographer and "the extent of coverage alio ted his career as stage manager. For instance, Jones’ 1931 critique^ condemned Irving’s plays and had s-trong reservations about his acting, yet found great virtue in his stage management; while Gordon Craig’s I 930 biography10 made excuse for Irving’s choice of scrip-ts, professed to find no fault wi^th his acting, but considered "the mounting of •the lyceum productions so unim- por-tant -that he did not even report "the disas-trous I 898 fire which destroyed most of Irving’s stock of scenery.

The reason for this bias can be found in "the attitude of Irving, himself. He always insisted -that his acting -was his most impor-tant

^Joseph Hat^ton, W. S. Got^tsberger, Haldane MacFall, William W inter.

‘^William Archer and Henry A. Jones.

Q An Irvingite, Laurence Irving, and Orville Miller, respec­ tiv e ly .

%enry A, Jones, The Shadow of Henry Irving (London; Richards. 1951). ------^^Gordon Craig, Henry Irving (New York; Longman’s. Green & C o., 1930). 5

work. Indeed, he made it appear an obsession. Pollock relates that

]jnring, vdien fillin g out a form for Who's Who, announced that there was

a space in idiich to mention "one's favorite recreation," Irving is

quoted as saying, "I have filled it in acting, and I think you'll agree 11 with me that's the only answer,"

Gordon Craig announced he wrote his book to elevate Irving's

acting and to establish him as "an actor who stage managed, , .for one 12 actor's sake, for the sake of Irving," Craig's attitude provides us

with a cue to the reason Irving's stage management was slighted by his

biographers--they feared a stress on his management would denigrate his

image as actor.

Those idio would teach future generations to slight his memory—a th in g th e y must a ssu re d ly f a i l to do—would do i t by teaching these future generations to look upon him as a poor actor, deficient in knowledge, without intuition; one tdio, by surrounding himself with every kind of fortuitous aid, propped up a something-nothing without xdiioh hejrould have come off tardy indeed, A farcical picture, ,

We shall try here to avoid Mr, Craig's "farcical picture"; the

controversies which raged over Irving's acting both in England and

America w ill not enter our discussion, Irving's stage management,

because it did so much to elevate American practice, w ill be our only

concern,

^^alter H, Pollock, impressions of Henry Irving (London: Longman's Green & Co., 1908), p. 113,

^^Craig, p, 84.

*^Craig, p, 86, 6

Reluctance to treat Irving's management is coupled with a lack of thorough coverage of his American tours. Witness Charles H iatt's typical dilemma;

Th a volume of scope so limited as the present it would be hopeless to attempt to deal with Henry Irving's American to u rs .

This problem faced every Irving biographer, and since every major account written after his death was composed by an Englishman, "Wie authors chose to concentrate on Irving's English career. For instance,

Laurence Irving, the compiler of the most recent biography, treated the American tours in only forty-three pages of a total of 73^. 1A 17 Two books, Hatton's and Austin's, ' contain extensive coverage of the Lyceum in America during the 1883-1884 tour; both were written by paid hacks, and both give unquestioning endorsement to the actor- manager's accomplishments. Hatton's account is a rambling compendium of favorable reviews of Irving's acting and random conversations with the Englishman concerning things social and theatrical. It is most re­ markable for providing the complete menus for a majority of the dinners given in America to honor Irving. The chief value of the work is the

^^Charles Hiatt, Henry Irving, a Record and Review (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1899), p. 202.

^^laurence Irving, Henry Irving, The Actor and His World (New York: The Macmillan Company, 196ZY. i A Joseph Hatton, Henry Irving's Impressions of America (Boston; J , R. OswDod & Co., 1884).

^'^Frederic Daly /Louis A usti^, Henry Irving in England and America (New York: R. Worthington, 1884). 7 certainty that Irving approved its contents prior to publication; in those few instances when it discusses stage management it probably reflects the Englishman’s considered opinions on the subject. L. F.

Austin was Irving’s private secretary and speeehwriter. His text so blatantly panders to the actor-manager that Austin employed a pseudonym in an attempt to disguise its source.

The single remaining full-length treatment of the American tours is a collection of reviews written by William Winter^® during the initial two visits. The reviews are the usual effusions of the would-be poet; they add nothing to our knowledge that could not be gained from a reading of the New-York Tribune.

All of the accounts of Irving’s life, with the possible excep­ tion of Gottsberger’s, are valuable in spite of their de-emphasis of

Irving’s stage management and their lack of specifics regarding the influence of that management on the United States. All were written by men xdio knew Irving and his work; indeed, most were compiled by men idio had worked closely with him during a major portion of his career. As a result, they provide important eye-witness accounts of the Englishman’s life and accomplishments in England.

Materials for a study of Irving’s theories and practice as they were received by Americans do exist, however. The eight tours by the

Lyceum were accompanied by elaborate commentary in contemporary American publications. Newspaper coverage of the time is particularly relevant.

^®WiHiam Winter, Henry Irving (New York; Moffat Yard and Company, 1885). 8 for the United States press had invented a then novel device, the interview, tdiich had not as yet been employed by newsmen in England.

From his first moments in this country the Englishman was assaulted by the ubiquitous, probing interviewer, and the resulting articles provide unique insight into Irving's theatrical opinions. That the printed results are reliable seems indisputable; we shall see Irving's responses to interviewers were deliberate and considered. His business manager,

Bram Stoker, ^dio was at his side during every tour, provides evidence the interviews truly reflected Irving's ideas.

With regard to interviews he /irving/ always required ■tiiat the proof should be submitted to him and that his changes, either by excisions or additions, should be respected. He would sign the proof if such were thought desirable. I never knew a case where the interviewer or the newspaper did not loyally hold to the undertaking. (Italics mine)^®

The United States interviews, because their means of gathering information was unique and their content was accurate, supply insigh'^s not duplicated in any other form. They w ill provide the basis for our study of the English manager's theories of stage management.

Fortunately, Irving's interviews, along with his other American newspaper coverage, were collected under his personal supervision during th e to u rs.T h e y now remain in the British Museum under the misleading

^^Victor Rosewater, History of Co-operative Newsgathering in the United States (New York: D. Appleton and Co. , 1930), p. I 07.

^%ram Stoker, Personal Reminiscences of Henry Irving (New York: The Macmillan Co., I 906), I , 299.

Zlfhe Evening News (Chicago), January 8, 1884. 9 title "The Bram Stoker Scrapbooks of the American tours. Those scrapbooks, combined with the other coverage in American newspapers and magazines, plus the tour programs collected at Stratford-on-Avon^^ are the principal sources of the analysis of Irving’s American success and in flu e n c e ,

Henry Irving did not come to America to make his reputation. He had become England’s leading actor-manager long before he set out to charm audiences in this country. Indeed, as a result of his English successes, Irving had received ’taany invitations and proposalsto visit the United States before he undertook his initial venture. As early as 18?8, Augustin' Daly had tendered an offer for a three-month engagement at his theatre ; Daly was to provide the mise en scene for productions featuring the English actor and Ellen Terry. Laurence

Irving called this "an offer which Irving, naturally, refused. The manager of the Lyceum was waiting until the propitious moment to win new honors in the New World.

Irving knew how important i t was that he should advance upon the United States as a conqueror rather than as a ■ suppliant. The news of the extraordinary success of Much Ado preceded him and made it clear that he le ft England in a blaze of glory. 26

^^The Ohk State University Theatre Collection, Film #2046.

23|Uie Ohio State University Theatre Collection, Film #1631.

^^itzgerald, p. 146.

^^urence Irving, p. 310, ^^urence Irving, p. 405. 10

The beginnings of Henry Irving’s career were anything but glorious, however. He was bom John Henry Brodribb on February 16,

1838, at Keinton, and retained that undistinguished label throughout his childhood, his schooldays, and his years as a young clerk in London. It was not until 1856 that he chose his middle name and the surname, Irving, to appear for the first time on a theatrical poster. Laurence Irving says the name united two of his childhood influences, Edward Irving, the

English evangelist, and "Washington Irving whose Sketch Book was among his boyhood’s favorite stories.Laurence’s hindsi^t probably misled him; Irving had not yet formed an attachment to things American. He, himself, told an interviewer, "I selected that /the nam^ of Irving 28 without a thou^t of the American author, of whom I knew little ."

Whatever prompted its selection, the purpose of the name was clear—

Henry Irving was a stage name.

Irving’s preparation for a stage career began with an extremely sketchy formal education. Johnnie Brodribb attended a dame school in

Buies town (the training was "elementary, but included domestic science"^?), and afterwards enrolled in the City Commercial School in

London for two years.

His first public appearance as a performer was undoubtedly pro­ vided by Dr. Pinches, the head of the School. He conducted an elocution class which culminated every year in a "Speech Day. " In later years the

^^Laurence Irving, p. 62.

^^The D etroit Times. January 2, 1885. 20 ^Laurence Irving, p. 35. 11 actor-manager was often criticized for his choice of mediocre material on tdiich to waste his talents. He seems to have exhibited that weakness in preparing his first performance. For his speech day competition

Irving selected a supremely melodramatic poem by Henry Glassford Bell,

The Uncle, Dr, Pinches advised Irving to alter his choice to a more sedate oration. Although Irving complied,

Mr, Irving has recited "The Dhcle" many times since, and often, no doubt, with a pleasant recollection of the schoolmaster’s solemn headshaking over the ambitions of his too theatrical pupil,30

TrJhen Irv in g was tw elve years o ld h is form al schooling came to an end. It is possible that he did feel, as some of his biographers have suggested, the social disadvantage of his limited education; Bram Stoker 31 said, "All College men were naturally privileged persons with him, "

Irving did not allow_feelings of educational deficiency to hamper his confidence in his theatrical abilities, however. He is quoted as saying,

"I may not know a ll Shakespeare, but of any play of his which I present 32 on th e stag e I know more th an any man in England,

His career with Dr. Pinches ended, Irving began a brief tenure as a clerk. But his life ’s purpose lay in another direction, IrJhile s t i l l in th e o ffic e s of Thacker, Spink, and Company, Irv in g undertook to prepare himself to be an actor. He studied in the City Elocution Class,

^°Austin, p, 5. 31 Bram Stoker, Personal Reminiscences of Henry Irving (New York; Macmillan Company, I 906), I , 50,

^^Laurence Irving, p, 242, 12 at a school of arms kept by the fencing master, Shurey, and took daily instruction with William Ebskins, a competent actor from Phelps '

Company at Sadler's Wells, Austin Brereton, to whom Irving dictated his memories of "childish days," gives this picture of the virtuous young man.

There are not many boys of thirteen earn their own living and out of the few pence allotted for their daily nourishment save something to buy books ; ■sdio rise a t four in the morning and walk from the city to bathe in the river; tdio consider tea and bread and butter an excellent meal even for a dinner; and ïdio after a long day in the office, spend several hours in study, 33

Irving seems to have enjoyed this priggish view of himself, 'Many years later, in America, he said that when he was a youth he never went to a theatre except to see a Shakespeare play,

The City Elocution Class, directed by Henry Thomas and his wife, gave Irving several opportunities to appear before an audience. In 1855, in a class production of The Hone:ymoon a t Soho Theatre, Unving appeared in his first regular stage presentation.

Three names should be bourne in memory as those who helped, , .in the art he had chosen. One was William Hoskins, , ,the other was E, D, Davies, The third friend made his way possible and gave him opportunity of appearing to advantage in his parts, by supplying him with the sinews of war, T^s friend was none other than his uncle, Thomas Brodribb,35

^ % u stin B rereton, The l i f e o f Henry Irv in g (London: Longmans Green & Co,, 1908), I, 7, ^^itzgerald, p, 7,

35stoker, p, 129, . 13

William Hoskins, Irving's tutor from Sadler's Wells, gave his pupil a letter of introduction to Davis, manager of the Royal Lyceum

Theatre, Sunderland. Davis was the manager Tdio hired the actor for his first professional engagement, Thomas Brodribb supplied the "sinews of war" by making over to his nephew, in I 856 , a paid-up insurance policy for nearly one hundred pounds sterling. Irving used much of the wind­ fa ll to purchase "many necessary parts of a wardrobe.

The wardrobe was important; Brodribb, now Hving, was ready to take his place upon the stage. Before he reported for work with Davies, he first tried his abilities in an exacting role. Irving purchased the part of Romeo in an amateur production at the Soho Theatre. He paid three guineas for the opportunity and invited his friends to view and criticize his performance.

Forty-nine days later, on September 29, I 856 , Irving made his first professional appearance for Mr. Davis in Bulwer-Iytton's

Richelieu. 3h this first attempt he played the Duke of Orleans, The appearance in Sunderland was the beginning of a long apprenticeship in various provincial theatres.

"The career of Mr. Irving," says the Academy in 1874, "may be adduced in support of the theory. . .that, in spite of many disadvantages. a provincial theatre is an actor's best training place."3'

^^Laurence Irving, p. 66.

^"^W. S. Gottsberger, Henry Irving. A Short Account of His Life (New York: Press of W. S. Gottsberger, I883T, p. 182. 14

]h the provinces Henry Irving appeared in Simderland, Edinburgh,

Glasgow, Manchester, and Liverpool. He also had lesser engagements in

Oxford, Birmingham, Bury, and the Isle of Man and Dublin. I t was a busy apprenticeship; in his two and one-half years at Edinburgh, for instance, Irving played over four hundred parts.

Austin Brereton’s listing of 328 plays in tdiich Irving appeared in Edinburgh described ninety-five as serious or tragic (drama, tragedy, melodrama, nautical drama, historical drama, play, romance, and melo­ dramatic romance) and 121 as comedy (comedy, farce, comic drama, burlesque, comediette, domestic sketch, vaudeville, and musical pieces of a comic genre). This was a ratio of non-comedic to comedic roles that Irving would more than reverse in later life.

Fifteen plays on the lis t were adaptations of poems or novels, not categorized. These included five taken from Dickens—an admirer of

Irving in his years at the lyceum. Seventy-nine plays were not accom­ panied by description in the listing. Miscellaneous categories included extravaganza, interlude, and pantomime. In the latter instance, Irving appeared as Captain of the Wolves in Bo-Peep, as both an ogre and a demon in Puss in Boots, and even took a fem ale p a rt, Venoma, in

Sleeping Beauty.

Of the 428 roles attempted by Irving during his Edinburgh experience, thirty-one were Shakespearean characters. Irving appeared in twelve different plays by the Bard during these years: ^ You Tdke

It. Cymbeline. Hamlet. Henry VIH. King John. King Lear. Macbeth. Merchant of Venice. Othello. Richard m. Romeo and Juliet, and The 15

Winter*s Tale, In addition, he appeared in the "watered down" Catherine and Petruehio with Ellen Terry in 1867.^® He added roles from five more

Shakespearean scripts in other provincial engagements: Comedy of Errors.

Henry IV. P a rt I , Merry Wives of Windsor. Midsummer M ight’s Dream, and

Much Ado About N othing.

In provincial theatres Irving appeared in ei^teen plays later

included in Lyceum seasons; in fifteen of these he took roles other than

those he played at the lyceum. Of the roles that later he. made famous,

Irving played five in his early career in the provinces : Jeremy Diddler,

Claude Melnotte, Robert Macaire, Hamlet, and lago. (His 1861 Manchester appearance as Othello, in which he replaced the drunken G. V. Grooke, is not included as Irving was not regularly prepared for the role. ) Irving

also first played several minor roles in provincial repertoire which he

later revived: Victor Dubois ^n Ici on Parle Français ; George Barnwell

in the play of that name; and King James V in Cramond Brig. This latter

revival of the patriotic Scottish drama he included in a tour of

America.

In 1859 an attempt to forward his career in London resulted in a

fiasco. Armed with additional provincial experience and a firm offer,

Irving returned to London in 1866 to appear in support of Miss Louisa

Herbert at St. James Theatre. There followed six years of only moderate

success in a variety of London theatres, provincial tours (several with

^®EUen Terry, Memoirs (New York: G, P. Putman’s Sons, 1932), p . 61. 16 his good friend, J, L. Toole), and a brief excnrsion to the Theatre Des

Italians in Paris,

William Archer divided Irving's experience before 1883 into three periods :

, . .we reckon Mr, Irving's earliest efforts in the Provinces and in London as the first, and the Bateman management a t the Ijyceum as th e second. This th ir d p erio d , * , com prises th e five years of Mr, Irving's own management,

The first period represented preparation and years of relatively obscure efforts; the second the threshold of success; and the third the years in which Irving's success as manager of the Lyceum Theatre was recognized.

In I 87I the Englishman completed a contract with the American producer, Hezekiah Bateman, Even at that time Irving called the step

"the most important business engagement I ever made, It began the association with the Lyceum that lasted for thirty-one years and re­ sulted in the identification of that theatre with Henry Irving and his methods, Irv in g f i r s t came to th e Lyceum in London under th e management of Bateman; the Batemans managed the company for seven years (H, Bateman,

1871-1874; Mrs, Bateman, 1874-1878) before Irving became its master,

Hezekiah Bateman engaged Irving as a leading man for his daughter, Isobel, the last of three sisters their father had launched on theatrical careers in England and America, The lyceum company formed to

^% illiam Archer, Henry Irving. Actor and Manager, A Critical Study (London; Field & Tuer, Ye Leadenhalle Presse, 1883), p, 11, 40 Laurence Irving, p, 172, quoting a letter from Henry Irving to Samuel Brodribb, April 20, 1871. 17 display her talents was foimdering after two relative]^ tinsuccessful productions when Irving managed to have Leopold Lewis ’ The Bells put 41 into rehearsal “against Mr, Bateman’s wish," The play, which opened on November 25, 1871, was an amazing success. It established the fortunes of the company under the Bateman management, and was the basis of Irving's recognition as an important actor, Bateman followed The

Bells with an equally acclaimed production of Raising the Wind, then took the two plays on tour in the provinces,

Irving's second season for Bateman opened with Charles I by

W, G, Wills, who had been hired to be the house dramatist at the lyceum.

This was the first of six W ills' plays in which the actor would appear; the association of the actor and playwright lasted for twenty years.

Four plays, all melodramas, of the first seven Irving did under

Bateman's aegis later constituted one-fifth of the entire full-length repertoire on the American tours ; they were The Bells, Richelieu,

Charles I, and Eugene Aram, It was not until the fourth season at the

Lyceum that Irving appeared in a Shakespearean role; he performed as

Hamlet in the production that opened on October 31, 1874, Under the entire Bateman management Irving acted in only four Shakespearean pro­ ductions, None of those productions were seen in America, although two of them, Hamlet and Macbeth, were later remounted for Lyceum revivals and sent across the Atlantic,

Following the death of Hezekiah Bateman, Mrs, Bateman undertook management of the lyceum; Irving's was the guiding hand. When, at the

41,Craig, p, 44, 18 close of the I 878 season, she offered him the lease of the theatre he was eager to take on control. Irving managed the Lyceum Theatre from

I 879 until the end of the 1901-1902 season. During those final years the London Council’s demands for alterations to meet safety and other requirements proved too much of a financial strain, and the old theatre was at last closed. He opened the era of Irving management with Hamlet and closed his lyceum reign with Merchant of Venice, but of thirty-seven full-length plays produced by Irving under his own management only twelve were Shakespearean scripts. Of the eighteen plays he produced prior to the first American tour in 1883, ten were included in his

American repertoire, Irving under his own management produced five of

Wills * plays; three revivals of scripts first produced by the Batemans, and two, Olivia and Faust, which received their premier production from

Irving. Vanderdecken. first done under Mrs. H. L. Bateman, was the only Wills play that Irving did not revive.

In 1878 Irving made an important managerial decision; he engaged the services of Miss Ellen Terry. She would remain as a regular member o f th e Lyceum company u n til th e I 90I-I 902 season. At that time she left the company but returned as Irving’s leading lady until their final per­ formance together on July 14, I 903. Terry accompanied Irving on seven of the American tours, and, as we shall see, her absence on the eighth tour was sadly lamented by the audiences in the United States.

The Irving management brought immediate acclaim. Clement Scott said that in Irving’s first season production of Lyons Mail ’’costume

Jy& s/ raised to the dignity of an art, if occasionally astonishing in 19 its accuracy, The production contained ’’innumerable graces of arrangement and movement. «43

There seems to have been some disparity of effect and effort,

Irving opened his career as manager -with a production of Hamlet for

ïdxich the production costs reached 1,000 pounds,^ and for idiich he had

rehearsed ’’over and over” the scene on the battlements and the pro­

cession prior to his appearance. William Archer said that the production of The Cup had "a taste of lavishness positively unexampled.

Each scene -was a masterpiece in itself, , .It almost seemed as if stage

decoration could go no further, On the other hand, the equipment of

The B ells was one o f th e a s s e ts th a t came to him w ith th e le a s e , and

”when he did play it he used the old dresses, scenery, and properties

and their use was continued as long as possible, However, he was

known to have "listened to six different kinds of bells being rehearsed,

and actually hit on those he wanted” in the control of trifles that was

known as "living’s way,” Indeed, Brereton said that Irving’s attention

to detail was responsible for his success as a manager.

Laurence Irving, p, 326.

^^Laurence Irving, p, 326,

^^■^*laurence Irv in g , p. 329.

^^laurence Irving, p. 311,

/^Laurence Irving, p, 3&7.

^"^Stoker, I, 141,

^Craig, p. 111,

49Brereton, p, 115, 20

Irving extended his attention to detail to his relationship with his andience. The crowd awaiting admission for the opening of Richard i l l foxuad th a t:

At four o’clock. , .Irving had them a ll supplied with tea and bread and butter at his own eixpense. This was a custom xdiich had grown up under his care and tAdch made for a feeling of great personal kindness between the actor and his unknown frie n d s .

The aotor-manager restored the lyceum’s Beefsteak Room in 1879 to develop the "feeling of great personal kindness" toward better known friends. Originally the meeting place of the Sublime Society of

Beefsteaks—which included Sheridan and the Duke of Norfolk—the dinner room behind the armoury of the theatre was the scene of ritual opening night levees and banquets for Wiich the guest lists were increasingly impressive as the reputation of the actor grew, Bram Stoker remembered:

One charming night in the Beefsteak Room when the Duke of Teck and Princess Mary and their three sons and Princess May Victoria, whose birthday it was, came to supper. . .

This venerable spot could seat only thirty-six persons,and Irv in g ’s hospitality was often forced to overflow onto the stage. In celebra­ tion of the one-hundredth night of Romeo and Juliet the master of illusion hosted a gigantic banquet. He had the auditorium veiled with green gauze and masses of flowers planted over the orchestra pit.

^Ostoker, I, 124.

^^Stoker, I, 311.

^^Stoker, I, 310.

^^laurence Irving, p. 391. 21

In May of 1881, Irving played host to a famous guest—this time in a professional, rather than a social way, Edwin Booth, the noted

American tragedian, had suffered a near disaster in his London engage­ ment of that spring. The debacle was the result of the woefully inadequate arrangements made for his appearance under the %ean and tr ic k y managementof his producers. Not the least of their mistakes was the hiring of the Princess Theatre, which had fallen into such disrepute that, as Percy Fitzgerald recalled, "we had seen horses on this stage. Irving extended Booth an invitation to appear with him a t th e Lyceum in O th e llo , th e two to a lte r n a te in th e ro le s o f lago and

Othello, Booth later recalled the occasion for an interviewer.

A fte r hqt London engagement I was to go to Manchester, Mverpool, and through the provincial circuit, and I proposed to go to certain cities and towns, relying on good stock scenery which I wanted prepared, and such as would do on any American tour. Ity English manager at once ridiculed the idea. "Shakespeare, my dear sir," he said, "will not draw a handful of pe^le unless presented as Mr, Irving gives it at the lyceum,

The American actor must, then, have been grateful for the opportunity to appear in "Shakespeare. , ,as Mr. Irving gives it," even though h is Desdemona had some re s e rv a tio n s.

^^Edwina Booth Grossman, Edwin Booth (New York: The Century Company, 1894), p . 224, quoting a l e t t e r from Edwin Booth to E, C. Stedman, London, March 27, 1881,

^^itzgerald, p. 125.

^^Austin, p. 283. 22

I cannot be sure that Booth’s pride was not more hurt by this magnificent hospitality than it ever could have been by disaster. It is always more difficult to receive than to give. Few people thought of this, I suppose, I did, because I could imagine Henry Irving in America in the same situation—accepting the hospitality of Booth, Would not he too have been melancholy, quiet, unassertive, almost as uninterested as Booth was?

At rehearsal he was very gentle and apathetic. Accus­ tomed to playing Othello with stock companies, he had few suggestions to make about th e stage-management. The p a rt was to him more or less of a monologue,^?

Some of the apathy may have arisen from Booth’s opinion that "as a stage manager, he is despotic, , ,He commands all points, with an understanding that his w ill is absolute law,

Although not a shining example of trans-Atlantic friendship, the joint appearance was a success, "The prices on this engagement were raised to the opera scale—a guinea in the stalls, half a guinea for the dress-circle,"^9 but "the public interest was unchecked,"^®

In spite of the appearance he presented to Miss Terry, Booth wrote to William Winter, "I wish I could do as much for Henry Irving in

57giien Terry, The Story of Life (New York: Doubleday, Page & Co,, 1909), pp. 122-123,

5%ustin, p, 282,

5?Fitiagerald, p, 125 ,

^9Austin, p, 66, 23

America as he has done for me here.""^ However, **It is sad to think that later when Irving went to the States Booth studiously kept a lo o f. "62

6% illiam Winter, Henry Jrving (Hew York: G, J. Coombes, 1885), P, 378.

^%'itzgerald, p. 125 . CHUPTER H

PREPARA.TIDN AND ANTICIPATION

THE CONDITION OF THE AMERICAN THEATRE IN 1883,

AND HENRY IRVING’S PREPARATIONS FOR

THE AMERICAN TOURS

During the twelve years -which elapsed between Irving’s I 87I success in the London production of The Bells and his in itia l New York appearance in the same play, significant changes were occurring in the

American theatre. Among "the changes to be noted are a rapid decline of the stock company system and the rise of the so-called combination system. These developments were accompanied by a gradual erosion of the importance of "the traditional repertoire and a faltering experimentation in new approaches to stage management. Each development would affect

American attitudes toward the presentations of Henry Irving.

The tr a d itio n a l production o rg a n iz a tio n in -the U nited S ta te s up to and immediately following the Civil War was the stock company. This form of production unit, with its relatively fixed assignment of responsibilities, pro-vided its audiences with a rapid turnover of a s-tandard repertoire produced after meager rehearsals before a series of invariably predictable settings. A business-like definition of the term "stock company" is pro-vided by Alfred Bemheim;

. . .fairly permanent companies, each a continuous producing unit, each independent, functionally, from a ll others, and

24 25

each attached to a specific theatre vdiich it controlled, and at which it played for a major part of each season.

Each actor in a stock company had a specific function or "line of business" (i.e.: leading man, leading juvenile, first old woman, second old woman, walking lady, utility), and, by relying upon standard scripts selected from "the whole round of Shakespearean drama, old

English comedies, Yankee farces, nautical pieces, and pantomime," the company could present a complete change of b ill every night. Some stock companies eventually adapted themselves to the idea of a long run, but this adjustment only served to hasten the system’s decline. The stock organization was easily adaptable to the needs of a traveling star performer,' thereby allowing principal players to travel about the country without incurring the expense of building and transporting scenery, costumes, and supporting c a s t. John Drew r e la te s how such appearances were arranged during the 1860’s.

When actors travelled in those days, they did so without support—Edwin Booth, for instance. Booth had, as I remember, a stage manager who came on ahead and told the theatre exactly what was wanted and gave specific instruc­ tions for the playing of certain scenes. This could easily be done, because the lines of business were so well estab­ lished. Then, too, in those early days, the actors studied other parts than those, they were actually required to play. The repertory was standard and made up entirely of Shakespeare and other classics.3

^Alfred L. Bemheim, The Business of the Theatre (New York: B. Blom, 1964), 22.

^Joseph Jefferson, Autobiography (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964), 243.

3John Drew, My Years on the Stage (New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1922), 33. 26

Inevitably, increased reliance upon visiting stars to provide the novelty of special attractions led to the weakening of the resident companies; in addition, as travel became easier and the population ex­ panded, new opportunities were opened to the ambitious featured player in areas where capable stock companies had not as yet had adequate time to develop, Joseph Jefferson, in his Autobiography, relates his first efforts to fill a vacuum at the theatres he desired to visit in the

1860’s by engaging players to travel with him.

After finishing an engagement in Chicago, I decided to play in Detroit and other cities throughout Michigan where opera companies attached to these new places, I engaged one for a short season to travel with me. In Detroit I met Mr, Windham ^^y n d h a^ , idio was a c tin g a p la y c a lle d "The Lancers" there, with a company of his own. These were the first two combinations that I remember, , ,This so-called combination system has occupied so much attention lately, and, rightly or wrongly, has givai rise to so many professional discussions, that I may be pardoned for desiring a hearing on the subject, I do not lay claim to having been the first to explode this theatrical bombshell; b u t c e r ta in ly i f any harm comes o f i t I should b e ar some of th e blame, f o r I was a t l e a s t among th e p io n e e rs,^

It is not the purpose here to investigate the origins of the complete traveling company, or "combination" system; suffice it to say that by 18?0 this new method had attracted a great many adherents, and in the ensuing five years the effects of its application were felt throughout the country, John Ranken Towse, soon to become the influ­ ential dramatic critic of the New York Post, relates that the stock

^Jefferson, 241, 27 company theatres of the eastern seaboard had fe lt the impact of the combination system of management as early as 1869.

A few stock companies s till existed, notably those at Wallack's in Hew York, Mrs, John Drew's Chestnut Street Theatre in Philadelphia, and the Boston Museum, Bat these were in the process of decay, unable to make head against the trend of the times and the changing princi­ ples of management,^

Similarly, at the equivalent time in the heartland of the country, in St, Louis, the stock companies were experiencing advanced symptoms o f d e te rio ra tio n .

Those were the transition days /^d-1870'^ in the pro­ fessional theatre. The local stock company engaged to support the visiting stars was gradually making place for the visits of entire organizations, A local company might work for three or four weeks with as many different stars, and then be laid off a week while Shook and Palmer or Augustine Daly came in with a fu ll cast from some success­ ful play in New York; or Tony Pastor brought a fu ll variety company. Some stars came with one or two supporting actors for the second roles and filled the remaining parts from the resident stock. The uncertainty of such a broken season quickly weakened the local companies in both ability and number, so that at times in St. Louis the house manager had to wire a hurry call to Chicago or Cincinnati or in an extremity use Some available amateur.®

The evolution of combinations was so rapid that the New York

Dramatic Mirror could note a significant difference between American and

English management practices by 1881. The tradition of resident stock

^John Ranken Towse, Sixty Years of the Theatre (New York: Funk & W agnalls Company, 1916), 87, ^Augustus Thomas, The Print of My Remembrance (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922), 88, 28

companies had been retained in the old -world long after "the system's abandonment was patent in "the new.

Americans visiting England must note -the fact that a ll -the best -talent in -the country can be seen wi-thin a fort­ night or so, almost at any time of the year, and that, too, -wi-thout lea-ying -the m etro p o lis, No-w, th e Englishman -visiting New York would ei-ther have "to wait months in "the city or travel around from place -to place before he could see the "to-tality of America's representative actors and actresses. By -this it is evident that -theatrical -talent in this country is chiefly rotary. 7

The season to come was to p u t even g re a te r focus upon -the

transient system; during the summer of 1881 one hundred and -thirty-

eight touring and resident combinations were formed in New York City alone. The Mirror's report of this event pro-vides additional insigh-ts; first, -the term "combination" as used by its contemporaries lacked a

c e r ta in s p e c if ic ity o f meaning, and, second, "the advent o f "the new

system was definitely contributing -to a de-emphasis of "the traditional reper-toire.

A further reading of "the Mirror's article indicates -that a varied assor-tment of organizations were labeled combinations. The lis t of one hundred and -thirty-eight includes not only ninety-four "dramatic

companies" and eighteen "musical and operatic organizations," it also

con-tains th re e "pan-tomime -troupes," nin e "m usical p a ro d ie s," and th re e

"individual musicians" (i-talics mine). In addition, -while most of -these

companies were being formed wi-th -the intent -to tour, a few companies, often called "snaps," were being organized -wi-th a view -toward the

^Dramatic Mirror (New York), July 16, 1881. 29 production of a specific script to be presented for an indefinite run within New York City itself. In other words, modem casting techniques were beginning to be developed under the name of the combination. The

Henry Irving company, although i t represented the work of a fairly con­ ventionally organized resident stock company, tdiile in this country would be a touring combination playing against the work of a very few resident stock companies, other touring combination companies, and special combinations formed for the production of a particular play or novelty.

We have already seen that "a full oast from some successful play in New York" might replace for a time the activities of a resident company in St. Louis in the early seventies. The well-established practice of the next decade in fpiming combinations especially for the perfonnance of a single script was leading to the abandonment of the traditional repertoire. Although a star of the prominence of Booth could attract audiences to plays such as Richelieu, the novelty of a new play, particularly if it had been successfully produced at a major center such as New York, was proving to be a sufficient draw in itself.

In the period of Irving's first tours, then, there were two basic methods of creating drawing power at a given theatre; by hiring a well- known star with or without a supporting company, or by hiring a lesser known, and less expensive, combination with a specialized presentation.

The latter method appeared to have a particular vitality, as the research of Bernard Hewitt indicates.

Audiences liked Hazel trirke better than the critics did, for it ran at the Madison Square Theatre over a year, 486 perfozmances, and while it was s till running three duplicate 30

companies were sent off to reap additional harvests in the hundreds of theatres idiich now nearly covered the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, Combination companies had long been operating in these theatres, from many of which the resident company had disappeared. The early ones presented repertory and many continued to do so. Between 1870 and 1880 traveling companies presenting a single play began to appear, 3h 1881-1882 four Hazel Kirke companies were on the road, in 1882-1883 fourteen. The single play combination or road-company version of the New York success soon took the ascendancy."

As American theatre managers noticed the potential of original scripts to provide drawing power, business conditions were ripe for the strong encouragement of the writing of new plays. The would-be play­ wright was no longer hampered by the need to compete for production opportunities with a firmly established devant garde supported by the old stock systems. For twenty-one years Henry Irving appeared in this country with plays that had been the starring vehicles of Charles Kean in spite of the fact that before his arrival potent forces were already at work which would eventually provide a new dramaturgy, divorced from traditional patterns.

Not only a new drama evolved during the period in which Irving toured this country. Long before his arrival, the seeds were planted for the growth of new concepts in stage management. Irving's impact upon the American theatre was profound; as we shall see, the harmonious, picturesque, detailed illusions he created would be a revelation to his

United States audience, but the first faltering steps toward these

8 Bernard Hewitt, Theatre U.S.A., I 665 to 1957 (New York; Mcc^aw- H ill Book Company, I n c ., 1959)» 237. 31 effects had already been undertaken by native managers. Americans had been previously conditioned to applaud the practices Irving perfected.

He was acclaimed for the degree of excellence his stage management had attained, not for unique differences from the native accomplishment.

The achievements of four New York managers—James and Lester

Wallack, Edwin Booth, and Augustin Daly—are illustrative of United

States stage management practice prior to and concurrent with the

Englishman's arrival. Their work reveals that the American theatre had, by 1870, begun to experiment with the principles of harmony and thorough­ ness tdiich Irving's precept and example would refine,

James W, Wallack and his son, Lester, were among the outstanding managers of the New York theatre from 1852-1888, During the first twenty years of that period, their productions at the two succeeding theatres called "Wallack's” represented the finest achievements in

American histrionic art, Hbmblow says of the second theatre used dur­ ing those decades:

For the lavishness of its productions and the brilliancy of its casts, this theatre has never been equalled in this c o u n try ,°

Donald Swinney provides us with a detailed account of the methods of management employed at the Wallack theatres. His study substantiates

Homblow's opinion that the productions were elaborately mounted,

Swinney makes an important additional point; the productions at Wallack's

^Arthur Homblow, T^ Histo^ of t ^ Theatre ^ America (Phila­ delphia: L, B, Idppincott Co., 1919), U , I 89, 32 were remarkable for the systeniized concepts of stage management that were applied to them, Althou^ they were notable for the presentation of

insignificant comedies, the father and son mounted their pieces with thorough attention to the details of the mise en scene and careful regard for harmonious effect—two principles for tdiich Irving would become a famous advocate. Swinney observes these principles were practically unique in their time and that the elder 'Wallack, who died in 1864, was their American originator. He concludes ;

James W, Wallack was something of an innovator in his demands for attention to detail and complete integration of production,^®

The accomplishments of the Wallacks were relative, however. For instance, the theatre which housed their most elaborate productions was abandoned in 1881 and re-opened as the Star in 1882, Henry Irving made his American debut upon that stage in the fall of the following year.

We shall see that the facilities inherited by the Englishman were insufficient to meet his scenic requirements; the Wallack’s elaborate mountings were patently less complex than Irving, Similarly, the

Wallack’s methods were not observed with the consistency the manager of the lycenm would demonstrate,

Irving’s in itial American role was that of Mathias in The Bells.

Lester Wallack, by coincidence, appeared at Booth’s theatre in one of

Donald H, Swinney, "Production at the Wallack Theatres, 1852- 1888" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Speeoh-Theatre, University of Indiana, 1962), p, 165, 33 the two sinrultaneous United States premiers of that play in 1872.

Significantly, although Wallack’s Mathias was ”a performance of great power,” the supporting actors were "beneath contempt" and "did not even 11 dress their parts intelligently," Whatever harmonious effects of

setting the Wallacks achieved, they obviously did not invariably adhere to their principles in every production nor did they always in sist on applying their ideas to costuming or creation of a unified ensemble.

Although the Wallack theatres represented a groping start in the direction of unified stage management, they were overshadowed by the sumptuous excesses of other American producers—most notably Booth and

Daly. The Whllack influence was so slight that a modem researcher,

Bernard Hewitt in Theatre U.S.A., devotes only three isolated references to their accomplishment. Even Swinney concedes;

There were no successors to Wallacks, because the changing practices of dramatic production no longer accepted this kind of dramatic organization and the prin­ ciples for which it stood.

We have noted the younger Wallack’s support in The Bells was

"beneath contempt." This fact is especially important for the location and time in which that support was provided—Booth’s theatre in I 872,

The great dream of America’s foremost tragedian was the creation of a theatre a ll his own. The dream was realized on February 3, 1869., For

11 New York Herald, quoted in George C. D. OdeH, Armais o f the New York Stage (New York; Columbia University Press, 1937) IX» 254. ^%winney, p. 163. 34 the next four years Booth managed a series of productions whose alleged excellence was recalled with patriotic nostalgia by critics of Irving in the following decade. Patriotism obscured the truth, however.

Regardless of the undoubted advances in American theatre architecture that Booth’s theatre represented, the productions displayed "ttiere, for a ll their svmptuousness, were often garish, inharmonious, and supported by inferior talent. The ill-costumed support surrounding Lester

Wallack’s appearance at Booth’s in 1872 is but one example. The theatre founded by this country's most famous tragic actor certainly did not exceed the quality of stage management demonstrated by her house of comedy,

Odell reports that throughout Booth’s management the seasons at the theatre "grew increasingly less lofty, less interesting, from year to year; the company was also in a constant state of decline, That the company had room le ft to decline was remarkable. The opening night of the theatre consisted of a performance of Romeo and Juliet which included among its performers several hack actors, not the least of

\diom was the leading lady, Mary McVicker, The weak acting of Booth's wife-to-be is legendary; even an opening night reviewer recognized "she was in no way worthy" of Booth’s enoouragmaent. 114»

The deplorable condition of Booth’s support was frequently noted in years to come, A reflection of that opinion is found in the following

^^Odell, p, 254, ^4Eleanor Ruggles, Prince of Players (New York: W. W. Horton & Company, Inc,, 1953), p, 222, 35 ooinment by John Ranken Towse; "I can not recall any occasion upon which he /Boot^ was surrounded with a decently adequate cast. We shall see that contemporary critics of the English lyceum’s ensemble echoed th a t view. Weakness in the support at Booth’s was not the only shortcoming of the productions created under his aegis. The money spent on the mise en scene was obviously expended on ostentatious, rather than subtle or harmonious, effects. In Eleanor Ruggle’s summary of opening night reviews it is noted the scenic excesses included the fact that the gaudy colors in the costumes clashed, the balcony scene had two balconies, and

Juliet wore a tiara of diamonds and a dress covered with pearls as 16 sleeping attire.

Whatever the achievement in stage management represented by

Booth’s theatre, after the departure of its founder it fell rapidly into a state of advanced decay. It was finally tom down in the year of

Irving’s first American tour. The last days at Booth’s were deplored by the Mirror,

A bad atmosphere clung to the place, gin-shops sprang into existence in the immediate neighborhood, and the saloon in the basement became the resort of persons who were constantly under the surveillance of the police.

^^John Ranken Towse, Sixty Years of the Theatre (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, I9I 6 ), p, 182.

l^Ruggles, pp. 220- 223, 36

Old scenery, want of a system in the stage department and incivility at the boxoffice, are perhaps the least of the inside evils that have fallen ■under our observation, '

Bootk^ himself, -was cer-tainly aware that his management had le ft no legacy. Indeed, he was willing ’to admit privately that Henry Irving’s manipulation of the stage was of higher quality than that attained by

■the American ■tragedian in his own theatre. In a letter ■to David C,

Anderson, he stressed that -the lyceum achievement was superior "to any other; "the finest production in every respect, that I ever saw," said

Booth o f Irv in g ’s Much Ado About Ho^thing in 1882,

Booth’s management had not, apparen^tly, even attained ■the qualities of harmony and integration instituted by James Wallack,

Ano-ther, more energetic manager, Augustin Daly, attempted "to acquire

■the crown. In "the opinion of some, Daly was successful. After his dea-th, William Winter reflected "that "he /pal;^ was Wallack’s natural successor, Odell notes -that by I 87O ’’"the g lo ry o f ■the house

/Wallack’^was passing" and •the reins of production quality were being 20 assumed by Daly’s, Although Daly may have been Wallack’s successor, his productions certainly did not reach a significan^tly higher level of f excellence. Indeed, Towse fe lt that Daly never "at-tained -to the

^^The Mirror (New York), May 7, 1881,

^^Bdwina Booth Grossman, Ed^win Booth (New York: The Century Company, 1894), p, 241, quo tin g a l e t t e r from Edwin Boo'th,

^%illiam Winter, The Wallet of Time (New York: Moffat, Yard and Company, 1913), p. 353,

ZOodell, p, 1, 37 all-around high standard of performance set by Wallack’s in its best days,

If Daly achieved harmony and co-ordination of details in his setting and excellence in his ensemble it appears i t xflas only by com­ parison with the worst excesses of productions like those at Booth’s theatre. On their own merits, neither Daly’s casts nor his settings were uniformly extraordinary, Towse was unrelenting in this regard.

There were apt to be very feeble brothers and sisters in the tail-end of his casts, and not infrequently his leading players were obvious m isfits in the parts to which they were assigned.

Similarly, a landscape scene, admirable in many respects, might be ruined by splotches of impossible color or by the introduction of horrible imitation statuary. So it came to pass that comparatively few of the fifty or more representations which he made in 1874-84 were com­ pletely satisfactory, both scenicaÿLy and dramatically, however brilliant they might be in spots,

Towse’s opinion was certainly not alone among his contemporaries,

John Corbin expressed equivalent reservations with Daly’s settings and

ensemble.

Mr, Daly succeeded partly because he was an able and astute surveyor to the public taste, and partly because he got the reputation of being an artistic manager. His decline came partly because people began to see through his pretensions of scholarship and artistic conscience, and partly because his central idea was not the building up of an all-round repertory company but the exploitation of a single star,^-^

^^Towse, p, 122, 22 Towse, p, 122, 23 New York Times. February 7, 1904-, 38

That Daly lacked “artistic conscience” in the environment he created for his plays and was oblivious to the need for the creation of a well-rotmded company is reflected in the results of modem research.

For instance, Feldheim reports Daly’s The Merry Wives of Windsor con- tained "several errors in casting" and scenes in Midsummer Night's

Dream "were too garish,

No matter what Daly's shortcomings in perfecting the ensemble and achieving harmony in the mise en scene, he represented a concerted attempt to continue the innovations of James 'Wallack. Daly vigorously denied that he was in any way influenced by foreigners such as Irving and pointed out:

That precision of detail, luxury, completeness of surroundings, and general unity of company and performance— >diich was found so fascinating in Irving's performance, was inaugurated by me in I 869, ten years before Irving began his career as manager.

Perhaps a sense of unaccustomed modesty led Daly to use the phrase "inaugurated by me" rather than a more forceful one such as

"achieved by me." In any event, he was close to the truth; American managers including Daly had aspired to harmony, precision, completeness and unity as far back as the time of the elder Wallack. Irving's con­ tribution, as we shall see, was to bring those aspirations to full

^^Wrvin Feldheim, The Theatre of Augustinn Daly (Cambridge : Harvard University Press, I 956 ), p. 237.

^%eldheim, p. 244.

^%’eldheim, p. 14. 39

fruition. It is certain that in 1883, at least, the Englishman had

accomplished more in that regard than had Daly. In the Irving scrapbook

for the first tour are contained 932 reviews and feature articles, the

equivalent of 261 full pages of newsprint. In all that verbiage, Daly

is infrequently mentioned. Most important, his work is never presented

as superior to Irving's in spite of the fact that much of the commentary

is conscienciously anti-B ritish and predisposed to find an American peer

to the English interloper.

America had been exposed to B ritish performers throughout her

theatrical history and critics of the 1880's were well aware that the

exchange had not always been propitious. Macready's v isit and the Astor

Place Riots preceded Irving by only thirty-four years. They cast a pall

over much of the Lyceum's activities and undoubtedly influenced the

judgment of many an American critic. The Evening Telegram in the week

prior to the Lyceum's American premier reflected the general antagonism.

It devoted a feature story to the principal British actors idio had

preceded Irving and carefully depicted the vices of each. George

Frederick Cooke, the "first British star to play this country, " was a

"heavy drinker" according to the Telegram. Edmund Kean "died of

intemperance, " and Junius Brutus Booth "also was a victim of drink. " l^Iacready, of course, was associated with the riots, and only Charles

Kean passed the test of virtue.The deep-seated prejudice against

English actors displayed by large segments of the United States press would be one of the many difficulties Irving faced on his American tour.

^^The Evening Telegram (New York), October 20, 1883. 40

Irving came to this oomtry ready for any predictable contin­ gency, however, American distrust of English actors was but one of the problems the thorough-going manager attempted to ameliorate while s till in Bnglnnrf, B ooth's engagement a t th e Lyceum i s j u s t th e b e s t known instance of Irving's conscious cultivation of American goodwill. Indeed, the engagement itself was used as a lever in the Englishman's campaign to establish sympathetic American contacts prior to his arrival in the

United States, Bram Stoker related that, during the run of Othello.

Irving was hard at work wooing American interest,

Tn social ways too the time /Booth's two months at the lycet^ went pleasantly. Several of his distinguished countrymen were then staying in London, and no matter how strenuous work might be, time was found for enjoyment, ,

American contemporaries found the Englishman's diplomatic overtures to be remarkable, Chauncey Depew selected Irving above all others as prominent in cementing relations between the two countries.

The Herald paraphrased Depew's remarks before the Yale Alumni Club in

1884;

Mr, Depew said the man of a ll Englishmen who did most to build up real friendship between England and America was Henry Irving, who called upon every American of note v isit­ ing London and had him introduced and entertained in princely fashion,

^%toker. I, 190,

^^The Herald (New York), November 22, 1884, Irving’s diplomacy was successful. He gained a great crowd of

American admirers prior to his first tour. The banquet in England commemorating his departure was a major social event. It was attended by no less than J. Russell Lowell, the United States Ambassador, who had forsaken the traditional Fourth of July entertainment at the

American embassy in order to be present at Irving’s farewell,

The foresight Irving demonstrated in cultivating influential

Americans was matched by his astuteness in placing the supervision of the first tour in the hands of Henry E. Abbey, the foremost American impresario of the day. Abbey had already proven his abilities through his successful promotion of the American stars, Edwin Booth and Lotta

Crabtree, and, most importantly, by his guidance of foreign luminaries in the United States. Among the latter were Christine Nilsson, Adelina

Patti, and Sarah Bernhardt. AH of these, under Abbey’s direction, achieved resounding acclaim on their appearances in this country. The

Inter Ocean saluted the partnership of the two Henrys with unrelieved

enthusiasm:

Two of the most prominent men in the amusement world among E nglish-speaking people in Europe and America a t th e present moment are Henry Irving and his manager, Henry E. Abbey. Both are monarchs in their respective kingdoms, each swaying his scepter by the divine right of superiority in his sphere and both supported by the enthusiastic votes of their well-satisfied subjects.31

^^Gottsberger, p. 144.

3lThe Inter-Ocean (Chicago), January 19, 1884. 42

As might be expected. Abbey was an accomplished manipulator of the press, and he undoubtedly contributed significantly to the extensive periodical coverage the Lyceum tours received in this country. Irving, himself, was not delinquent in this regard, however. His efforts to acquire compassionate press in England are an example of his adroit maneuvering. For instance, he was prone to "drop in" nonchalantly on prominent publishers such as J. M. Levy of the Daily Telegraph; we are assured that "nothing pleased him j j j s r f J more" than to receive Irving’s unexpected visits. L ittle wonder the Daily Telegraph "did much—very much—to familiarize the public with his /îrving’^ work and to spread h is fame.

Irving was not above buying sympathy when he thought it necessary. It was an ill-disguised secret that he bought The Theatre in 1877 and subsidized Clement Scott’s editorship of that monthly magazine with a one thousand pound never-repaid ’’loan" in 1079;^^ Scott dutifully redeemed the debt with ten years of unqualified praise of the

Lyceum accomplishment.

By 1883, Irving's success at press manipulation was so patent,

William Archer complained of the;

. . . subtle, penetrating, all-pervading influences -sdiich keep Mr. Irving in perpetual noteriety. He is of all living . Englishmen the best advertised at the smallest relative cost.^

32stoker, I, 283.

^%aurence Irving, p. 3^9.

^\rcher, p. 42. 43

The thorough-going stage manager attempted to apply his "all

pervading influence" to every aspect of the theatre, including its press

relations. Discipline was one of the notable factors of his stage

management, and sim ilar discipline was obviously his goal in news

managemerft: It is not particularly remarkable, then, that he anticipated

his eventual confrontation with the free-wheeling American interviewer

w ith some m isgivings. The in terv iew was n o t as amenable to m anipulation

as was the more sedate reporting of England, Indeed, the undaunted

American interviewer was regarded with positive dread by Irving’s

English contemporaries. He was warned of the evil by a guest at the

farewell banquet in England,

The Inquisition of old is not in the race with these gentlemen, except that the law, even in America, does not allow them to put you in physical torture, idiough they make up for that check upon their liberty by the mental pain they can in flict upon you. Apart from the interviewers proper, I have known reporters to disguise themselves as waiters, that they may pry into your secrets and report upon your most triv ial actions,33

Whatever his misgivings about the interviews to come, Irving was unstinting in his generation of publicity for the first American tour,

"The Irving ^om"^^ is the term that Wallace Mackay used in describing

the actor-manager’s successful bid for press coverage, Mackay was,

himself, an echo of that boom; he was assigned by the T1 lustrated London

^^Hatton, p, 5,

3^The Evening Telegram (New York), October 19, 1883, 44

News to accompany the lyceum troupe in America and to send back both drawings and commentary on its United States progress.

Perhaps the machinations of Irving and Abbey are best revealed in the protestations of an Irving apologist, Joseph Hatton vehemently denied that the Irving tour had instituted an elaborate public rela­ tions canqaign; his denial, however, was accompanied by a description of the furore caused in this country prior to the Englishman's arrival.

Such excitement could only be generated by dexterous press-agentry.

An ingenious and hostile pamphleteer was in evidence in every bookseller's window. Villainous cheap photographs of "actor and manager" were hawked in the streets. Copies of an untruthful sketch of his career, printed by a London weekly, were circulated through the mails. The "Standard's" strange appeal to New York, Boston, and Chicago was cabled to the "Herald" and republished in the evening papers. Ticket speculators had bought up all the best seats at the Star Theatre, idiere the English actor was to appear, and refused to sell them to the public except at exorbitant, and, for many playgoers, prohibitive r a t e s ,37

Irving did not lim it his preparations to the cultivation of

American contacts and the manipulation of the American press. The thoroughness and attention to detail that would establish his fame as stage manager was evident in the measures taken to assure that the

Lyceum company was properly drilled in the repertory for the coming tour and the technical effects were in adequate physical condition for the journey, Percy Fitzgerald observed the preparations and reported on them,

^Tnatton, p, 43, 45

Nothing then m s left undone to ensure success. Everything m s "thought out” beforehand with the greatest care and deliberation. The American manager. Abbey, who had under­ taken the direction of the venture, and had a vast store of experience and sk ill at command, planned, of course, the arrangements of the visit; but the purely theatrical details were thrown upon the English actor, who had to equip completely some dozen plays with scenery, dresses, and properties, A following of from seventy to a hundred persons—including actors, actresses, secretaries, scenic and music artists, dressers, supernumeraries—m s to be taken ou t,

Fitzgerald m s in error on only one point. The supernumeraries were not taken on tour although the Lyceum's in itial publicity insisted t h ^ w e r e , only the super master and his assistants were included in the troupe. As we shall see, those persons acted as guides for local extras who were hired at each city the company visited.

The plays to be presented in the United States were thoroughly rehearsed by performing them b efore th e Lyceum audiences during the last two months of the 1882-1883 season. This ms done in spite of the fact that the financially successful production of Much Ado About

Nothing had to be prematurely taken from the lyceum schedule,

Finally, all m s in readiness and the company, after a short vacation, departed for the United States, Irving's original announce­ ment of the American tour was prophetic of his attitude on the journey

39lhe Evening Chronicle (St, Louis), January 22, 1884,

40Laurence Irving, p, 405, 46 to come. On the evening of the celebration of the one-hnndredth perform­ ance of Romeo and Juliet. Irving announced:

. . .applause is well worth the trouble, for the audience gets the full benefit of it. I hope our American cousins, in the autumn of next year, w ill consider it worth their Tdiile to try the experiment by applauding m e. 4 1

2#4 ~~ -■ Laurence Irving, p. 392. CEAPTER H I

THE DID LTCEUM IN THE NEW WDBJD

AMERICAN REACTION TO THE FIRST TWO

IRVING TOURS, 1883-1884 AND

1884-1885

The in itia l tour of the lyceum Company in America extended from

October 29, 1883, to April 26, 1884; the second such venture lasted from September 30, 1884, to April 4, 1885. The two may conveniently be considered as one tour. They were closer in time to one another than any of the others, and their reception established an impact upon America that was not duplicated later. The first two trips reflect a performance pattern that set an example for the following tours, and they provide considerable insight into the American reception of Irving’s principles of stage management. It was these tours which established the actor- manager’s position in America and cemented the attitudes toward his work which were to prevail during the next eighteen years. This section, therefore, will give special notice to the activities of the lyceum

Company during the first and second visits to the United States and

Canada,

The first tour lasted for twenty-six weeks and the second for twenty-seven weeks; each was devoted to a nearly unvarying schedule of seven performances a week—Monday through Saturday nights, plus a matinee on Saturday, This schedule, with but minor changes, ifould establish a

47 48 pattern from which, there would be only insignificant deviations on later visits; exceptions to the rule were usually caused by days off for Christmas, special side trips to allow the company to play tourist, and extraordinary matinees. Ellen Terry was usually permitted to play but one performance on days idien matinees were presented. The dispen­ sation was unique and appears to have been the result of Miss Terry's physical inability to undergo the strain of two full performances in one day. The arrangement was established as a part of her contract by the advent of the second tour.

During the first trip there were one hundred eighty-two perform­ ances presented in a total of eighteen American cities. Of these perfommnces, Henry Irving missed none, although he did miss a few on

subsequent tours because of illness or conflicting speaking engagements.

During the second tour Irving missed two performances each of Much Ado

About Nothing and The Merchant Of Venice because of illness,^ and one

performance of Twelfth Night when he was out of town delivering a

lecture at Harvard. In every instance the public was offered its money back, but few availed themselves of the offer. ^

Typically, a performance consisted of the presentation of a

single play; this pattern was obvious in all of the eight Lyceum tours.

However, there were departureis. After the in itial novelty of Irving in

^Boston Dally Advertiser. February 26, 1885.

^Program from Star Theatre, New York, March 30, 1885.

-Boston Herald. February 27, 1885. 49

The Bells and Louis XI had somewhat abated, it became the practice frequently to present these pieces with the accompaniment of a one-act

"commedietta" (the term is used by Irving in the programs ). which might be offered either as a curtain raiser, or as an afterpiece. The relative brevity of Leopold Lewis > version of The Bells required no alteration to make it short enough to fit into a three-hour evening when accompanied by another piece, Louis XI, however, was &. longer work, and an abbreviated form was created by omitting the first act on evenings when it was performed as part of a double b ill.

On the first and on following tours it was usual to perform the shortened Louis XI as the feature attraction when Ellen Terry needed a rest. The piece provided Henry Irving with one of his most durable starring roles. On such occasions an insignificant comedy from the stock repertoire (i.e .; Blanche’s Captain Of The Watch. Murray’s

Cramond B rig , o r M orton’s A R egular F ix ) was introduced as a c u rta in r a is e r .

When Miss Terry was available. The Bells, entirely an Irving vehicle, was often accompanied by a two-act version of Mrs. Crowley’s

The Belle’s Stratagem. The Crowley script had the double advantage of providing a starring vehicle for Miss Terry and displaying Irving in the comic role of Doricourt in contrast to the guilt-ridden figure of

Mathias to follow. On later tours, as Ellen Terry’s professional status in creased , The B e lle ’s Stratagem was supplanted by Mance O ld fie ld . The piece put fu ll emphasis on the title role and allowed Miss Terry the same prominence that Irving enjoyed in The Bells. Indeed, Ellen Terry 50

soon became so popular with American audiences that she was equal in

importance to Irving, and by the third tour Nance Oldfield occupied the

last, and most important, place on the b ill as often as The Bells was

given that honor.

In addition to the use of double bills (of the total one

hundred eighty-two performances on the first tour thirty-six consisted

of two plays in a single performance—a ratio which was retained in most

later seasons) one special type of attraction was provided during the

first two tours which would be repeated under similar circumstances on

future trips. At the end of a particularly long run at a major city it

became the custom for the company to present a "farewell" performance of

a selection of single acts or scenes from successful productions. The

scenes were usually chosen from plays previously presented, but this was

not always the case. On November 24, 1883, in New York, at the end of

the first four weeks in America the first act of Richard ITT, along with

The B e lle 's Stratagem , and Irv in g 's re n d itio n o f Thomas Hood's poem,

"The Dream of Eugene Aram, " was presented^ although a complete produc­

tio n o f R ichard 111 was never o ffere d by th e Lyceum Company in th is

country. More typical "farewell" performances were those given in New

York on April 26, 1884, and in Chicago on January 31, 1885. On the

former occasion the fourth acts of The Merchant of Venice and Louis XI.

the third act of Charles I, and the fourth act of Much Ado About Nothing were presented in the order listed.^ At the latter appearance, the

^^ogram from Star Theatre, New York, November 24, 1883.

^Program from Star Theatre, New York, April 26, 1884. 51 second act of Lotils XI. the third act of Charles I, the fonrth act of

The Merchant Of Venice, and the third act of Bie Bells were offered in that sequence,^

Scheduling of presentations on the first tours evinced one important pattern that was not to be repeated, however; that pattern would make the 1883-1884 and 1884-1885 tours unique. Those tours are notable for the number of Shakespearian performances they included.

After atypical offerings—benefits and "farewell" performances—are deleted, the principal attraction of eighty of one hundred eighty-one performances on the first tour and one hundred and twenty-three of one hundred eighty-five productions on the second tour were plays by

William Shakespeare; The Merchant Of Venice. Hamle t. Much Ado About

Nothing, and Twelfth Night. Such an emphasis was not seen again.

Indeed, Irving’s Hamlet was not ever repeated in this country, and, what is more important, the over-all stress on Shakespearian scripts decreased significantly. On the third American tour, 1887-1888, the first of the Lyceum's ever-to-be-forgotten spectaculars, Faust by

W, 0, W ills, so dominated the offerings that only thirteen of a total of one hundred thirty-seven performances would present Shakespeare.

Admittedly, this extreme represents a nadir of Lyceum Shakespearian representations on the American tours, but the important point is that

Irving's in itial promise in the United States as a purveyor of

Elizabethan classics did not reach fruition. As we shall see later

^Program from Haverley's, Chicago, January 31, 1885. 52

Irving would eventually undertake the production of a series of turgid verse dramas unrelated to the trends in playwriting of his time and unworthy of comparison with the well-springs of English tradition.

Irving originally announced a much more extensive first tour of

North America than he eventually accomplished. According to the New

York Evening Telegraph of October 20, 1883, he expected to v isit twenty- nine United States and Canadian cities; the company ultimately performed in eighteen of these. Although only four cities—Boston, Chicago, New

York, and Philadelphia—were visited on every trip, the first tour established an itinerary that would be the basis for future ventures.

Only one of the cities in the 1883-1884 tour, Wbrchester, Massachusetts, never again played host to the Lyceum troupe. Of the remainder, all but one, Baltimore, was visited on at least three more occasions. Only four other cities out of the total of fifty-four eventually added to the lyceum record were entertained by the company as many times. Thus, sixteen of the cities on the original journey formed the nucleus for the ensuing seven trips.

Of course, the number of cities visited reflected the number of theatres played by the company on its first tour, but subsequent tours would utilize other theatres in the same cities. Eventually the Lyceum would play in eighty-six American theatres. During the first tour, however, only one was sufficiently equipped to handle the scenic require­ ments of the troupe; that was the Boston Theatre. Indeed, Joseph Hatton noted that this theatre contained a stage so capacious that special scenery had to be constructed for it. 53

A fine theatre, the scenery appeared almost to greater advantage than in the lyceum itself; and some of the readers of these pages -will be surprised to leam that much of ‘üie original scenery ms dispensed vdth. Portions of the sets, indeed, for a ll the pieces during the week, were painted on the spot by Mr, Hall (a clever young artist, idio is devoted to th e se rv ic e o f Mr, Irv in g ), and Lyceum d ra p e rie s , group­ ings, dresses, and stage manipulation did the rest,'

With the exception of the Boston, Irving's experience with the stage equipment of American theatres on his first tour suggests that this country definitely lagged behind the British in providing backstage facilities. Even New York's Star Theatre, which had housed Boucicault in elaborate productions of The Shaughran and The Colleen Bawn during the

O Q summer of 1883 had to be rebuilt to accommodate the lyceum productions, ^

Irving, usually most reticent about malcing any comment that could be interpreted as deleterious, m s compelled to admit the inadequacies of

American stages, "I think the theatres here before the curtain excel ours in England, but behind the curtain I think they are very much be­ hind ours,"^® It is significant that the reference here is to English th e a tre s in g en eral, and n o t to the Lyceum in p a r tic u la r .

Near the end of the 1883-1884 tour, Irving rather caustically reiterated his complaints about the lack of adequate stage facilities in

^Joseph Hatton, Herury Irving's Impressions of America (Boston; J, R. Osgood & Co,, 1884), p. 221-222,

^George C, Odell, Annals Of The New York Stage (New York: Columbia University Press, 1927-4^, XU, p. 73,

^The New-York Times. August 21, 1883,

^^Daily Evening Traveller (Boston), February 29, 1884, 54

America, ]h the theatres he had visited it seemed to him as if "the builders had forgotten all about the stage until the rest was almost finished. He went on to note that managers were willing to make improvements, however. "I am glad to say that when we visited a theatre a second time our recommendations regarding the stage were 12 carried out and adopted." It can be assumed from these comments that the demands made upon American stages by the lyceum Company were patently more excessive than were asked by the typical touring combina­ tion of the period.

Irving did not lim it his complaints to the shortcomings of the backstage structures he encountered. The stage hands supplied by the local theatres were also found to be less than ideal for the purposes of the English manager. He expanded his complaints to the same reporter:

The staffs were primitive and inefficient, and there was a lack of meiiiod and order for which is substituted a happy- go-lucky sort of s y s t e m . ^3

Clearly, Irving’s sense of discipline and co-ordination were shocked by the casual attitudes demonstrated by contemporary American technicians.

Lack of adequate facilities and technical personnel were not the only problems faced by Irving on his first two tours. Another, more vexing and long-lived, constantly haunted him. A portion of the American

^^ew York Herald. March 25, 1884.

^%ew York Herald. March 25, 1884.

^%ew York Herald. March 25, 1884, 55 newspaper reaction to the lyceim productions was heavily tainted with an anti-British flavor, Tihen the first rumors of an Irving v isit began to be circulated in this country in 1881, the New-York Times fe lt the need to express its lack of support for the idea.

Henry Irving seems to share the opinion, so common in a ll ranks of lyric and dramatic arts abroad, that this country w ill purchase entertainment or amusement at almost any price, and that American managers w ill incur the risk of bankruptcy any time to secure a European celebrity, , , ,He has long had his pecuniary eye fixed on the Republic, with the idea of bagging a fortune here, idien English audiences have grown a little weary of him,^^

Irving probably anticipated such a reaction, for he had been warned as early as 1875 by his friend, John L, Toole, that in America there was "a great prejudice against the English, but if this message was not remembered the New York Mirror gave him additional notice. In the course of a discussion concerning the arrival of the lyceum troupe

Irving was satirically referred to as "the Eminent," "the London Ttower," and he and Terry were labeled the "Royal Family. " The Mirror continued in the same vein in referring to the delusions of its contemporaries ;

The ways o f th e Yank are m ysterious and hard to fin d o u t. This cheerful nation w ill go in and make chipmunks of themselves over a foreign tom-tit if the tetter is social and the chippering not wholly on one side,

^^The New-York Times, July 22, 1881,

^■%aurence Irving, p, 260,

^%ew York Mirror, October 27, 1883, 56

Leslie's Weekly echoed similar reservations in the issue immediately following Irving's first appearance in this country; it editorialized on the American money wasted to support "such occasional side shows as come to us from abroad.

The Mirror and Leslie's were gentle, however, when compared to more outspoken proponents of Anglophobia. Witness these opening paragraphs from an extremely prejudiced full-page length, three-column article w ritt^ at the end of the Lyceum's second tour:

I t ' s E nglish—i t ' s E nglish, you know. . . . I f i t w a sn 't English it wouldn't be dined, wined and toadied. Mr. Henry Irving is English—thoroughly English, you know, there are no American flies on him. You w ill find no democratic dust upon his professional collar. He is a great actor; he must be, for~he's English— you know. His coming to our stage has filled a great want. All over this broad land the constantly increasing host of Anglo-Maniacs—the worshippers of everything and anybody having the flavor of cockney about them, wanted a new idol— a something to glorify—even if it were only a little tin joss on wheels.

Such carping was given a more humorous tw ist by the nationally distributed life which devoted a front cover to the controversy. In the issu e o f November 1?, 1884, th e cover was adorned by two c a ric a tu re s o f

Irving dressed as Hamlet. The caricatures are identical, except that one is three times as ta ll as the otiier. A conversation between ihe two is provided above the head of the smaller.

^"^Frank Leslie ' s Illustrated Newspaper. LVII (November 3, 1883), p. 162.

^^New York Dispatch. April 5, 1885. 57

The Big One: B less my s o u ll What i s th is? The Little One: This? Well this is the difference a little Anglomania makes in the apparent size of an a cto r.

Xenophobic tendencies in America were further:' irritated by the financial dealings of the Lyceum. Company, Suspicions that the English actor's principal motivation in coming to this oountiy was pecuniary were reinforced by the prices charged for admission. The cost of the best seat for an Irving performance at the Star was three doUars—twice

the amount charged for the same seat a week previous for Barrett's per­ formance o f Francesca da R im ini. The s iz e o f th e Lyceum r e c e ip ts e a r ly became a matter of interest, and newspapers throughout the country

dutifully reported them at frequent intervals. After the first six days

in New York the Irving receipts were not only reported by the local

papers, but were carried by newspapers in Boston^? and Chicago.

Admittedly, the receipts of the American tours were most often

used by Irving's supporters in the United States as evidence of his

popular appeal, jEfowever, the fact that significant amounts of American money were disappearing into foreign pockets would, especially in times

of financial depression, add weight to the anti-English commentary on

later tours. The beginnings of this tendency are revealed in another

pictorial comment in Life; a two-page cartoon entitled "The Tand of

Promise and Pay" showed Irving, Ellen Terry, Mathew Arnold, and Oscar

^^Boston Herald. November 5, 1883,

^^The Tribune. (Chicago), November 6, 1883.

^IfA fe (New York), November 22, 1883, 58

Wilde,' among cttiers, gaily picking daisies that had United States silver dollars for centers.

Another aspect of the Anglophobic attitudes would eventually prove to mitigate the tendency. Frequent derogatory American commen­ taries on the American "chipmunks," "dudes," and "oxeyed daisies" tdio surrounded Irving reflected a concern over the social reaction to his appearance in this country. The master of the Beefsteak Room was easily capable of demonstrating that he was eager to gain wide acceptance for himself, his company, and the work of the theatrical profession in general. It soon became evident that such acceptance was sought not only from a narrow spectrum of esthetes, but from a broader base of the political, academic, and religious leaders of the time.

In its report upon the Fourth of July banquet held in England to honor Irving prior to his departure on the first American tour. The

New-York Times had r a th e r w is tfu lly noted an eq u iv alen t g ath erin g of eminent national leaders for a similar purpose was inconceivable in this country.

The most obvious reflection upon the farewell banquet to Mr. Henry Irv in g in London i s how much f u r th e r E nglish society has moved than American society from the Puritanical view of the drama. It would obviously be impossible to bring together here in honor of any actor a company socially and professionally corresponding to that which met on Wednesday in London to do honor to Mr. Irving and to bid him farewell.22

oo The New-York Times. July 6, 1883. 59

Significantly, by the time of Irving’s departure from New York in I 885 exactly such an equivalent gathering was achieved. The invi­ tation to a United States farewell banquet sent to Irving on March 24,

I 885 , bore the names of over one hundred outstanding, citizens from more than sixteen American cities. Among the signa tores were not only well-known theatre professionals such as Edwin Booth, John McCuHou^, and Steele MacKaye, but important literary, business, political, and religious leaders as well. Mark Twain and 'William Dean Howells were among the prominent authors xdio signed the invitation; the names of

George Pullman, Chauncey Depew, and two U nited S ta te s S enators were among the many distinguished representatives of business, society, and p olitics ; Henry Ward Beecher was one of the eminent clergymen who 23 expressed a desire to honor Irving.

On April 6, 1885, Irving was feted at the ensuing banquet.

The majority of the signa tores of the invitation were present, and the crush to gain admission by other social lions was sufficient to attract considerable notice. Many of the country’s newspapers, among them the

New York Daily Tribune.The S p ir it Of The T im e s .and the Chicago 2é Inter Ocean. ° commented upon th e la r g e demand fo r se a ts a t th e fif.te e n - doUar-a-cover dinner. In just twenty months Irving had achieved the

23 The Mail And Express (New York), March 2?, I 885 contains a complete listing.

Z^New-York D a ily Tribune. A p r il 5, I 885 .

^■%ie S p ir it Of The Times (New Yorl^ March 28, I 885 .

^^Inter Ocean (C hicago), March 30, 1885. 60 kind of acclaim for himself and the theatrical profession that The New-

York Times had despaired of ever seeing in this conntry.

Irving’s first address at Harvard on March 30, 1885, is another important example of the social distinction the actor attained during his first two tours. The New-York Daily Tribune labeled the honors paid to Irving at Cambridge an event "without precedent in this country" and went on to point out that "everything that Mr, Irving says in defense of the high standards of his art w ill tend to dignify the theatrical profession, The Boston Daily Evening Traveller called him "the champion of his profession" in that he "has done much, very much, to uphold and enhance its dignity, Most important, the principal

American theatre organ, the New York Mirror, recognized in the Harvard address the coming of a new day.

The occasion was altogether unprecedented, , , ,this excep­ tional recognition and honor conferred upon the stage and its followers by our foremost seat of learning w ill unquestionably lend dignity to the profession and increase the importance of the dramatic art in the public regard,^9

That Irving had consciously worked toward such a goal is indis­

putable; we have already observed how he had prepared the way while s till

in England, He did not cease to cultivate appropriate contacts while in

this country, however. Perhaps the germ of the Harvard address was

27 New-York Daily Tribune, March 31, 1885,

^% aily Evening Traveller (Boston), March 31, 1885,

^%ew York Mirror, April 4, 1885, 61 planted by the machinations of Drving early in his first tour. During his fir st week at the Boston Theatre the Evening Transcript reported:

Mr. Henry Irving, his friend Mr. Joseph Hatton, and his acting manager, Mr. Bram Stoker, lunched one day last week with a young freshman (the son of Colonel Buck of New York) in hall at Harvard University, Dr. Sergeant, Professor Jones and a number o f stu d en ts join ed th e board, and Mr, __ Irving and his friends afterwards called upon the president.-^

One suspects that the instigation for the luncheon was Irving’s, and that it was motivated by more than mere solicitude for a college student of eighteen whom he hardly knew. In any event, the luncheon resulted in introductions to Henry D. Jones, Harvard’s Professor of Elocution, and

Charles William Eliot, its president. These two men would share the podium with Irving on the occasion of his first Harvard address.^^

The temptation is great to dismiss such instances as mere social climbing. The numerous banquets and receptions at Lotos and Lambs Clubs in New York, the Elks in St. Louis, St. Batolphs and the Somerset in

Boston, and the Clover Club in Philadelphia add weight to that view. It is possible that Irving’s social activities represented the pretentious­ ness of the untutored farmer, John Henry Brodribb, who Gordon Craig 32 claimed Irving never subjugated.^ Motivations do not concern us here, however ; whatever its cause, Irving’s social climb was most successful.

The fact of the matter is that a tangible result of the Lyceum’s first

30 Evening Transcript (Boston), December 27, 1883.

^^The Sun (New York), March 31, 1885.

^^Craig, p. 20. 62

two tours was a heightened respect for the theatrical profession on the

part of the academic, business, political, and religious communities of

this country.

Irving’s Harvard speech not only represented a social landmark,

its subject matter, "The Art Of Acting, " had special significance.

Throughout his life Irving expressed the desire to be considered pri­ marily an actor. He rejected those who were willing to give his stage management equal or more important credit than they gave his acting.

His pleas to be considered an actor and only an actor are especially noticeable during his first tours in America. " "If I have in any way

deserved commendation, I am proud that it is as an actor that I have 33 won it. (cheers)."^ Thus spoke Irving, and thus responded his

audience at the farewell banquet in England. "The success I have made,

such as it is, has been made by acting—by acting alone, whether good or 3k bad," he repeated upon the first day of his arrival in this country.

Indeed, he would forcefully reiterate this claim whenever possible.

When a Cincinnati reporter questioned him in the following manner; "They

say, Mr. Irving, that you owe your success as much to your stage manage­ ment and attention to the details of mounting your plays as to your

acting?" Irving succinctly replied, "Well, all I can say is that people vAio say that do not know what they are talking about. Nevertheless,

"the people who say that" continued to repeat themselves; Irving’s stage

^^Hatton, p. 8. ^^ e w York Herald. October 22, 1883. 3c The Tim es-Star (C in cin n a ti), January 28, 1884. 63 management became a central theme in the American criticism of the first lyceum tours,

%e element of management in the lyceum productions that most entranced commentators in this country was the ensemble. The general excellence of Irving’s support as well as the interplay among that support and the stage grouping of actors within the mise en scene all received lavish praise, typically, critics of the performances were unable to differentiate between the members of the supporting company on the basis of acting ability. The Boston Herald commented upon the general excellence of the cast of Merchant of Venice, and then, before

it selected specific actors for discussion, confessed, "To single out a few for special mention would hardly seem fair to the others,The

Chicago Evening Journal faced a similar dilemma reviewing the same play;

"the best commendation that can be bestowed upon the performance so com­

plete and satisfactory from end to end, is that to single out individuals

for special praise would seem like an injustice, The Buffalo Express became so e c s ta tic th a t i t found each member of th e e n tir e company OQ "matchless"'^ and the Cleveland Plain Dealer was scarcely less enthu­

siastic: "This support was excellent, every performer fitting naturally 39 into the part, Similar praise followed the Lyceum Company throughout

its original tours. The Inter Ocean said of the Lyceum’s second tour,

^^Herald (Boston), December 13, 1883,

^'^Evening Journal (Chicago), January 10, 1884. OO Express (Buffalo), October 13, 1884,

^%lain Dealer (Cleveland), December 31, 1884, 64 its third v isit to Chicago: "No member of the cast should be passed without some measure of the praise the company merits in bounty. The 40 ensemble was superb."

The Keynote accurately reflected the general opinion when it stated that "A star is known by the company he keeps. It is to the credit of Mr. Irving that, not only is he not afraid to surround himself with good actors, but he rises by comparison to the good actors around him. Indeed, expressions of delight over the general excellence of the company became superfluous; reviewers anticipated the fine acting of the entire troupe. By the second tour the Boston Courier was no longer surprised by the ability of the cast of the Lyceum's Merchant. "The 42 support was, as usual, good."

Irving called attention to the general excellence of the company by his selection of roles in two key Shakespearian plays. The Merchant

Of Venice and Twelfth Night. In the former he portrayed one of his best known roles, that of Shylock, but by reinstating the fifth act to stage production he placed more emphasis upon the rest of the cast. Until 1883 in this country it had been the tradition to produce the play in a truncated form that omitted the final act. Edwin Booth, for instance, was appearing as Shylock in such an abbreviated version at the time of

Irving's first tour. In Twelfth Night Irving played the essential, but not necessarily principal, role of Malvolio. Although it is true that

^^The In ter Ocean (C hicago), January 16, 1885.

^^The Keynote (New York), November 24, 1884.

^^Boston Courier. October 26, 1884. 65 the bulk of the Lyceum repertoire consisted of vehicles selected pri­ marily to display the abilities of the star, these Shakespearian scripts tended to diminish the emphasis upon Irving, Reviewers were quick to appreciate the fact,

"The excellence of the performance was so general that Mr,

Irving seemed to be only a part of the whole," observed Truth after the in itia l American performance of the lyceum’s Merchant Of Venice. Indeed, the critic was so impressed by this virtue that it outweighed -sdiat he considered to be deficiencies in Irving’s portrayal. He continued: "In regard to the excellence of his company and the completeness of every detail in presentation, Mr, Irving shows an intelligence of foresight h . 'l and oversight that was never before seen on the American stage, "

What is meant by "oversight" is explained in reference to Irving’s vocal shortcomings: ’Mr, Irving’s actors are all better readers, as mere readers, than he is,"^

Similar comments concerning the relative de-emphasis of Irving and the consequent increased importance of the remainder of the cast are seen in reviews of Twelfth Night,

Henry Irving possibly presents this Shakespearean comedy to show his versatility as an actor or probably to show the general excellence of the lyceum Company but, the keeping of it in his repertory also gives proof that he possesses a generous nature, , . .It affords other members of the troupe a better chance to display their abilities, , ,There are whole scenes in "Twelfth

^^Truth (New York), November 11, 1883,

^T ruth (New York), November 11, 1883, 66

Night" in ^daioh neither Irving nor Terry appears, but the play does not suffer nor does the interest for a moment flag. This is because the Lyceum company is strong and well-balanced,

What is even more gratifying to everybody of artistic taste, and with a love of the proprieties of the drama, is the absence of any effort or desire on the part either of Mr. Irving or Miss Terry to centre attention on himself or herself to the exclusion of their associates.

It is the absence of anything like uniform excellence which hitherto has ®§de "Twelfth Night" on the stage comparatively dull.

Mere general excellence was only part of what was usually < referred to as ensemble; the other parts consisted of the coordinated interplay and grouping of major actors and supporting personnel. This quality was quickly noted by American observers of the Lyceum productions.

At the end of the fir st week's engagement in New York, Harper's Weekly reported that in Irving's management the "idea of proper histrionic hn effect is an ensemble." ' and future reviews provided substantiation.

In Boston, the Sunday Herald editorialized about the English stage manager's accomplishment under the heading, "A Lesson From The

Stage." The "lesson," apparently, was the interplay demonstrated by the

Lyceum company;

The actors never forget, even when not speaking, that they are part of the play. And the result is a symmetrical.

^^The Home Journal (New York), March 18, 1885.

^Chronicle-Herald (Philadelphia), December 17,

^^Harper's Weekly (New York, November 10, 1883. 67

harmonious and complete whole, instead of disjointed and jangling parts,^

The Herald stressed that this behavior was not limited to the support and that even Ellen Terry knew "how to listen as well as how to talk.

The Philadelphia Times commended the "truthfulness and good taste of the mise en scene in the plays presented by the lyceum" and continued;

But important ,as these trappings are, let it be observed that they are entirely subordinate to the living figures. Though Mr. Irvin g does make h is appeal to th e p u b lic through the eye, it is by means of the well-disciplined action of his company that the stage illusion is produced, and the one thing above a ll others that, his performances show is the essential importance of that artistic disci­ pline that can only come through constant co-operation, ^

The "artistic discipline" that the Times observed was not limited to just the major figures or the supporting cast. Even the extras, hired and trained in this country in each city where the company performed, received special notice. The Boston Budget* s comment in this regard is typical: "The supernumeraries in Twelfth Night come upon the scene as if they belonged there, and not as if they had been shot out of a c e lla r .

Commendations on the ensemble achieved in the lyceum productions were not l i mited to reviews written by admirers of Irving. The New York

^*%unday Herald (Boston), October 26, 1884.

^Sunday Herald (Boston), October 26, 1884.

^^Times (P h ila d e lp h ia ), December 1, 1883, •^^The Boston Budget. November 9» 1884. 68

Evep-^npr Post, for instance, fotind the Englishman’s ifemlet deficient and not at all equal to portrayals by American actors, yet the critic was not blind to the merits of the company. He noted that, except for

Irving, ’’the individual acting was excellent” and amplified this by saying;

The manner in -which a ll "the personages on the s-tage worked toge-ther to main-tain the semblance of life in the pictnre was deligh-bful. There were no lay figures in any group. Each personage showed an interest in the scene of -vhich he was a part.-52

As might be expected, a few commentators fe lt compelled to defend lo c a l p ra c tic e a s equal to th e Lyceum ensemble. Normally, th e s-tandard against which the English company was compared was -the troupe at Booth’s

Theatre during the period 1869-1874. This period constituted the "old days” to which The Hour referred when it said, "In the old days of

Booth’s Theatre, when Mr. Booth himself was manager, quite as fine an ensemble as that which Mr. Irving offers, was several times vouchsafed.

We have already investigated Booth’s accomplishmen-ts in his own "theatre and found them -wanting. Interestingly enough, the same conclusion -was im plicit in those contemporary American criticism s which defended -the achievements of "the native manager, George Edgar Montgomery, in an extensive review of Louis Austin’s biography of Henry Ir*;ing, attempted to belittle Austin’s contention that Irving’s methods were "an education

^^The Evening Post (New York), November 28, 1884.

53The Hour (New York), November 10, 1883. 69 to the American people. *' Montgomery set out to debunk Austin by p ra is in g i±ie I 869-I 874 productions of Booth’s theatre. However, in so doing, he did not efface Austin's thesis. Note how Montgomery has qualified the conclusion of his argument;

Nevertheless, though he [Ë& ary Irving setting us an admirable example, and though his entire method as a manager must be commended warmly, wè are s till not quite barbarians. The old Booth's theatre revivals have hardly been surpassed by Mr. Irving, and many of the devices that seem original in the Irving presentation have belonged for years to the traditions of our own stage.^ (Italics mine)

Even a dedicated proponent of Booth conceded that Irving had, albeit in slight degree, surpassed him. Also, the admission is apparent that American practice had so far incorporated only a portion of the techniques employed by the manager of the lyceum company.

Direct comparisons between Irving's troupe and Booth's most often were made to the detriment of the latter. In Boston it was observed that the ensemble created among the company of a Lyceum produc­ tion far exceeded that of the support associated with American actors.

When speaking of the manner in which Irving disciplined the portrayal of each actor. The Sunday Star of Boston said:

No man who has waded through season a f t e r season o f BooiJa, Barrett and McCullough can fail to see the artist in England's fa v o rite a c to r .55

■^^ew York M irror. November 19, 1884.

55rhe Sunday Star (BostoiJ, November 2, 1881. 70

Certainly the reviewer of the Philadelphia Times agreed;

He /Irv in g has shown us that we have been so often taught of late in an opposite way, that it is only by the study and discipline and harmony of a permanent organization, in tèdch each member loyally subordinates his own work to the complete interpretation, that high results can be obtained. . .we have no one now idio could take up such a work at the point Tdiich Mr. Irving has attained.-5° (Italics mine)

Indeed, there was a general agreement that idiatever had been the effect of Booth’s productions a decade previous, he had not continued the work. life hoped that as a result of the Lyceum productions Booth would no longer be content to have his presentations "pitchforked upon th e stage.Perhaps he would not. There was some reason to believe that Booth had learned his lesson from the first Irving tour; The

Keynote drew such a conclusion in 1884.

The marvelous stage management and splendid discipline of the lyceum company. . .cannot help but elevate the public taste and the professional standard. Already Edwin Booth has admitted these points by engaging the company of the Boston Museum to accompany him on his tour, and by having new scenery painted for a ll his repertory.

The strength of the lyceum Company and the effect of Irving’s management of that company was allu d ^ to in the newspaper reviews and in the comments of American theatre professionals as well. Their comments certainly substantiated the fact that Irving’s company exceeded

■^^Times (Philadelphia), February 15, 1885.

^^life (Hew York), January 3, 1884. ^^The Keynote (New York), November 29, 1884. 71 in quality and discipline that of any native group. At Irving’s professional matinee of Louis XI on November 20, 1883, the praise from the audience was effusive. Interviews elicited by the New York Herald after the performance reflected the general enthusiasm concerning the company. "The idiole performance is great. It is great in the leading

character, great in all that is subordinate to it." /Dan Harkins/"; "I have never before seen. . .such harmony in everything, from the people on the stage with him down to the smallest thing. " /W. A. McConnel^ ;

"Each actor seemed as great in his way as Irving. " ^5^alter L. S ir^ ;

"They worked as one man. " [ k . M. Palmer/ ; "How carefully and patiently

everybody must have been drilled. " /^eanor Care^ ; "It reminds one of

the Meininger’s similar effect in Julius Caesar. " /Herr Mauthner/.

An objection could be made here that interviews at a professional matinee would be couched in the politest terms and therefore might not

reflect an honest opinion. Perhaps this was true, but comment by other

professionals at other less formal times supported the view that Irving’s

company was extraordinary and a ll the actors in the productions he managed worked exceptionally well together. The Sunday News, a Phila­

delphia newspaper, reported on the general excellence of the supporting

actors in the Irving troupe and then quoted a manager from a Boston

theatre to the effect that evrai the supernumeraries were outstanding.

I give up at the "supers." What he does to turn every one of these unrivaled gawks into an admirable actor, as far as

5%ew York Herald. November 21, 1883. 72

he goes, I don’t know; they would not do it for me if I trepanned their skulls and put brains in.°®

A most revealing glimpse of the American professional opinion of

Irving’s company was provided during the middle of the second Lyceum tour. During the troupe’s v isit to Chicago in 1885, The Sunday Herald in s titu te d a fe a tu re a r t i c l e e n title d ’’The Irv in g Company, Gan One Be

Formed In America The question was asked of prominent Chicago theatre managers. Although opinion varied as to the feasibility of enlisting a company comparable to the English group, it was particularly significant that none of the five managers interviewed contested the underlying premise of the question; that is, all of the managers agreed with the im plicit idea that a company comparable to Irving’s had never existed in this country. Even the most nationalistic of the managers,

Richard M. Hooley, agreed with the basic premise, but attempted to defend

American practice. For his efforts he was labeled "patriotic Uncle Dick

Hboley’’^^ by the Herald. Hooley could not envision the èstablishment of an equivalent company here, though he fe lt the potential for one existed. The manager of Hooley’s Theatre, idiere the Madison Square

Company was then appearing in Hazel Kirke. was quoted as saying:

We could surround Edwin Booth with a company of artists fully the equal of the Lyceum company. We have scenic

^°Sunday News (Philadelphia), December 14, 1884.

^^The Sunday Herald (Chicago), January 11, 1885. 62"The Sunday Herald (Chicago), January 11, 1885. 75 artists irfao can put to shame ]j>vlng>s faded trumpery and stage carpenters and mechanics superior to any in England or France, but the deuce of i t is we cannot organize such a company at the same cost Irving does it, nor can we make the people pay $2.50 a seat to see any American company, even with Booth at the head. So, you see, if it is going to cost twice as much to organize such a company and only a little more than half the receiptS/Can be depended on, who is going into the speculation?^

The general excellence and ensemble of Ijrving’s company was such that the American professionals, in agreement with the newspaper reviewers, had to recognize its superiority over the native accomplish­ ment.

Commendations upon the discipline and harmony in the lyceum productions were not limited to the cast, however, Americans were as effusive about the physical mounting of the productions as they were about the ensemble demonstrated by the company. In particular, the management of the music, lighting, scenery, and costumes in the English productions rated special notice from the critics. Of the music on

Irving’s firs t tour The Mew York TIlTistrated Times observed:

Mr, Irving has brought the orchestra into the drama. He makes as much use of his musicians as of his actors. In an ordinary theatre the members of the band are always regarded as outsiders. They blow and scrape away and make noise enough between the acts to cover up the hammering of the scene carpenters, and this is a ll that a manager expects from them. Now, Mr, Irving makes them a part of the play, part of the dramatic company. He gets big effects out of them. He employs them in nearly every scene,

^^The Sunday Herald (Chicago), January 11, I 885 ,

^^The New York Hl.ustrated Times. December 8, 1883, 74

Similar sentiments were constantly expressed. The Boston Daily

Advertiser in 1883, reported, 'TInsic was frequently used, and always so as to create, sustain, or prolong some charming effect. Near the

end of the Lyceum’s second tour, in I 885 , the Brooklyn Union could acknowledge that "the music of the play /%ie Merchant Of Venice/, whether in full blast in front of the footlights, or as the music of merry revelers behind the scenes was always commendable,

Irving worked diligently to earn such commendations; his tours were constantly attended by the Lyceum musical director, Merideth Ball, and were remarkable in that the house orchestras at the theatres where he appeared were invariably augmented to meet the needs of the Lyceum performances,^7 Indeed, so thoroughgoing was the Englishman, that he

even concerned himself with the effect of music played after the perform­ ance was over, Joseph Hatton tells us, in order to avoid a potential

conflict in emotional tone between that achieved by the play and the music played afterward, Henry Irving dispensed with the "general habit"

in American iheatres "for the orchestra to play the audience out as well as i n . "68

The music in an Irving performance was not the hackneyed thing tbet musical support for contemporary melodrama had become. The Keynote de­ voted an ex ten siv e a r t i c l e to th e Lyceum m usical accompaniment and made very clear that it was not speaking of "the old style of orchestral

^^Brooklyn Union, December 13, 1883,

87The Morning Mercury (Philadelphia), December 9, 1884,

^^Hatton, p, 81, 75 accompaniment -vdiich has long been laughed at or declared obsolete. "&9 in the event that the reader was unaware of what "the old style" consisted.

The Keynote provided an example; "The villain no longer enters to tremolo music. The hero no longer exclaims; ’Hal’ (chord) ’I am hereI (chord)

’to fo il thy schemes!’ (chord) ’Tr-rerablel’ (chord).How Irv in g ’s management of music differed is the theme of the remainder of the article, and it is worth quoting at length;

Now Mr. Irv in g comes to show us how u se fu l, how a r t i s t i c , how dramatic a theatrical orchestra may be made, without the ridiculousness of the old fashioned melodrama.

Nearly all of Irving’s acting is to music. The orchestra is almost constantly at work as if each play were an opera. Whenever a character comes upon the stage he has his le it motif, as in Wagner’s work. A dramatic point is emphasized by a musical chord. Music is used to impress the audience with the sadness or the gaiety of the scenes. AH this is done so artistically and unobtrusively that the method is un­ noticed idiile the effect is felt. Listen at any time during the play and you w ill hear the music murmuring its appropriate accompaniment to the dialogue or the situations.

The "artistic and unobtrusive" manner in which Irving employed music in his productions was complemented by his management of light on the stage. Just as contemporary American observers found that the

Englishman utilized music with a subtlety hithertofore not achieved, so

they commented upon the discriminating methods, not usually found in

this country, that he employed when illuminating his performances.

^^The Keynote (New York), November 24, 1883.

^^The Keynote (New York), November 24, 1883.

^^The Keynote (New York), November 24, 1883. 76

There are many features about Irving’s superb stage management which our folk might take pattern by with profit. One of these is his perfect arrangement of the lights, VJhen a night scene is called for in one of his pieces, the stage is sufficiently darkened to secure the proper illusion. How often on our stage do we see nocturnal pictures represented with all the brilliance of mid-day; and how very common it is to observe the blackness of night approaching with the rapidity of a solar eclipse. The strict conformance to reality which is the principal virtue of Irving’s stage arrangement should be instrumental in bringing home to our o ^ stage managers how much th ey have to le a rn in some re s p e c ts .

During ihe tours critics appreciatively noted that Lyceum pro­ ductions frequently incorporated sunset and sunrise illusions (or the equivalent evolutions of the moon) to reinforce the dramatic effect of the total scene in a manner quite analogous to the way music heightened the emotional tone. For instance, in the fourth act of Louis XI. as the chill of death was stealing over the enfeebled king, appropriate lighting provided visual support for Louis ’ progress from warm life to cool death.

In the fourth act, a single ray of the moon shines through the crack between the shutters, just enough to illuminate the face of the King, while the ruddy glow of the fire lights up the other side, but as the scene progresses, the moon rises higher and soon gathers force enough to cast a ghostly shadow on the w a l l ,73

A comparable use of light was evident in Eugene Aram, Here the effect was reversed although the visual reinforcement of the action of the play was still the goal. In the final scene, the title character finally confessed to his wife that the terrible crime he had committed

^^ew York Mirror, February 17, 1885,

^The Press (Philadelphia), November 27, 1883, 77

■was done -to save her honor, Al'though Eugene died, his death -was a release from his tortured conscience and the play ended -wi-fch the horrible, hidden deed of "the hero mitigated, if not vindicated. The use of sunrise effects over a churchyard sjmibolized awakening peace and unders"banding in 'the soul of the dying man.

The final scene in "bhe churchyard is very impressive, wi-th the solid blackness of shade cast by a great tree in the center, -the rustic tints, -the hea^vy cross, illuminated at length by the ruddy streaks of breaking day and finally by the "awful rose of dawn,"7^

Irving was so particular about the lighting of his productions that he included his lyceum-trained gasmen and calcium light opera'tors in his "touring company. Indeed, as we shall see, so 3mpor"bant did he consider these personnel "that on "the four-th "tour he risked a Federal

Court case in order "to get them admitted "to this country against the letter of "the Contract Labor Law, On the first "tours "the work of "the lighting technicians was more "than sufficien"tly appreciated "to repay his efforts, Effec"ts such as Shylock’s return over a darkening stage after the elopement of Jessica and Ma"thias' tria l before a shado"wy court in

The Bells were frequently praised.

Lighting the s"tage to reinforce the emotional tone of the play

•was not the only basis upon which the management of lighting in the

Lyceum productions -was commended, however. I r v in g 's use o f l i g h t "to intensify the pictorial qualities of "the setting and "to add to the

^^Boston Daily Advertiser. February 17, 1885, 78 apparent depth of the scenery 'was also well received. The Louis

Post-Dispatch reported the lyceum lighting increased the observer’s sense o f space:

The lights were supurbly arranged and this was demonstrated in the representation of Dubose’s garret, ^ere the back of the stage seemed as though it -was a sweep of absolute space beyond. 75

In Chicago, The Morning Mews noticed the way in which lig h t enhanced a painted effect. “A simple landscape, merely a carpenter's flat, was yet moist, atmospheric, and transparent.A pparently Irving's lights were an essential component of 'the scenic display as well as a harmonious amplification of the emotion of the performance.

We have seen thus far that "the first Irving productions in this country received commendatory notices on their harmonious and disci­ plined management of the company, the supporting music, and "the lighting effects. A final element merits attention—the play's physical mounting represented by the scenery and costumes. Irving’s management of "this factor elicited critical praise equal to that earned by the other elements. The scenery and costumes were lauded, not for their attention- getting aspects, but for the harmonious contribution they made to "üie total production. The Brooklyn Daily Times' comments upon the Lyceum scenery were typical.

^% t. Louis Post-Dispatch. January 25, 1884.

^^The Morning Mews (Chicago), January 10, 1884. 79

Woiald that the American stage possessed some Irvings ■who •would aim at tru-th and appropriateness of setting instead of a vulgar dazzle and cheap display,''

The lack of mere display 'was enthusiastically endorsed by the American p ress ; ■wi'tness th is comment in B altim ore:

No devices of sp ec ta cu la r m agnificance made "the audience forget -the players and the play in the garish gratification of the eye, but there was throughout a tasteful harmony in color and a careful regard for artistic proportions -that made the scenery seem rather an inseparable part of the picture •than a mere temporary framework.

Nearly invariably, when "the scenery received "the notice of

American reviewers, "the sublimation of "the scenic elemen’ts •to 'the to"tal production •was s"tressed. In •the eyes of his American contemporaries

Irving was a master at fitting •the scenery and costumes wi^th the other visual and aural effec^ts to create a mise en scene in which every element

c o n trib u te d •to •the c e n tra l ‘theme. Commentary by "the c r i t i c s of •the

Boston newspapers during the lyceum's first two tours is illustrative.

The Boston Budget reported upon Irving’s first week in •that city and

found that:

The scenery and appoin^tments in their historical accuracy and artistic fitness and -their freedom from vain show, •the costumes in their appropriateness and skillful contrasting of colors and •the inciden^tal music in its perfect wedding of sound to sense in "the plays produced by Mr. Irving during -the

??Brooklyn Daily Times. January 3, 1884.

^^Baltlmpre American And Commercial A dvertiser. December 26. 1883. 80

past week are all, deserving of the highest praise, and show that the manager of the Lycem theatre has not been over­ praised as the foremost stage director of the English speaking stage today.79

Later in the first tour, when the company returned to Boston for a second visit, the eqnipage had begun to show signs of wear. Neverthe­ less, the scenery and costumes s till merited special praise, as always, not for their startling effects, but for their contribution to the production as a whole. The reviewer for the Boston Journal stressed this point in his coverage of Irving’s Much Ado About Nothing;

The arrangement of the stage was very fine, and although the scenery showed marks of long and hard usage, the cos­ tumes were of singular richness and harmonious elegance, and the stage pictures artistic to a high degree.®®

Under similar circumstances during the second tour, the Boston

Courier noted that the second act of Eugene Aram was "a trifle shabby in appearance" but was quick to emphasize that "the harmony in coloring was n o tab le.

A summation of the harmonious effect achieved by Irving’s stage management can be seen from yet another Boston paper. The Advertiser reacted to the Lyceum’s Much Ado in typical fashion; it found the most praiseworthy elements in the production to be those aspects of ensemble, music, lighting, and scenery that were directly attributable to

^^The Boston Budget. December 16, 1683.

^^Boston80, Journal. February 28, 1884. 81, Boston Courier. February 22, 1885. 81

Irving's manipulation. The masking scene in Act Five received particu­

lar praise:

The masking scene in Leonato's house took place within a room hung with dim, rich tapestry, between the folds of ■which a balcony was disclosed, and in the distance a glimpse of the moon-lit waves and a turret-crowned promon­ tory. The revelry of the guests was most delightful to every sense, their rich medieval Italian costumes, the free, graceful movements and picturesque groupings, the lively presence of the pages, with their childlike attitudes and childish games, the gay dance music, sometimes vivified by the songs of the trooping company, each and a ll contribute to the noble e f f e c t .

It is important to note that the majority who praised Irving's management resorted to words like "harmonious," "atmospheric," and

"picturesque." The reviews sometimes indicated that the lyceum's co­ ordinated effects treated details at the expense of common sense. The

concept of "true-to-life" did not seem to influence Irving in those instances then a representation of the actual conduct of human affairs would conflict with the idealized view he was attempting to create on the stage. A handful of American reviewers alluded to this during the first tours. Such allusions often contrasted the picturesque "correct­ ness" of Irving's effects with the way in which life was experienced in the world o u tsid e th e th ea tre. The fo llo w in g comment on a d e t a il o f

Ellen Terry's appearance in the fourth act of The Merchant Of Venice is illustrative:

Her j^ortia'^ make-up in the trial scene, despite any archaic correctness, was a disguise so thin that Bassanio

B^Boston Daily Advertiser. February 28, 1884. 82

must ^ve had weak eyes not to have discovered at once his w ife,°3

An ezhanstlve analysis of the lack of common sense in the details

of an Irving production was provided by The Spirit of the Times early

during the first tour. Surprisingly enough, the critic who wrote the

analysis, Stephen Fiske, was an ardent supporter of Irving's management.

An earlier article by Fiske on America's anticipations of the Lyceum's

New York debut was nearly eulogistic in its unrestrained praise. En-

titled "The Dramatic Event of the Week, of the Season, of the Century, ”

Fiske's first article extolled the accomplishments of the English manager.

Special heed should then be given to Mr. Fiske when he chose to point

out errors in the common sense, realistic details of the English produc­

tio n s .

On November 3, 1883, Fiske noted "We were astonished to find so

many little faults in The Bells, which he played for ten years.

Among the faults found were: 1. Although the first scene was set in deep

winter and a stove was on stage "no one warmed themselves ; " 2. Person­

ages in the play were foresters, but did not wear the proper uniform;

3. Christian wore "altogether too much uniform." /i.e .: gilt epaulette^;

4. Kie scene was set in an inn, yet no one paid for refreshment; 5. The

windows in what was purported to be a country inn were "entirely too

OQ Evening Transcript (Boston), December 19, 1883.

^^The Spirit of the Times (New York), October 27, 1883.

^^The S p ir it o f the Times (New York), November 3, 1883. 83 large and ornate”; 6, Snow was everywhere outside, the characters were dressed in fur, yet a passerby pushed open a window to wish Mathias good morning; 7. When Mathias got out of bed in the final scene he was still wearing his shoes.

Two important points are raised by Fiske*s article. First of all, Irving’s meticulous attention to each detail within the total picture was of a kind that invited criticism on finite particulars.

Secondly, it appears that the manager of the lyceum was more interested in theatrical, as opposed to realistic, effects, and that the details of mise en scene were treated with that concept in mind.

We shall provide for a fuller understanding of Irving’s position regarding realism on the stage in the next section; it is important here to note that American audiences at the performances during the first tours were for the most part enthralled by the romantic, picturesque effects the English manager created even when those effects tended to disregard the dictates of common sense.

By the end of the first tours Irving had not only overcome the bulk of the anti-En^ish sentiment in this country and contributed importantly to the elevation of the social position of the theatrical profession as a whole, he had also, through his practiced management of ensemble, music, lighting, scenery, and costumes established a critical benchmark. The excellence of his contributions was readily recognized by his American contemporaries and lauded by the critics of the period.

^^The S p ir it o f the Times (New York), November 3, 1883. 84

From the onset of his first appearance in this country es ta tic feature articles and editorials bearing headings like "Henry Irving Compares to

Wagner, 'Most Successful Stage Manager The World Has Ever Seen,

"A New Era In The Drama, "The Irving Order of Genius, and 91 "A Lesson From The Stage"^ began to fill the American press. Indeed, so compelling was its impact on the American theatrical scene that by the end of the second tour the management of the lyceum was firmly estab­ lished as a criterion by which native accomplishment could be judged.

In 1885 The Hew York Herald cited Irving *s accomplishment as a high standard by which to commend native attempts. In its review of Impulse as presented by Wallack's idle Herald noted;

The setting of the first act of "Impulse" representing a country house in England is a marvel of scenic work, and vies with the best scenes introduced in the plays of Mr, Henry Irving,92

The man who came to this country to be judged "by acting—by acting alone" had, instead, established his greatest impact with those who did "not know idiat they are talking about"—those -vdio were responsive to the excellence of his stage management. The invitation to

^"^Harper's Weekly (New York), November 10, 1883,

QO The Morning Journal (New York), November 28, 1883,

^^The Telegram (Baltimore), December 29, 1883,

^^The Tribune (Chicago), January 13, 1884,

9^The Sunday Herald (Boston), October 26, 1884, ^^The New York Herald, February 20, 1885, 85 the testimonial banquet given in his honor on April 6 , 1885, bears apt witness to the Irving achievement in his first two years in America,

Carefully phrased to avoid comparisons between the Englishman’s acting and that of native Americans, the invitation is unstinting in its endorsement of Irving’s stage management. Henry Irving’s methods had enlightened and recited the audiences of this country, and they were pleased to acknowledge the gift.

Our citizens w ill be glad in this way to express üieir appreciation of the intellectual pleasure and instruction •sdiich they have derived, not only from your personal performances as the greatest of English actors, but from your admirable system of management, idiich has resulted in the most satisfactory dramatic representations, in every detail, that have been witnessed in this c o u n t r y , 93

^^New-York D aily Tribune. March 27, 1885. CmPTER 17

A BOW TO THE AUDIENCE

HENRY IRVING’S THEORIES OF STAGE MANAGEMENT AS

EXPRESSED IN NEWSPAPER INTERVIEWS,

FEATURE ARTICIES, AND SPEECHES

IN THE UNITED STATES

The first lyceum tours in this country established a dialogue by inteirview between the English manager and the American press that lasted for more than twenty years. At first, as Henry Irving strove to have his offerings accepted and the United States public anxiously antici­ pated the wonders he was to reveal, the interviews dealt chiefly with

Irving’s staging techniques and theories. Later, when the actor- manager’s methods were fu lly recognized the interviews tended to stray to other subjects. As the novelty of Irving’s techniques wore off and as he himself became more adept at sidetracking the ubiquitous inter­ viewer, the number of printed interviews decreased remarkably. The scrapbook for the first tour contains thirty-one interviews with Irving, a ll of 'vdiich, in one way or another, touch upon the Englishman’s stage management. However, by the second tour the number of printed interviews had been reduced to eleven and by the third tour to five. As the number of interviews decreased, their content also diminished in importance- degenerating to platitudes concerning the amiability and good taste of

Americans. During the fourth tour a Chicago newspaper, though fortunate

86 87 enotigh to be granted an interview, found to its chagrin that Irving

"was w illing to talk of almost anyone but himself.

A similar trend was reflected in the news coverage of Irving's activities backstage. Just as the interviews tended to diminish in number and importance as the public became familiar with the English­ man’s histrionic opinions, so did the feature articles concerning

Irving’s preparation and rehearsal techniques, When the novelty of his management was strongly fe lt there was a natural inclination for the newspapers to give coverage to the methods by which Irving achieved the discipline and harmony that made him famous. On the later tours his effects were no longer so unusual and the rehearsals for those effects were no longer so newsworthy. The first two tours generated by far the greatest number of articles concerning the English manager’s training of his casts and crews.

Because the preponderance of interviews and articles occurred during the early tours and the subject matter of both was more spe­ cifically theatrical during those tours, we w ill look at their content before we proceed with the American reception which followed. The interviews on his theories and the articles on his techniques throw considerable light on Henry Irving’s stage management and provide new perspective on the attractions presented later.

We have already seen that Irving had some reason to anticipate the American interview as an ordeal to be dreaded, but it was also apparent the ordeal was a necessary one, Henry Abbey’s promotion of the

^The Chicago Record, October 2, 1893. 88 tonrs UD'uld be based on the power of newspaper advertising and report­ ing; Henry Irving’s public relations -would be sim ilarly oriented. Abbey was so successful and consistent at eliciting press coverage that he was the subject of snide remarks.

The supremacy of Mr, Henry Abbey as a manipulator of the press was again demonstrated yesterday morning by the elaborate notices of Mr, Irving’s arrival,^

Irving was so dependent upon newspapers that he often s"tinted on other conventional means of attracting an audience, A Chicago reporter noted with amazement that Irving used no ”wallpaper"; in fact, ’’scarcely a 3 quarter sheet” was posted to announce forthcoming attractions by the

English troupe, A public relations program so dependent on the press would naturally acquiesce to its demands for interviews. Reluctantly,

Irving admitted:

I agree th a t f a c i l i t i e s a re a ffo rd ed through -the medium of "the interview for a newspaper which are not, perhaps, acquired in the same proportion "through any other, means for presenting to the public both sides of a subject.

The English tragedian realized, however, that -the content of "the interview could be partially controlled. He was very a-ware that news­ papers were dependent upon advertising revenue and that inves-tments in advertising gave the purchaser some power over editorial matter, Irving

%ew York Dramatic News And Society Gazette. October 23, 1883,

^The Morning News (Chicago), January 19, 1884,

^h?he Press (Philadelphia), November 26, 1883, 89 recognized **how closely they /the press and the stag^ are associated, artistically and commercially, " and that theatre advertising represented

”a large revenue” to the newspapers.^ When the newspapers were not granting him the critical reception he felt he deserved, Irving was quick to remind them that the income enjoyed from his advertising was dependent upon his good w ill. At a banquet held in his honor at the

Clover Club in Philadelphia after his unfortunate American debut as

Hamlet, Irving stressed the point. This paragraph was inserted in his after-dinner remarks without any contextual relationship to the whole:

Between journalism and the stage there has always been a great sympathy, and I fancy it will continue so until all things cease to exist, , .Our interests are mixed, , ,We represent much to the newspaper treasury I know, in England, and I fancy it is the same in this country, , ,I have found ny friend, Charles Vfyndham (idio is present) interested to the extent of anxiety concerning some of his large advertising, °

A man who was dependent upon adequate press coverage and who was not reluctant to chastise that press w h en its content was not completely favorable might be expected to attempt to manipulate the interviews to which he was subjected. Such was the case, Irving stage managed the interviews in an obvious effort to create a favorable impression of himself. His machinations were disguised, however, by the ingenuous image he presented, “It is well known to the newspaper fraternity that

Mr, Irving holds the interviewer in dread,” sympathized the Chicago

%atton, p, 196,

^Hatton, p, 208, 90

Evening News. i*ioh then went on to cite the source of this disarming information. The source was none other than the parasitic Joseph Hatton, the Englishman's press representative. "It's a perfect terror to him to be interviewed," said Mr. Hatton, "and you mustn't be too hard on him.

The ingenuous image was reinforced at every opportunity. Even when press manipulation was obvious, Irving played at being unaware of it. On his in itial arrival in New York, idiere he was met by two yachts, the thirty-piece orchestra of the Metropolitan Opera, various political and theatrical personalities, plus more than twenty-five reporters from both local and national publications, the apparently guileless English­ man professed the greeting was a "complete surprise." He went on

Û ingenuously to state: "I can only say I am moved, deeply moved."

On more formal occasions Irving was particularly careful to create a seemingly artless and casual environment in which to be inter­ viewed. Yet he was always careful to give fu ll consideration to the anst'jers he provided the reporters. Note the meticulously arranged setting described by this New York reporter and the deliberation Irving demonstrated before answering questions :

A MIRROR reporter has had two interviews with Irving since his arrival. Upon entering his sitting room at the Brevoort, portraits of Lawrence Barrett and Mary Anderson in character were found to occupy prominent places on the raantle- piece, Mr. Irving was on each occasion attended by Joseph Hatton and Bram Stoker, He was very deliberate in a ll he said, taking considerable time to think over each reply. Mr.

^The Evening News (Chicago), January 7, 1884.

^The Star (New York), October 22, 1883. 91

Hatton was frequently referred to with regard to events that had occurred since their arrival.°

The scene described was repeated many times with only the dates changing as the tours progressed.

Joseph Hatton, the critic, sat at one side of the room working at the proofs of his new book upon Mr. Irving’s tour among the American cities, and Mr. Bram Stoker was waiting to talk business matters over with his chief. Mr. Irving sat in a neglige attitude before his desk. 1

Irving’s hesitation to be questioned by the press visibly increased as time went on. After the original tours his American recep­ tion was assured, and he apparently felt free to. yield to his original unwillingness to be interviewed. By the fourth month of the first tour a reporter could inform his readers that, in spite of rumor to the con- 11 trary, ’ÜÆr. Irving is not afraid of the interviewer,” Nevertheless, within another twelve months The Pittsburgh Leader ran a two-column, full-page length feature article entitled "Trying to Interview Mr.

Irving." The article related the troubles encountered by a would-be interviewer vih o was passed from Irving’s second tour press representa­ tive, Falser, to his stage-manager. Love joy, to his business manager.

Stoker, and back to Falser again without ever gaining admission to the 12 eminent Englishman.

%ew York Mirror. October 27, 1883.

^•%ew York Herald. March 25, 1884.

^^The Chicago Herald. January 7, 1884.

^^The Pittsburgh Leader. December 22, 1884. 92

Perhaps the shortage of legitim ate opportunities to interview

Irving explains why some published "Interviewswere faked. Fortunately such fakery was readily apparent. For instance, a purported

"Conversation With Irving" in Toronto concerned the weaidier and the scenery at Niagara Falls. It had Irving answering queries in bastard­ ized Shakespeare. He is quoted as saying about the weather: "Yet methought the wind did blow to crack its cheeks today, " and about the famous Falls:

Like to the Pontic Sea whose icy current and compulsive course ne’er feels retiring ebb, the great waters plunged into the abyss of seething foam, and "Uie mighty spray, which glistened in the sunlight like a rich jewel in an Ethiope’s ear, seemed to bathe the scene in a halo of light never to be forgotten,

Irving’s reluctance to be interviewed, his need for sympathetic newspaper coverage, his careful manipulation of the environment of the interviews, and his reliance upon his assistants in deliberating upon the answers to be given the interviewer leads one to believe that the majority of the published interviews accurately reflected the actor- manager’s opinions. When he deigned to be interviewed, the results of that interview were not merely glib responses and ill-considered ram blings.

Among the Irving pronouncements in the American press, one theme—continually reiterated—most forcibly emerged from the rest.

Irving firmly avowed that the critical standard for theatrical success

^^Tfae Toronto News.' February 21, 1884. 93

■was -the immediate response of the general public. Further, he ■was committed to achieving success judged by -that s^tandard. It was not for the 'Rngl -1 sbman to be an id ealist idio attempted ■bo elevate the public

■baste or who catered ■bo "bhe aesthetically discriminating few, Irving was, instead, a man dependent upon the immediate favorable response of

■bhe audience as he found it. That response would be both a stimulus and a guide whose authority ■was unquestioned.

However successful art may be, i^bs true value as applied. ■bo ■bhe drama can only be determined by public appreciation,

Irving was not talking of the "drama," but of the theatre; he was not referring to contemplative understanding and "appreciation," but ■bo overt applause. He made the statement during his first interview in ■bhe

United S^bates while he ■was discussing his anticipa'bions of the response of American audiences. He continued; "Public discrimination, , ,is ■bhe only test by ■which an actor can measure his capacity, and that test I am

■willing to s-band,

A year later, in Bos-bon, Irving more succinc^bly re-expressed ■bhe

same ■view: "Quick applause is absolutely necessary to an actor's

success, Indeed, he applied ■this s^bandard to his own work in this

country and could announce ■with relief that "Americans seize upon ■bhe

^^% ie S^bar (New York), Oc^bober 22, 1883,

^^The S^bar (New York), Ocbober 22, 1883,

^^The Bos^bon Courier. November 9, 1884, 94 17 fine points of acting Tjith readiness and applaud at the right times.”

(Italics mine)

Of course, every artist workipg in a medium as transitory as is the theatre, and every actor in particular, recognizes that the imme­ diate response of a present audience is an important criterion of the

•worth o f h is e f f o r t s , b u t 'wi'th Irvin g th a t c r ite r io n overruled a l l others, Eq made very clear "that audience approval •was "the sole arbiter, not only of acting, but of every aspect of production. For ins-tance, the selection of play scrip’ts was -the inevitable result of unguided public opinion.

The managers cannot force upon "the public ei'ther very good or very bad plays. They ^the manager^ haven’■t got the power,"°

The manager o f "the Lyceum was q u ite d e f in it e in ‘th is regard. During

"the third •tour Irving was honored by New York’s Goe^the Society for his

elaborate production of Faust, Actually, the script •used •was not a translation of •the German original, but a wretched adaptation by W, C,

W ills, So foreign •to the original is the W ills’ version that, among other things, the title character is subordinated •to Mephis^topheles, In his address before •the Society, later published under the ti^tle "Goethe

As Stage Manager, " Irving defended his production, on the grounds •that •the

German playwright ignored •the expec^tations of the audience.

^^The Times-S^tar (Cincinnati), January 28, 1884,

^^The Brooklyn Union, January 2, 1884, 95

For Goethe endeavored to give practical life to an ideal Tdiich s till haunts many earnest minds—the ideal which places the functions of the stage entirely beyond and above the taste of the public. That is impossible, , , It is needless to say that this ideal was predoomed to failure: and my object now is not to discuss it in any detail, but to instance it as a useful warning to those whose discon­ tent with the variety of public taste is apt to urge them toward impossible r e f o r m s , ^9

Not only script selection and adaptation was subject to the

"variety of public taste," The stage management of that script in pro­ duction—the thing for idaich Irving was most acclaimed in this country— was to be ruled by the same standard, Irving felt that his audiences would be bored by mere intellectual content and that they demanded scenic illusion if the production were to be successful, When speaking of the difficulties of adapting Faust for the stage, Irving told a reporter from The New York Times:

Indeed, I did not dare to dwell on Goethe’s philosophy, for I felt that if I did the people would yawn through the performance and possibly leave the theatre. Therefore, I could only develop the theme of Margaret as dramatically as possible, •^th all the accompaniments of scenic effects and costumes,

in spite of his acknowledgment of the public demand for scenic illusion, the English actor-manager was unwilling to take the private theoretical position that scenic effects were essential. After all, one of his favorite acting vehicles was the recitation of Thomas Hood’s

^%ew-York Daily Tribune. March 16, 1888,

^^New-York Times. O ctober 29, 188?, 96 poem, "Dream Of Eugene Aram, " "delivered in evening dress, without any 21 lim e-lights, properties, scenery, or stage-management." Da addition, the manager of the lyceum professed that he, himself, could be moved by a relatively unadorned production of Shakespeare, Nevertheless, in practice private theories did not count; he felt compelled to be guided by the expectations of the public. During an address to Philadelphia’s

Contemporary Club, an address which was substantially identical to a speech given at Oxford the year previous, Irving outlined his position.

For myself, I could thoroughly appreciate Hamlet in a frock coat, before a set of tapestry hanging, but the prejudice is in favor of costume and scenery and practically their value has ceased to be a matter of opinion. They are dictated by the public taste of the day.

The audience ruled, and Irving’s theatrical practice followed its desires. His acquiescence to popular taste was repeated time and again . In 1888 he used identical phrases to reiterate the theme of the

Oxford speech of 1886:

I have before said that the value of the aids and adjuncts of scenery has ceased to be a matter of opinion; these have become necessary. They have been dictated by the public taste of the day and not by the desire for mere scenic display.

It is not the purpose here to picture Irving as obsessed by herd instincts or as a mere pander to public prejudice. No man so secure in his own self esteem as to lecture Harvard University on "Individuality"

^^Hatton, p. 186.

^^The Evening Bulletin (Philadelphia), December 21, 188?. ^%ew-York D aily Tribune. March 16, 1888. 97

could be so characterized. It is important to stress, however, that

’ràiatever were Irving’s private views of what the theatre should be, he was guided in practice by other principles : successful theatre catered

to the expectations of the audience, and he, Irving, was motivated by a

desire to be successful in the opinion of that audience. These prin­

ciples go far in explaining Irving’s impact upon this country. His methods of stage management were not a difference in kind, but a

difference in degree. Irving developed few innovations, for his audience

would not anticipate them; his success lay in his ability to polish those

techniques that could be appreciated without further study.

Irving’s polishing is the key to what the American press called

"The Irving Method." His chief contributions lay in the harmony and

discipline he brought to the diverse elements of a production under his

management. We have already seen that the American critics were

appreciative of this fact; as may be expected, Irving, himself, had a

great deal to say on the subject;

What is necessary on the stage is a harmony of a ll its features—a unison of all its refinements. It is not enough to give an individual performance of consummate interest, for, in a double sense, the whole is greater than the part. ' ' Let everything have its due proportion; le t thoroughness and, completeness be the manager’s aim; le t him never forget that a perfect illusion is his highest achievement.

This quotation perhaps more than any other embodies Irving’s credo

of stage management. Its use of the words "harmony," "unison,"

^\ e w York D aily Tribune. March 16, 1888. 98

"thoroughness,” and “illxislon” make it particnlarly illustrative of the theatrical viewpoint of the English manager. Harmony, particularly, was a term Irving was found of employing in describing the effects his method was seeking. He apparently never addressed himself to a discus­ sion of the place of music in stage production, but he was fond of drawing analogies between the work of the stage manager and the musical conductor.

 play is like a piece of concert music, an overture, or symphony, in ïhich all the parts must f it together and move in perfect time, now slower, now faster, to produce the proper final effect. The stage manager is the correlating fo r c e . 25

To properly carry out the idea of the playwright, the whole play must be carefully considered. No one would think of playing an overture or any piece of concert music with one instrument in competent hands and in proper condition, and all the others out of tune and unable to sustain the music of their several parts.

Irving placed continual emphasis upon the need for harmony and unison between the disperate parts of a production. His efforts as manager were directed toward the integration of each detail of his presentation so that no single element would be in itself distracting, but would contribute to the whole. He had evolved this idea much earlier and had consciously applied the concept to the productions he brought to

this country. On October 25, 1883, before making his in itial appearance

in New York, Irving stressed to an interviewer, "I aim not at the

^■^Fittsburgh Chronicle Telegram. December 27, 1884. 2^The New York Daily Tribune. October 25, 1883. 99 spectacralar, but at harmonious effect,T h e harmony he sought would, extend not only to the musical, lighting, and scenic effects, but to the ensemble created by the company as well.

Every character has its proper place on the stage and each should be developed to its greatest excellence without tmduly intruding upon another c t' impairing the general har­ mony o f th e p ic tu re ,* "

In the constant reiteration of this idea Irving began to sound very much like a modem stage director. Harmony of details and unity of effect so concerned him he insisted a single person should exercise aesthetic control over each production. He rarely used the term

“director,” but his concept of a controlling manager was very similar "to our current notions,

A play to be complete must, in all its details, finally pass through one imagination. There must be some one intellect to organize and c o n t r o l , ^9

The English manager was so convinced of the need for centralized control that he enthusiastically recommended the practice "to others.

According to an Irving anecdote, no less than Edwin Booth had expressed admiration for his methods but confessed he lacked the energy to under­ take the added responsibility such work entailed, Irving was not daunted; he advised Booth to hire "a good man—a good stage manager to run your

^%ew York Daily Tribune. October 25, 1883,

^^The Philadelphia Press, November 26, 1883.

^%ew York Herald. October 22, 1883, 100 business, Certainly Irving early recognized the impact of his managerial methods on this country, else he would never have related this invidious story about America’s foremost actor-manager.

Irving espoused a sin^e authority over the production to achieve a haimony of effect not only between the theatrical elements of the production, but, most importantly, between those elements and the script. He was quick to emphasize that all his theatrical illusions were created in order to reinforce the meaning of the play. For instance, when speaking in New York of his London presentation of Romeo and JiiT i et. he pointed out that although the production was one of two in which ’’the mise en scene was truly remarkable” (the other was The Gup) every element was intended to complement the playwright’s intent. "Every scene I have done adds to the poetry of the play; it is not done for the sake of effect only.

Irving was of the opinion that "a man writes a play for repre- 32 sentation, ” and he indicated appropriate scenic representation was an important reinforcement of a play’s meaning even in the works of

Shakespeare. Of course, the public expected them, but irving insisted that theoretically the play could be given heightened impact when appropriate and harmonious theatrical trappings were wedded to it.

With regard to the stage representation of Shakespeare’s plays, I try to mount them in as perfect a manner as modem art can

^^The Philadelphia Press. November 26, 1883.

3%ew York Herald.' October 22, 1883.

3^Pittsburgh Chronicle-Telegram. December 27, 1884. 101

ftimish. His ideas ought to be illustrated by scholarly detail,' by harmonious pictures, by appropriate music,' and by «11 that appeals to tiie sense of beauty. Some people wuld have it that we ought to play Shakespeare very much as he was played in his own time. But is one art to stand still Tdiile others progress, or, rather, is the stage to repudiate a ll the arts of painting and music and to distain the fruits of historical,' archeological, or antiquarian research? Acting, and acting alone, can make a play suc­ cessful, but one ought to acknowledge that by the legitimate arts of the stage a play may be illuminated for the dullest understanding, and a new power added to it,^^

Over and over again Irving would stress that the mounting of a production had no excuse unless it reinforced the meaning of the script and freed the imagination. He recognized that too elaborate effects would be distracting. The stage manager should strive "to have a truth­ ful picture which shall appeal to the eye without distracting the imagination from the purpose of the drama".Yet any d e ta il was "good and ought to be made use of" if it "heightens and assists the imagination and in no way hampers or restrains it.

Of course, the single authority v h o oversaw the production would have to assure that everything in the play adhered to the high standard

Irving had set. The successful stage, manager was one whose every production detail harmonized with the tdiole and enhanced the meaning of the script. Such an achievement could only be realized if the manager recognized that success was dependent on ". . . thoroughness and

^^The Times-Star (Cincinnati), January 28, 1884.

^^Henry Irving,' "Inspiration and Naturalism in Dramatic Art, " Education.' (Boston: July, 1885), p. 500.

^•%ew York Herald. October 22, 1883. 102 attention to details. It is the little touch, imperceptible of itself, perhaps to the audience idiich really tells.

Irving practiced -what he preached. His meticulous concern with every element in the lyceum productions led him to undertake an extensive rehearsal schedule. The schedule was rigidly adhered to in spite of the fact i±at he had been appearing in plays such as The Bells for more than ten years before he came to America. To the English manager it was obvious that rehearsals were needed "every day" even on tour in order continually to reinspect the details of performance or "we are likely to become a little careless from very familiarity.

American observers recognized Irving’s diligence and his conscientious work was often contrasted to the apparently slipshod practice of local management. For instance, during the Lyceum’s third tour the company appeared in Philadelphia at the Chestnut Street Theatre.

Just two weeks previously the same theatre was engaged by Booth and

B a rre tt. The two Americans p resented, among th e ir o th e r a ttr a c tio n s .

The Merchant of Venice, and it is that production with its "two distin­ guished actors" which is referred to in the following comparison by "The

Lounger" of the Philadelphia Press.

Rehearsals are, I sometimes think, the secret, and all the secret, of Mr. Irving’s mise en scene. Living in Philadelphia, The Lounger sees a good deal of companies on the road, and none

^%ew-York Daily Tribune. October 22, 1883,

^"^Boston C ourier. November 9, 1884. 103

of them, I lim it the comparison to those in the front rank, rehearse as Mr. Irving does. The lyceum company rehearsed the ‘Merchant Of Venice" before performing i t Friday night. This %as not considered necessary when the same play was presented at the same theatre three weeks ago. I.have seen ambitious English companies here before for a fortnight without a single rehearsal and varying its [ s l o j b i l l throughout its stay, "%livia" was rehearsed every day but one week before last. If you wonder the next time you see a good company, an elaborate mise en scene complete in every particular, and it may be two distinguished actors only, why the effect of the lyceum stage is not produced, you may be sure it is in great part because the b ill is changed without these rehearsals.

Unfortunately, there is relatively little reliable coverage of

Irving's rehearsal techniques idiile on American tour. He was very reluctant to admit observers to his rehearsals. Indeed, he was so adamant about barring newsmen that the matter was questioned during an

early interview. Irving gave three reasons for not allowing outsiders to attend: (1) "Business cannot be properly done" when strangers are present, (2) "Curiosity /about the forthcoming production/ can wait" until the eventual public performance, (3) "It is not fair to the actors who don't like to be corrected or advised before strangers. Motivated by these principles, Irving very infrequently permitted observers.

Admission to a lyceum rehearsal became such a rare but desirable news

coup that one reporter from the New York Herald hid in the upper balcony in order to spy on the activities of the company, and a reporter in

Boston tried unsuccessfully to hire on as an extra in order to observe

^^The Press (Philadelphia), December 25, 188?.

^%ew York Herald. October 22, 1883.

^ %ew York H erald. November 28, 1884. loa­ the Englishman's stage management.Chicanery rarely Trorked, however, and the observations made by the Herald reporter were so exceptional that three months later they were repeated verbatim (but without lf.2 crediting the source) in the Boston Sunday Times.

The scarcity of opportunity to observe rehearsals and plagiarism in the published accounts are not the only reasons that Irving's

American rehearsals remain obscured. In those few instances when Irving admitted an unsupervised reporter to the inner sanctums, the article which ensued was often flagrantly erroneous. For instance, a Chicago

Tribune reporter was allowed backstage during the first tour and wrote an iUi article so in error that Irving condemned it as "perfectly horrid. "

Similarly, an Ontario reporter was permitted to examine the star's dressing room and thereafter wrote a piece idaich informed the public

'Mr. Irving has twenty sets of false teeth which he uses in different charactersIrving labeled this report "ludicrous. Unlike the interviews with Irving, which were controlled as closely as possible by the Englishman, the infrequent and unsupervised accounts of his rehearsal techniques were fuH of reporters* imaginations.

^^Boston Journal.' January 7, 1884.

^%mday Times (Boston), February 22,' 1885.

^^Chicago Tribune. January 8, 1884.

^^^*The Evening Chronicle (St. Louis), January 22, 1884.

^^Daily Spectator And Tribune (Hamilton, Ontario ), October 8, 1884.

^Boston Courier. November 9, 1884. 105

A few accounts can be relied upon, however. Hatton’s comments

of course," had the approval of Irving before idiey were published.

William W inter's observations, -sdiile not.supervised by the master, are

probably sympaldietic for "amongst the many journalists who were Irving's

friends, none was closer than William Winter. Lastly, consistent

themes in the purported observations of others are probably a reliable

in d ic a tio n o f Lyceum techniques. These accounts, combined w ith the

newspaper interviews of the actor-manager, supply some guide to the

manner in lAich he lived up to his precept that successful management

consisted of "thoroughness and attention to details."

The atmosphere of a Lyceum rehearsal was very much what one

would expect from a manager vdio was devoted to being thorough and who

had a strong dis inclination to admit superfluous persons to his d rill

periods. Every day, whether there was a performance or not, the entire

Lyceum Company -would arrive at the -theatre at eleven and s-tay until ho three to be guided by Irving's "devising, suggesting, rehearsing."

William Winter described a rehearsal for -the New York debut and found

•the efficient, q^uiet way in which it was conducted -to be a distinct

contrast to the typical American run-through.

The orchestra were in -their places, but -the groups of chatting and laughing s-tage hands, -the group of hangers-on lounging in front, in fact the usual unnecessary adjuncts . of -the ordinary rehearsal were conspicuous by their absence. °

^^Stoker, p. 289

^*%he Morning Journal (New York), November 18, 1883. ^*%ew-York Daily Tribune. November 11, 1883. 106

Winter’s observations were partially substantiated by a reporter from Truth^^ vtio viewed another New York rehearsal and, a year later, by the enterprising reporter from the Herald to ^diom allusion has already been made. Both agree on the presence of the complete company and orchestra, but comment upon the "bustle” of persons about the stage.

It would appear that the sedateness of an Irving rehearsal was relative to the chaotic conditions under tAich Americans usually worked.

During an interview with the New York Herald in 1883, Irving had described the rehearsal period as a time to "experimentalize. Eye witness accounts in this country suggest that if experiments were under­ taken they were rarely conducted by the actors under his tutelage.

Instead, Irving would give specific examples of gesture and facial expression which he expected his actors to copy exactly. Thus, he explicitly demonstrated for an actor portraying a coachman shot during the holdup in The Lyons Mail how idie arms should fold in pain and how the facial expression should alter as death descended.In a similar fashion, the actor-manager dictated precisely how Miss Millward should clasp her hands in grief during a scene for Louis XI.The only example of experimentation given in the American accounts concerns a child a c to r;

■vdien Irving was unable to elicit an appropriate expression of pain through the use of demonstration, he resorted to tweaking the boy’s ear

■^*^Truth (New York), October 26, 1883.

■5^New York Herald. October 22, I 883,

5%ew York H erald. November 28, 1884.

^^The Morning News (Chicago), January 8, 1884. _ . 1 0 7 until the proper grimace was achieved. Even then, the boy actor was made to repeat the repression several times until he could duplicate it by ro te .^ ^

Not only the actors were drilled until their performances were automatic and inflexible; the technicians, too, were rigorously exercised.

Winter reports that Irving had the vision scene from The Bells done over four times to insure its correctness, and, afterwards, the curtain descent for the first act was rehearsed "not once, but half-a-dozen times before the exact rate of speed JySisJ hit upon. The "happy-go-lucky" mannerisms of the American stagehands warranted special attention, however; Irving was so exacting in his demands that he found it necessary

to reimpress discipline among the technicians even during the first

intermission of the New York debut.

The supernumeraries that were hired in each city the Lyceum

troupe visited got the careful attention of "üie English manager. An

associate of the Boston reporter tdio unsuccessfully attempted to be

hired as an extra was more resourceful and became a member of the

company’s support. His report revealed that Irving employed a captain

system in the handling of the supers. The reporter was assigned along

with three others from a large group to the supervision of a regular member o f th e Lyceum tro u p e. That member dem onstrated idiat each o f th e

hirelings under his authority was expected to do, and he instructed them

^^ew York Herald. November 28, 1883.

55uew-York Daily Tribune. November 11, 1883.

^^Hatton, p. 130. 108 to watch him for cues to action and expression. After the preliminary explanation, the entire group of extras, each under his individual captain, was drilled together before the watchful eye of the English m a n a g e r . Each local super, then, had a model to follow for blocking and expression—his assigned captain—and was additionally coached as part of the ensemble by Irving himself.

Irving claimed that he "felt the same sustaining force and spirit"'^® in rehearsals that he felt in performance; the implication being that he devoted as much energy to his acting in practice as he did before an audience. Obviously this was not always the case. Published reports of Irving rehearsals in this country varied. Some mentioned that the manager rehearsed "almost in a ^Aiisper"^^ idiile the rest of the cast conducted themselves as if an audience were present. Others reported to the effect that "he appeared most absorbed in the lines."®® We w ill have to accept Irving's claim with a small reservation; it is probable that the majority of the time he would rehearse with a ll the vigor at his

command, but as the complexities of the situation dictated, he would reduce his acting energies in order to oversee other aspects of the pro­ duction. Certainly the dual task of acting a principal part and attending meticulously to the details of the staging would not allow him to devote all of his rehearsal attention to both simultaneously.

^^The Boston Journal. January 14, 1884.

^®Boston Courier. November 9, 1884.

^%ew York Daily Tribune. November 11, 1883.

®°Truth (New York), October 22, 1883. 109

Although Irving conscientiously rehearsed the entire company daily and demanded the energetic contributions of all its members, he demonstrated one very curious oversight. All of the published reports of the Lyceum in rehearsal mention that the company practiced ■while wearing street clothes. Practical cos"fcume pieces such as cloaks and overcoa"ts were imaginary even when they -were handled as properties,

William Winter observed that Miss Poncefort "removed an imaginary cloak from Christian’s shoulders," and ’Mathias’ outer clothes were removed, in imagination, by Annette. Irving’s interviews supply us with no infoimation as to idiy ‘this key detail was omitted from his run-throughs ; we can conjecture that the crush of travel increased the problems of costume maintenance to the point that their use in rehearsal was impractical,

Cer’taihly Irving’s rehearsals on tour do not necessarily reflect the procedures he employed for "the preparation of a new production. They are important, however, for "they reinforce the opinion that the English­ man was an energetic perfectionist who drilled his entire company unceasingly. "He is a mechanician, " snorted The Mew York World. and, although "the term -was meant to be deroga'tory, i t ap-tly fits Irving’s attitude toward s-tage management. The manager of the lyceum was con­ stantly concerned with the polish of his productions. The entire company, from principals to local supers, from orchestra leader to cur-tain man, was drilled and re-drilled so that the details of the resulting

^%ew-York D aily Tribune. November 11, 1883.

^^The Mew York World. November 13, 1883. 110 performance 'wo'uXd run by rote as closely as possible to the desires of a master mechanic of stagecraft.

The details that Irving so conscientiously manipulated were of a very special nature, however. He rehearsed his troupe to perfect the parts of a picturesque illusion; when that illusion would be shattered by common sense or realistic considerations, Irving was quite willing to forego them. Perhaps this acplains vdiy he expected his actors to copy his demonstrations by rote rather than seek solutions in real experience; he was interested in idealized effects rather than realistic causes.

"The stage gives the readiest response to the demand of human nature to be transported out of itself into the realms of the ideal,claimed

Irving. In his view the all-powerful audience "demanded the realms of the ideal" and that is exactly tdiat he would provide. After all, "an

ideal painting is better than a photograph. " He believed "that illusion

is the highest aim of art in the theatre or elsewhere.

Illusion, but idealized illusion, was the objective of Irving’s management. He was careful to differentiate between that goal and mere

realism. "I feel that, without descending to minute realism, the nearer

one approaches the truth the better.Irving saw the truth as -üiings

as they should be, tdiile the real was things as they are in life; the

former was ideal and should be sought out, the latter was mundane and

ought to be avoided.

^^Hatton, p. 8.

^^The Sun (New York), December 3, 1893. ^%ew York Daily Tribune. October 25, 1883. I ll

It seems to me that realist means, or should mean, a production which is much as it would be in life. In this particular I must be an offender for I endeavor to make my ., representations as near to tdiat they should be as possible.

This theme, one of the most interesting in the Irving comments, occurs often. The English manager carefully delineated between the

"picturesque" or "ideal" on the one hand and the "real" on the other.

We shall see that his prejudices on this subject dictated the manner in which he mounted his plays. An understanding of his attitude w ill explain the existence of the "little faults" Stephen Fiske so capably pointed out and w ill provide some insight into the reasons for an apparent blind spot in Irving’s management—his inability to comprehend the changes in dramaturgy that were taking place about him.

You remember Hamlet’s criticism on the play? There is a line in it 'ïdiich I think might be adopted with advantage as his motto by every actor and manager—"An honest method, as Trdiolesome as sweet, and by very much more handsome than fine. " There you have it—an honest method, not fine either ;Ath the fineness of extravagance or prodigality, but handsome.

Handsome, ideal, picturesque illusions were the proper business of the theatre; harmony and unity its goals. Although the work of the stage manager "may reflect the variable moods of his generation," it was

"primarily his business to amuse. " The audience demanded it be elevated to an ideal plane superior to the mundane world and the manager should

^%’ittsburgh Chronicle-Telegram. December 2?, 1884. 67uew-York Daily Tribune. October 22, 1883. 112 strive to provide ”a substantial increase of the universal stock of

•wholesome p le a su re .

Irving recognized, Nothing, perhaps, is more difficult in a play than to determine the exact relation of "the real and what I may call the picturesque,” His illusions would, of course, have to contain details from real life, but the realistic details should not intrude on

•the e f f e c t to be achieved.

I believe in realism—in its place. For instance, on •the sta g e , as •well as off, one should sit in real chairs and •take tea out of real tea po'ts. But realism that is held up aloft simply to catch the eye is unnecessary and ineffective. Ncthing is artistic that is obtrusive. "

Hb^w realism may be obtrusive •was explained by Irving in a conversation with a reporter from the Philadelphia Press. When talking of the de-tails of stage management in The Bells. Irving mentioned that i t was th e eus "tom in A lsa tia f o r •the men to wear th e ir ha^ts indoors.

This realistic de-tail -was inappropriate to -the s-tage, however, because of the practical concern -that -the hats would hide the actors’ faces and, most impor-tant, because;

It is also an incongruity -to see men sitting in -the presence of an audience with -their heads covered. Then again, the attention of -the audience would be distracted from the p lay from a fe e lin g o f c u rio u s ity as to -the reason why -the ha-ts were not removed. 70

^%ew York Daily Tribune. March 16, 1888.

^^The World (New York), November 7, 1893.

^^The Press (Philadelphia), November 26, 1883. 113

The Philadelphia interview is particularly cogent for it is a sure reflection of the actor-manager’s views. The interview is quoted verbatim by Hatton and has, therefore, the special approval of Irving,

For that reason le t us look at an example Irving supplies to explain the difference between the picturesque ideal his methods were intended to provide and the real that was unnecessary and ineffective,

I would not have the costume and general appearance of a company of soldiers returning from the war exactly the same as these appeared when the men were starting for the battle­ field, I would have them dishevel their hair and assume a careworn aspect, but yet appear in clean clothes. Everything on the stage should always be clean and pleasant, 71

As usual, Irving deferred to the audience in defense of his position. It was the audience tdio demanded transportation to the realms of the ideal; it was they -vAio would be distracted by seated actors wearing hats in their presence. The public expected that details on the stage should be clean and pleasant, and Irving would not offend them. Bowing to their wishes, he claimed it was his "principal aim" in the theatre "to portray truthfully human nature in its various aspects, refined and artistically colored in case of need, so as not to be repulsive to the audience, "7^

Irving’s goals were clear: to represent the picturesque for an audience v^ch demanded an idealized illusion. When the dictates of common sense might conflict with that objective, they were to be

7^The Press (Philadelphia), November 26, 1883,

7^The Evening News (Chicago), January 7, 1884, 114 disregarded or subordinated so that real life -would not intrude on the a r t i s t i c refinem ent o f -the -whole,

Irving -would adhere -to his goals throughout the remainder of his career. Ten years af-ter his in itial appearance in -this coun-try—a period which saw the first production of James A. Heme’s Margaret

Flaming and -the rise of David Belasco—Irving would s till regard his search for -the ideal more impor-tant than the represen"tation of mere realism. The choice -was an "old "theme, " and Irving obviously- remained sure of his position.

Here in America you are ha-ving "the doctrine of realism enforced ably, not only by argument, but by illustration in very excellent plays. In En^and that is an old "theme for discussion and disagreement,«3

As late as 1903, during his final visit to America, "the English manager main-tained his confidence -that his objectives were sound and his me-thods r e lia b le . The -world m ight consider him o ld , b u t h is system -was

s till in -the vanguard. He announced he could "al-ways do business -wi-fch 74 "the old plays"' —wi"th the old me-thods, the old illusions, "the old

id e a ls ,

Irving’s espousal of wholesome, idealized, picturesque illusions

as the only true objective of successful s"tage management relates sig- nifican-tly "to his attitudes concerning "the drama. That he did lit"tle -to

encourage "the avant garde playwrigh-ts of his day is well documented.

*^The Sun (New York), December 3, 1893.

7^*The Mew York Times. October 21, 1903, 115

The attacks upon Irving’s play selection by George Bernard Shaw, William

Archer, and Henry James, among others,' were widely distributed in their own time as well as our own. Even contemporaiy apologists for the

Englishman, such as Charles Hiatt, were forced to admit there was "one weak spot in Irving’s management, , .his ne^ect of the modem English drama. Irving’s American pronouncements upon the drama provided a most meaningful insight to the reason for his obvious shortsightedness.

The manager of the Lyceum applied essentially the same criteria to the evaluation of a play he did to the staging of that play before an audience.

The Irving intei*views and speeches were fu ll of references to

"higher parts" and "good drama," although they were not particularly specific about which roles and which plays were included. For instance, the manager of the Lyceum denied to an interviewer there was a dearth of good plays being written, and he professed to "hold that there are good

English plays. I could name you many. Unfortunately, he did not.

Im plicit in his comments, however, was an indication of the standards he applied to the determination of üie worth of a playscript.

Among the standards Irving might have applied, formal literary excellence was certainly not all-important. He was willing to condemn

Goethe, for example, on the grounds the German playwright had held the mistaken belief that "the stage should be literary and not dramatic.

7^Hiatt, p. 112.

^%ew York Herald. October 22, 1883.

7?New York Daily Tribune. March 16, 1888. 116

Similarly, the Lyceum produced two plays by Tennyson (The Cup and Becket), but the English manager was careful to indicate that their literary virtues did not outweigh their lack of action and fitness for

the stage. This point was stressed in a Pittsburgh interview:

Interviewer "In obtaining new plays I suppose the great difficul'ty of to-day is a lack of unison of U±t/6Ta.r£f strength and action, with adapt­ ability to the stage?

H. Irving "That is a weak point in a great many plays which are good otherwise. Lord Tainyson's plays for example have not the adaptability because of his lack of knowledge of the stage. A great play can never be an accident. It is the work of someone who is familiar with its requirements. He must fit his play to the stage exactly as the painter fits the parts of his picture to the size of the canvas and the scene which is to be put upon it. 7°

Shakespeare's works, however, were unassailable. Their literary

excellence was an established tradition and, although they were written

to fit a stage far different from that of the Lyceum, their appropriate

mounting under Irving's management would clarify their meaning for the

"dullest understanding. " Most important, they were as active as the most

popular melodrama. "Vivid" is the term Irving used to explain even

Hamlet could be considered a melodrama.

When a play is full of vivid and remarkable scenes it is often called melodramatic. Surely, when judged in this way, "Hamlet" must be the very ideal of a melodrama. The ghost scene, the play within a play are all astonishingly v i v i d . 79

78pittsburgh Chronicle-Telegram. December 2?, 1884.

79pittsburgh Chronicle-Telegram. December 27, 1884. 117

Vividness, then, in terms of action is a principal Irving criterion for the drama, and Shakespeare met the test, Irving's endorsement led him to establish another, more superficial standard—the play should be written in blank verse. The great majority of the plays produced by th e Lyceum would adhere to th is p re c ep t, and Irv in g men­ tioned it as an important value of the American scripts submitted to him. He admitted, though, that blank verse in itself was not a chief consideration; his reference in the quotation below is to the fact that he found the theatre manager and audience at Indianapolis to be 'Taoorish, "

I think that a great and grow^g country like this should afford abundant material for good plays, I have received a large number of native blank verse plays since I have been here. One or two of them were very, very good indeed. The other blank verse plays would probably succeed in Indianapolis,

Vivid plays full of action and written in blank verse were the

Irving ideal—as long as they fitted "the stage exactly as the painter

fits his canvas," Irving's analogy was natural; it became increasingly

clear he believed the best plays were those that encouraged pictorial

illu s io n .

On his arrival in this country Irving claimed he had done but

two plays in which "the mise en scene was the least b it remarkable"; yet

by the end of the first tour, attuned as always to the demands of the

public, Irving acknowledged to his audience at the farewell performance,

"we shall return to our homes with the conviction that, new as our

York Herald. March 25, 1884, 118 methods may have been, you have set the stamp of undisguised approval on them, Obviously the methods approved were the picturesque illusions he had created, Irving reacted -with alacrity to that approval; plays itdiich facilitated harmonious pictures became paramount in his thinking.

Before the advent of the third tour he announced that in his go production of Faust he had "given great study to the scenes," And by the time he was completing his American career the opportunity to dis­ play the scenes would be an important criterion of the worth of the plays he was to present, "I think you w ill like ’Becket’," he assured his potential audience in 1893. "It is essentially and pictorially attrac­ tive, and especially towards the end, its scenes, it seems to me, are interesting,"®^ At the close of his career, he endorsed his selection OX of Dante because "I think it is a fine play, pictorially very beautififL. "

We already know what Irving considered pictorial beauiy—har­ monious, unified, Kholesome, and picturesque compositions in -vdiich the real did not obtrude. However, these ideals had become a standard by which not only successful management, but successful playwriting was to be judged. The playwright who produced a vivid, active, wholesome blank verse play which fit the stage so well that idealized illusions were an

essential part of its effect would be the playwright who won iiie approval

®^The Sunday Mercury (New York), A pril 27, 1884,

®^he Dispatch (New York), October 30, 1887,

^^The World (New York), November 7» 1893. 84 The New York Times. October 21, 1903. 119 of his audience. L ittle wonder that Irving could not understand or encourage the new trends in realistic dramaturgy; he had translated his standards for illusionistic stage management to the evaluation of the w riter’s task. He could with patent lack of comprehension declare to th e w orld:

Ibsen, in my opinion has not had any permanent effect upon the theatre, I cannot answer your question as to which side I take in relation to the ethics of "The Second Mrs, Tanqueray, " for I have not had an opportunity to see the play. So far as con­ cerns th e Lyceum T heatre in London, my experience is th a t i t i s the best policy to present pla^ that, contemplated from every point of view, are wholesome,^

^•^The World (New York), November 7, 1893. CHAPTER V

ILLUSIDN AND DISILLUSION

IRVING'S FINAL TOURS AND THE AMERICAN RESPONSE

1887-1888, 1893-1894, 1895-1896, 1899-1900,

1901-1902, 1903-1904

Henry Irving and his troupe made six more visits to North

America after the initial two tours. The additional ventures exhibited few changes in itinerary and format from those that preceded them. Each presented about one hundred and eighty performances from a repertoire which offered from four to eleven full-length plays plus miscellaneous short pieces. Each usually included, from the Lyceum’s English schedule, one or two major productions which had never before been seen in this country. Each was a distinct monetary success.

The pattern of the tours reflected an exhausting routine. The third tour, I 887-I 888, was a slight exception. It included only four cities and one hundred and thirty-seven performances of six major pro­ ductions in twenty-one weeks; it was the shortest tour of the eight in terms of geography, number of presentations, and length of time. The fourth tour lasted twenty-nine weeks in 1893-1894, offered nine full- length plays, increased the number of performances to one hundred eighty-eight, and trebled the visits of five years previous by stopping at thirteen cities. The fifth tour, I 895-I 896, resulted in the most ex­ tensive activity by the English company in this country; only twenty-seven cities played host to the troupe, but eleven standard plays were offered 120 121 in two hundred, and thirty-six performances in thirty-five weeks. The last three tonrs, I 899-I 9OO, 1901-1902, and 1903-1904, exhibited great uniformity: the number of performances of major productions was respec­ tively one hundred ninety-one, one hundred fifty-three, and one hundred fifty-two; the number of cities was thirty-four, twenty-four, and twenty-eight; the number of major plays in repertoire was four, six, and five; and the length of the tours in weeks was twenty-nine, twenty-two, and twenty-two. In total, during the eight tours Henry Irving and his company presented twenty full-length plays plus miscellaneous short attractions for one thousand four hundred and thirteen presentations in fifty-four American cities ; they performed in this country for a com­ bined period of four years and three weeks.

One noticeable difference was found in the 1903-1904 tour and the seven which came before; it was the absence of Ellen Terry. ^ the end of the second tour, in I 885 , she was already so popular with American audiences that she was offered two thousand dollars a week for an independent, thirty-six week tour.^ Although that figure represented O five hundred dollars more per week than Irving was paying her, the offer was rejected as were all subsequent offers until 1902. Finally, differ­ ences between Terry and Irving reached a head; she objected to his choice of plays both on the grounds that they were weak dramatically and they did not contain significant women’s roles.^ Concurrent with Irving’s loss

^'New York Morning Journal. March 29, I 885 . 2 Chicago Sunday Herald. January 11, I 885 .

^Terry, Memoirs, p. 250. 122 o f the Lycem Theatre at the end of the I 9OI-I902 season, Terry left the London company. She appeared eventually at Kis lîajesty’s Theatre under the management of Beerbohm-Tree,^

The loss of Ellen Terry m s invariably lamented by the American press. Most important, her fans sometimes neglected Irving’s solo per­ formances, and his treasury felt the pinch. Each time the receipts did not live up to the previous tours, the fact ms duly attributed to the lack of Terry’s support. For instance, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported ticket prices for Irving’s appearances at the Olynpic Theatre had to be reduced because of the large capacity of the auditorium and the absence of EUen Terry. ^ Irving, himself, finally acknowledged the attraction she represented; he assured the audience at his farewell per­ formance that Ellen Terry would accompany him when he returned. ^

As we shall see, Terry’s objections concerning Irving’s choice of playscripts would be echoed by the press of this country. However, the tours themselves demonstrated a pattern which m s in itself signifi­ cant. Of the twelve new full-length productions Irving brought to

America on the last six tours, only three—Faust. Olivia, and Becket— would be repeated. Invariably, the repetition m s relatively unsuccessful.

Faust and Olivia were first offered on the third tour; the former played for seventy-five appearances, the latter for twenty-five. TrJhen Olivia

iL Terry, Memoirs, p. 253.

•^St. Louis Post-Dispatch. October 22, I 903.

^New York Dramatic M irror. A pril 27, ‘ 1904. 123

•sra.s brought back five years later the English manager fe lt encouraged to present it only eleven times ; vhen Faust was revived for the fifth tour it was featured only thirteen times. Tennyson’s Becket suffered

the same fate; introduced on the fourth visit it played for fifty-six performances, but was only trusted to draw audiences on ten occasions during the next tour. The remaining nine full-length scripts were only sufficiently attractive to last for the tour in which they were first displayed. Obviously, the dramas Irving chose to complete his

American career had little intrinsic value. After their novelty had been exhausted, the plays were abandoned for new opportunities to demon­

strate the English manager’s harmonious pictures.

Only two plays. The Merchant of Venice and The Bells, were presented on every tour. The former averaged forty-three performances per visit, or twenty-four per cent of the total. The latter averaged

exactly one-half of that amount—twenty-two performances, or twelve per

cent of the total. Merchant was unique; it was presented twice as often as the combined total for a ll the other Shakespearean productions: Much

Ado About Nothing (four tours, eighty-two performances), H a m le t (two

tours, twenty-six performances). Twelfth Night (two tours, twenty-six performances), Macbeth (one tour, twenty-one performances), Henry VTTT

(one tour, twenty performances). Indeed, The Merchant of Venice was the only such play presented on the last three tours. It is apparent living did not provide his audiences with a significant number of Shakespearean offerings; then the vehicle for Irving’s Shylock is eliminated, barely twelve per cent of the lyceum productions were written by Shakespeare, 124 and all of these were presented prior to I 896—the first thirteen years of Irving's twenty-one year American career. I t is no more meaningful to say that Irving’s example encouraged Shakespearean production in this country than it is to claim that he forever established the dramaturgy of W, G. Wills, The accident of Irving’s success as Shylock is incidental; with the exception of that play, v b ld h was presented fewer times than were The Bells and Louis XI combined, Irving performed

Shakespeare only one hundred seventy-five times in thirteen years while he offered the plays of Wills (Charles I, Eugene Aram, Faust, and

Olivia) one hundred eighty-eight times over a period of nineteen years.

In spite of his relative neglect of Shakespeare, Irving used every opportunity to encourage the opinion he was a Shakespearean scholar and producer. In 1888 he lent his name to a complete collection of Shakespeare’s works edited by F, A, Marshall,^ It was widely dis­ tributed in both England and America, In addition, his speeches, articles, and interviews in this country either include the poet’s name in the title or are replete with Shakespearean allusions and quotations. He was especially fond of repeating Hamlet’s advice to the players as a precept for actors, managers, scholars, and theatre critics,

Irving’s edition of Shakespeare and his speaking engagements represent relatively innocuous activities. These were complemented, however, by more blatant attempts to publicize his professed dedication to the Bard, For instance, in 188?, he was appointed to unveil a

?Henry Irving and F, A, Marshall (eds,), % e Works o f W illiam Shakespeare (London: Blackie & Son, I 888-I 89O), 125 fountain donated to the city of Stratford-on-Avon by the Philadelphian socialite/ George W. Childs. Not content •with the quiet execution of his task, Irving sent a letter and a bottle of water from the fountain to Mr. Childs. The Englishman’s publicizing of the event -was obvious— the letter -was duly printed verbatim in not only the Philadelphia papers, b u t in -the November 6, I 887, issues of The Chicago Tribune, the New-York

Times, and "the New-York Tribune. Irving had undoubtedly sent "them copies of "the letter. Similarly, in 1895, the year in idiich "the Lyceum's last new Shakespearean production -was performed in America, the English manager commissioned an allegorical painting by Thomas Nast; entitled

"The Immortal Light of Genius" it "was dedicated to Shakespeare. At "the g spring unveiling Irving, of course, was very conspicuous.

Irving's well-publicized ancillary activities and not his infrequent productions of the Bard established him in American minds as a Shakespearean producer. His tour record speaks for itself. One should weigh c a re fu lly "those s-tatements -which add to "the ngrth "that

Irving's Shakespearean represen-tations occupied a principal place in his

•touring reper"toire. If the manager of the lyceum contributed to "the

American public's unders-tnading of Shakespeare, i t -was not done by an emphasis on the production of his plays.

The scripts most produced by Irving constitute a now moribund body of drama. Melodramas and turgid verse plays xdiich emphasized spectacular visual and aural effects made up "two-"thirds of his

g New York Dramatic Mirror. May 23, I8 9 6 . 126 full-length Amerloan repertoire. The banquet at the end of his second tour 'was bis audience’s acknowledgment of the success of the Englishman's effects ; Inring, anxious to continue to be "successful,” responded to their praise.

The major attraction of the third tour met the expectations of his audience~a spectacular rendition of Faust was presented for seventy- five perfonnances, American reviewers were, at first glance, as enthusiastic as they had been over previous Lyceum offerings. The perform ances in th is country were warmly commended on th e management o f the mise en scene and the ensemble of üie company. At the New York debut.

The World stated:

The story is told, in fact, in dissolving views in ^ich the most consummate skill in the shifting and concentrating of colored lights is shown, and the most exquisite art declared in the use of vocal and instrumental music. The •(dxole drama moves panoramically. The lights shift, the stage grows dark, the scene changes, the organ blares, stealthy and devilish figures flit in the shadows, angelic faces bum out on the canvas, the choral voices of the Nuremburg peasants float to us through stone casements, üie hues of the person­ ages change under the colored lights as they talk, , ,So 'the story is told in pictures. The actors make groups. Nothing can be visually more effective, °

The Herald echoed this view and then specifically singled out the ensemble for special praise.

To form an effective background of people to the principals in a crowded theatrical scene is in itself a difficult matter— to have them walk about, stand and apparently converse in a natural and artistically attractive manner. But to make them

^The World (New York), November 8, I8 8 7 , 127

converse so that but half-heard sounds reach the audience, not interfering with the locution of the principal person­ ages and carrying on the interest ;Aen they remain silent, is the height of true seeming.^®

Again and again the same theme was reiterated; Irving's stage

manipulation won the day. The Boston Daüv Globe reported the appoint­ ments to be "precise and various," the pageantry and pantomime "perfect,"

the scenes "picturesque," and found "no qualification to be made" over

the stage management, 11

In Chicago, Robert B. Peattie announced:

In point of scenic display, handling of stage effects, and grouping of personages Mr. Irving's presentation of Faust eoccels a ll his p./evious efforts and w ill stand as a model of its kind as long as the beautiful and artistic are sought for on our stage.1%

The elaborate scenic devices with which Irving created his

"beautiful and artistic" Illusions became, in themselves, a chief point

of interest. American curiousity is reflected in the number of feature

articles vhich were addressed solely to the mechanical effects. For

in sta n c e . The Evening Sun was moved to devote an ex ten siv e a r t i c l e to

scene shifting entitled "How Faust is Produced at the Star Theatre"

the Morning News contributed a bow-by-blow account of "The Music in

^^ e w York H erald. November 13, 1887.

^^Boston Daily Globe. January 24, 1888.

^^The Morning News (Chicago), December 31, 188?.

l ^The Evening Sun (New York), March 28, 1888. 128

Faust” and The Times brightened its pages -with a three-column feature on the stage lighting of the production under the heading "The Mysteries o f F aust.

Beneath the verdant praise and growing interest, however, dwelt a worm called disillusion. Though his manipulation of the illusions in

W ills’ adaptation was found to be, as always, picturesque, exquisite, harmonious, and thorough, there was some suspicion the mechanic in

Irving was ovendielraing the artist. This view was reflected by a long feature article in the Chicago Tribune. The article was not written by the "regular dramatic critic, " but its humor aptly reflects the view the

Englishman's stage effects had become excessive.

Mr. Irving's show was tip-top. It was a regular Christmas show, with witches, imps," ghosts, monkeys, winged spectres, red fire, and a real duel with swords. There was a scene where witches brewed hell's broth in a caldron, and apes with tails turned sumersets; there was a scene where goblins floated in fog, and nameless things, half-beasts, half-men, swarmed and gibbered; there were flames with real devils in them, and witches riding on real broomsticks; there were idiite-winged ang^s Tdio flew down from the flies ; there was a steam curtain nearly as good in its way as the one in the "Arabian Nights," though not nearly as big; there were magic-lantern pictures thrown on a black screen; and there was wine that burst out in flames when it was spilled on the floor. Mr. Irving has spared no expense. It was a real good show, better than the "Black Crook," and quite as good as the "Arabian Nights," except that i t had no ballet worth mentioning.

The comparison of the lyceum production with America's precursor to musical comedy was peculiarly relevant. At least two defenders of

^^he Homing News (Chicago), December 27, I887.

^•^he Times (Chicago), January 1, 1888.

^^The Tribune (Chicago), December 27, I8 8 7 . 129

Inring, anxious to prove that the spectacular disjOay in Faust -was an important aspect of the artistic effect, were driven to apply an identical metaphor. In Boston, The Beacon confounded those pro­ fessed to see "only spectacular effect, which would be better bestowed on a ’Black Crook’" by pointing out "The service indirectly done to the cause of literature and art, In Chicago, The Morning News used the same article which declared the presentation would "stand as a model of its kind," to admit of the witches in the Brocken Scene:

They seem like a chorus of the Passions, and ïdien the scene closes with a shower of fire one forgets to call the play a more intellectual "Black Crook, " and feels a th rill of admiration and terror,

How "intellectual" was Faust became a matter of debate with most of the argument going to the anti-W ills forces. The Goethe Society had feted Irving in honor of his revival, but the critics were perceptibly more cool to th e m e rits of th e Lyceum a d a p ta tio n . Of W ills ’ v e rsio n a

Philadelphia critic noted: "He has not, however, elevated, refined or spiritualized it, nor kept it at all upon the plane of Goethe’s m arvelous work,A brother journalist declared of the script, "It is 20 a wondrous marvel of misdirected ambition," Chicago reflected similar opinions ; The Inter Ocean noted that, in so far as the audience was

^^The Beacon (Boston), January 28, 1888,

^^The Morning News (Chicago), December 31, 188?,

^^pobiic Ledger and Daily Transcript (Philadelphia), December 31, 1887,

20,*The D aily News (P hilad elp hia), December 13, 1887, 130 21 concerned, "there was a degree of apathetic tolerance of the play,"

"A stage version of adequate but not exhaustive scope" was the judgment

of the Boston Post, and the Courier stressed ", . .it is certain that the

dramatic quality of the story or the poetry of it has never been less

apparent." ^

Overt condemnation of Wills* drama was probably restrained by

the strength of Goethe’s reputation and Irving’s obvious success. By

the end of the tour the New-York Times summed up the critical and

popular reception of the lyceum’s Faust. It recognized "the play is a

feeble rendering of Goethe’s sublime work," but "of its popular success

there is no question.

The American audience had once again declared Irving a success.

In the opinion of his auditors, the literary weaknesses of his drama did

not detract from the novelty of his stage management. Irving’s niche

was established, and he continued to gild his image. Succeeding tours

would see the introduction of six new full-length scripts never before

presented in this country. All save one, Robespierre, would be declared by the critics to be distinctly deficient in literary value; each would

be a popular success on the strength of the picturesque illusions it

provided. Olivia was "an opportunity to present a succession of

^^The Inter Ocean (Chicago), December 27, 1887.

^^Boston Post. January 24, 1888.

^^Boston Courier. January 29, 1888.

2%ew-York Times. March 6 , 1888. 131 scenes, , Madame San Gene "loose” but **plcturesque”;^^ King

Arthur the work of ”a clever journalist having a taste for verse” who had created an excuse for ”a beautiful show, The script of Dante 28 was "slipshod” but the production was "fine spectacle” and, although

Becket was a "wonderfully graphic illustration of England seven cen­ turies ago, , , .the less said about the dramatic values of the play the better,

So clamorous did the disparagement of the Lyceum's dramatic offerings become that the traditional repertoire began to receive the same criticism as the new offerings. Even The Bells. Irving's best known m elodram atic v e h ic le , was th e ta r g e t o f dero g ato ry comment. As early as 1895» The New York Dramatic Mirror would allow the play offered an excellent medium for the display of Irving's histrionic skills, but it was, after all, a "clumsy contrivance" as drama.

History would vindicate the literary judgment of the newspaper reviewers, Whatever their virtues in terms of illusions provided, the scripts those illusions depended upon barely outlived the life that

^^The North American (Philadelphia), December 20, I 887,

^^The Tribune (Chicago), December 7, 1901.

^‘^New-York Times. November 5. 1895. 28Hew York Dramatic Mirror. November 7, 1903.

^^The Chicago Times. October 22, 1893.

^%ew York Dramatic Mirror. December lif, 1895. 1 3 2

Irving gave them. According to Rigdon,^^ only four of the fourteen non-Shakespearean full-length plays in the Lyceum's total American repertoire were ever again produced in New York. Madame Sans Gene was produced in French by a repertory company under Madame Simone in 1924; it received twenty-four performances. The Bells. 'Made famous by Sir

Henry Irving" according to the advertisements, was revived in 1926 and perished ignominiously after fifteen performances. W ills' version of

Faust survived twenty-four performances in 192?, and Richelieu was added to Walter Hampton's repertoire in 1929. In the latter instance, however,' ihe Bulwer-Iytton script used by Irving was newly arranged and adapted for Hampton by Arthur Goodrich. Between 1929 and 1934 Hampton played the amended role ninety-eight times. After that, with the remainder of the traditional Lyceum scripts, it faded from the sight of a disillusioned new generation.

We have already seen that Irving did not depend entirely upon

offering new plays or traditional melodramas; a small portion of his

attractions consisted of Shakespearean scripts. Normally, the selection

of a play by Shakespeare would make the producer who chose i t immune to

derogatory literary criticism. Irving, however, did not achieve that

protection. He introduced two new Shakespearean productions to the

American public during the last six tours—Henry v m and Macbeth; the

first received dramatic and theatric criticism identical to that

awarded the lyceum's melodramatic offerings, the second was susceptible

^V alter Rigdon, The Biographical Encyclopaedia & Who's Who of the American Theatre. (New York: James H. Heineman, Inc., I 966 ), 3 - 5 ^ 133 to equivalent analyses. Both are illustrative of the English manager's growing concern with elaborate pictorial effects at the expense of dramatic content.

The Lyceum's Henry VTTT was introduced to the United States during the fourth tour. Tennyson's Becket, whose dramatic shortcomings and pictorial emphasis have already been noted, was the other new pro­ duction to be offered on that trip. The script by England's most renowned poet elicited the same American comment as that received by the work of her poet laureate.

Not even Henry Irving, the prince of illuminators and the most pictorial actor now before the public, can make Henry VTTT an entertaintog play. This Shakesperian drama should never be acted.32

The play, as all readers know, is part spectacle and part drama.35

In spite of the fact that the play was but "part drama" that

"should never be acted," it was fully appreciated for the visual and aural details with which Irving enhanced his production. The discipline and u n ity o f th e ensemble was warmly commended (" th e groupings J y e r e / contrived by a master hand"^); the harmonious stage pictures were enthusiastically applauded ("brilliant stage spectacle. . .of uncommon delicacy and imaginative beauty"^^) ; the musical support was readily

^^The Vforld (New York), December 5i 1893.

^%ew-York Daily Tribune. December 5. 1893.

^\ew York Herald. December 5, 1893.

33The Evening Post (New York), December 5, 1893. 134 endorsed (‘lovely incidental anisic runs throu^nt"^^); and the pictur­ esque uholesomeness of the production was gratefully acknowledged (”We see none of the hideous side of common life .”^^), Henry v m was a resounding success. The realms of the ideal to which Irving's audience demanded to be transported were obviously not ruled by a king with literary aspirations.

Criticism of Irving's Macbeth was an exception to the rule; the 1895 presentation was the only one besides Robespierre to escape the growing American carping about the dramatic values of the lyceum productions. However, it was not without fault in this regard,

Irving claimed he disapproved of cutting the Bard on the assumption “Shakespeare knows best, but he did not appear to have equivalent reservations about adding to the plays. For instance, the

Much Ado About Nothing he brought to this country in 1883 (and presented on three succeeding tours) included many textual additions. Those additions were, for the most part, drawn from other plays by the same author. They were thoroughly analyzed by the New-York Times in two extensive articles on March 14 and March 30, 1885, Interestingly enqugh, Irving must have fe lt the revelation to be detrimental to his image; neither article is included in his scrapbook for the second to u r,

^^The Evening Post (New York), December 5, 1893,

3^The Morning Advertiser (New York), December 5, 1893,

3?Hew-York Times. December 5, 1893.

3^he Evening News (Chicago), January 7, 1884, 135

Macbeth, too, contained additional material. 3h that instance, however, the material was not written by Shakespeare, and Irving very well knew it. The actor-manager's edition of The Works was published between 1888 and I 89O—concurrent with his London opening and five years before Macbeth was presented in America. That edition stressed the

Hecate scenes were undoubted corruptions of the text, written, perhaps, by Thomas Middleton. Nevertheless, the Hecate scenes, complete with music by Sir Arthur Sullivan, settings by Hawes Craven, and sixty witches were very apparent in the lyceum production.

Irving’s Faust had featured an elaborate Brocken Scene, fu ll of witches and supernatural creatures, already described here by the Chicago

Tribune. The lure the success of that idealized illusion achieved was too much; Irving repeated a similar effect in Macbeth. Unfortunately, his energies were misplaced.

A London correspondent sent the New-York Times a cabled review of the lyceum's English opening of Macbeth. He found "So vast and

splendid is the scale upon -jdiich the accessories, scenery and general picture are presented that one very nearly forgets Shakespeare. " As an

example of the splendor of the accessories, he specifically cited the

scene at the witches' caldron, where, after Macbeth "staggers out,"

the back of the cavern rises and a bewilderingly beautiful moon and broken water effect are disclosed, fu ll of dazzling light. As this descends, sixty witches are discovered, all clad in greenish-w hite gauze and a l l p o in tin g a t th e moonT^^

^%ew York Times. December 30, 1888. 136

The Ternes American reviewer chose to treat of the same scene in his critique of the New York opening seven years later. In the latter review the parallel between Irving's Faust and Macbeth was clearly drawn.

¥e never before saw the witch scenes so thoughtfully done,' with every possible pictorial accessory to give the effect of horror and mystery, and now that we have seen them so done we know," as some of us knew before, that the finest kind of stage art fails in such episodes. As in the ■Walpurgis Night of his sadly overrated "Faust, " so in these Middleton-Shakespeare scenes the imaginative spectator is bound to be disappointed.^®

Macbeth.' however,- was a success. I t was presented for twenigr- one performances to appreciative audiences during the fifth tour. Only the perennial Merchant of Venice and the elaborately mounted King Arthur received greater exposure. The additions to the script, although of dubious literary value or justification, facilitated the picturesque illu s io n s th a t had made th e Lyceum and i t s manager famous.

One might ask, "Why did Irving continue to produce the dramas he did in the face of the growing American disillusion with their content?"

We have already investigated one answer to that question; Irving had

transmuted the principles which governed his "successful" stage illusions

into a credo for playwriting. The scripts he chose to offer the American

public were wholesome, vivid, and fu ll of action—little matter that they

did not reflect literary merit. A second and equally important answer

presents itself, however. Irving was very much a creature of habit;

^^New-York Times. December 30, 1888. 137 once a practice was acclaimed a success, he adhered to it even when that . practice was obviously out of step with the changes of his time.

Irving's habit patterns were particularly noticeable in his stage management. The awesome illusions in Macbeth represented reaction to the favorable comment on the supernatural effects in Faust. The effects in Faust were offered in response to appreciation of the stage management on the original tours. In like manner, the throngs in Dante were a reflection of the groupings in Robespierre, tdiich were an echo of the crowd scenes in Becket; a ll were Irving's acknowledgment of the praise he received on his employment of supernumeraries in Much Ado About

Nothing and Twelfth Night. Irving was attuned to immediate favorable audience response. His American audience acclaimed his in itial pictures, and he continued to paint with iiie same brush. Reaction became habit, and habit dictated all.

Irving's compulsions were also apparent in his continued reliance

on traditional technical devices. For instsince, his stage lighting

techniques varied little throughout Hie twenty-one year span of the

American tours; even changes in the laws governing those practices could not persuade the Englishman his habits should be abandoned.

J u s t a f t e r th e end o f th e th ir d Lyceum to u r. C ongressional

hearings were conducted with a view toward amending the Federal Contract

Labor Law to include foreign actors and musicians. The result would be to

force impresarios in the United States to hire Americans, for foreign

performers affected by Hie Law could not enter this country under contract. American professionals banded together ass the Actors Order of 138

Friendship in order to posh passage of the amendment. Irving and other foreign stars were specifically exempted, however; the Americans pro­ fessed to object only . .to the host of minor actors they brought with them.”^^

Talk of the pending change in legislation had preceded the hearings, and Irving recognized immediately i t would hamper his habitual way of doing things. At his final curtain in New York he pleaded against an amendment to the Law.

Speaking generally for actors sometimes called dramatic artists whose destiny compels them to live across the sea, may I venture to express the hope that when they v isit America they may never find that the protection of your native industries is ever carried to the length of making foreign actors pay a duty.

Musicians, singers and actors were eventually classified as

"artists" and made exempt. Foreign technical personnel were not so fortunate, and the agitation originated by the Actors Order of Friendship caused sporadic attempts to enforce the letter of the Law. Five years later, idien Irving returned to this countiy, the immigration authorities tried to exclude the lyceum’s master gas man and three calcium light operators under its provisions. This threat to his habitual mode of operation was met head on. Henry Irving, Henry Abbey, Bram Stoker, and

H, J. Loveday, among others, were all present next day at the Immigration

^^ew-York -Times. December 14, 1888. ^%ew-York D aily Tribune. March 25, 1888. ^%ew-York D aily Tribune. August 27, 1893. 139 office. Discussion -was heated, but finally i t -was determined that

technicians, too, were "artists" and exempted from the Contract labor law. Irving's debating had preserved his traditional methods in the face of Federal intervention.

An analogous event occured during the final tour. During the

Chicago engagement,' Irving %as forbidden to use calcium ligh'ts for follow spots due to provisions in the new city fire code written after the Iroquois Theatre disaster. Although electric-arc spot lights were available, Irving was indignant over -the enforced change in his habi'tual procedures. He lost the battle to retain his lime lights,' but bera'ted officials ^ o had made him alter his plans. During his opening night cur'fcain speech he called "those officials "ja.cks-in-offioe" and -warned

/ i J i . his audience of "the "injustice" that had been done. Plainly, the chief injustice -was -the change in habit that had resulted.

Irving, a man of habit, content to elaborate on established techniques in stage management,' was also predisposed "to adhere to set-tied ideas in play selection. The critics might lament the scripts he chose to produce,' but Irving's habi"ts,' s-tronger "than "the law, were certainly compelling enough "to make him immune to mere literary com­ p la in ts .

Irving may have been consistent,' but America was not. As oldiers adopted the techniques he presented on the first tours and as fashions in dramaturgy shifted away from the melodramas upon which he relied, the original Irving impact upon America became obscured. The progress of

M l New-York Times. February 15, 1904. 140

America’s disillusion with the Englishman’s accomplishments can be

effectively traced at two convenient intervals. Ihe fourth tour

occured exactly ten years after the first and was the occasion for

. w ide-sprhad American comment upon ”The Irv in g In flu en ce. ” The eig h th

and final tour was initiated just twenty years after the first; the

Englishman's death eighteen months thereafter resulted in obituaries in

the American press ^ ich once again assessed his influence upon the

theatre in the United States. American acknowledgment of the actor-

manager’s influence would rapidly diminish as time progressed.

Looking backward over theatrical affairs for ten years anyone tdio has observed the stage must note that the Irving tour of 1883 marked a new era in the dramatic art of America. The decade just over is in every respect superior to the decade which preceded it. . .in the appropriate investing of plays, . . .and there were a score of instances in which the neglected drama was called to banish her rags and assume cloth of gold. It is important to remember t^ t. . .the lyceum company was both a precursor and a peer.^^

So stated the Chicago Tribune on the advent of Irving’s fourth tour v isit

to that city. The observation was an apt summary of American reaction to Irving in the first decade of his career in the United States. His

contemporaries readily acknowledged his influence on the native theatre.

Irving had caused the drama to be invested in "cloth of gold"; his

pictorial management had created harmonious illusions never before seen

here, and after ten years commentators s till praised the way his example

had altered the American stage for the better. His stage management.

^^The Tribune. (Chicago), October 1, 1893. 141 not his acting or his play selection, continued to be his greatest achievement in American minds. Witness this comment from Phil adelphia;

Mr, Irving’s great achievement as a stage artist is a familiar subject. No one before him has ever made the stage picture so complete, so harmonious, so beautiful. In this respect his art is consummate. It can be admired without aiy reservations, and its influence upon our stage has been p ro fo u n d .^

The influence of Irving’s management was so universally admitted by I 893 that even those who usually belittled him found themselves

supporting the general opinion. Nym Crinkle of the World, for instance,

had never been an admirer of the English actor-manager. From the

beginning of the first tour, Nym Crinkle's comments and reviews were so

caustic that they are conspicuous by their absence from the 1883-1884

scrapbooks. The World had declared Irving a "mechanician"^^ in 1883, and

had found his acting contained "no resonance" in 1884. On the third

to u r, in I 887, Crinkle continued his attacks, finding Irving’s presenta­

tions to be lacking in "spiritual significance. Nevertheless, he

joined thé majority in recognizing Irving’s influence upon American

theatre practice. In 1893, Crinkle stressed that the Englishman was weak

as an actor and showed undue reliance upon stage illusions to create

impressions his acting could not. However, Crinkle admitted "this is Mr.

^The Times (Philadelphia), February 11, 1894.

^^New York World. November 13, 1883. ^^%ew York World. November 16, 1884. ^^'%ew York World. November 7, I 887. 142

Irving*s especial tritmph. He is a shrewd,’ sagacious, and intelligent manager." Indeed,' the Englishman’s activities as a manager constituted th e "debt -which -the contemporaneous s-tage owes to Mr. Henry Irv in g .

Specifically,' the commen-ba-kors in 1893 found that Irving’s

contributions -fco American management practice were essentially those for which he was most warmly praised during "the firs t tours. The Commercial

Advertiser.' under a heading "Irving,' His Work and Genius," found -fchat

"The American playgoer has become accus-fcomed -to seeing -work done in -this

/Irving’£7 way." The ’‘way" to -tdiich The Advertiser was referring included "ensemble of a ll -the par-ts" and "illustration of -the drama-tic idea of -the play." Additionally, it -was emphasized -that Irving had also

contributed to -the social sta-kure of -the -thea-trical profession; he had

"enhanced -the d ig n ity o f -the stage a r t .

Co-ordination of -the ensemble and reinforcement of -the meaning of the script -through its s-taging were two of -the at-tributes of Irving’s management. The American designer, Richard Mars-ton, added ano-ther.

The beautiful work of Hawes Craven and o-ther fine artists awakened attention to the advanced views and practice of Irving, ■abo must be regarded as -the great exponent of -the principle of completeness in mise en scene. -5^

Stephen Fiske contributed his views to the growing acknowledg­ ments of -the Irving influence. "It is as a manager ra-ther -than as an ac-tor

•^Slew York World. November 19,' 1893.

^^The Commercial Advertiser (New York), March 3, 1894.

52Richard Mars-ton,' "Art in -the Theatre, ” The I^agazine of Art.' XVH (1894)," 168. ------143 that Irving has œcercised a tremendoiis influence,*' stated Fiske, then he went on to lis t specifics. Among those specifics were included Irving's subtle use of musical support, his masterful management of the super­ numeraries, and his use of harmonious lighting effects. Most important to Fiske, however, was the dignity the Englishman had attained for the c3 theatrical profession.

Among the most lauditory fourth tour comments on the influence

Irving had exercised through his manipulation of the ensemble, his thoroughness and attention to details, his harmonious blending of effects, and his social advancement of the profession was an effusive article by

William Ball. Although Mr. Ball intended to glorify Irving, the result was marred. Implicit in Ball's praise is an admission of the discontent we have noted before. Irving is defended against the American news­ papers which had "called into question the propriety of Mr. Irving staging 54 his plays with so much splendor." Irving's habits would betray him; the impact of his stage management, so lauded on the first tours and commended te n y ears l a t e r , would e v en tu ally be obscured by i t s own growing w ei^t. Emulation by Americans and the redundancy of Irving's methods would weaken "tiie Englishman's contribution in the minds of, his

United States contemporaries.

One facet of Irving's influence perceived by a portion of his

American critics, his elevation of the status of the theatrical

53stephen Fiske, "The Irving Influence in America, " The Theatre, n,s, XXVH (February 1, 1894), 75-80,

•5^illiam T, W, Ball, "Henry Irving's Influence upon the Stage," The New England Magazine, n.s. X, No. 2 (April, 1894), 173^183, 144 profession, did not receive universal praise. The anti-English prejudices originally voiced during the first tour continued to manifest themselves during ihe next ten years. As in the beginning, most of these prejudices were supported by the assumed financial hardships Idie

Lyceum successes were working on the American stage. The precarious financial condition of native professionals was one of the motivating factors in agitation for an amendment to the Contract labor Law.

Indeed, no naiscent American theatrical union save that of the musicians ever acknowledged Irving had contributed to the welfare of the profes­ sion. The musicians were predisposed to acclaim Irving only because they represented the single group of theatrical artists that he did not import \diolesale. In the words of the 1888 resolution granting the

Englishman honorary membership in the Musicians * Union, he "had always insisted on the numerical increase of the /hous£7 orchestra idierever he played.

The majority of the time, "üiose suffering from Anglo-phobia

supported the organized professionals in lamenting Irving’s alleged drain on American finances. Taggart’s Times devoted two articles in a

single issue to the controversy: one was entitled "Toadying to Irving" and the other was labeled "Social Snobbery Run Wild. " The gist of the articles is contained in the following:

. . .he /Irving is raking in cash by the thousands, which he w ill take away with him, and laugh up his sleeve at the

^■%ew-York Times. March 31, 1888, 145

’’gullible Yankees" as English actors usually consider American people.

The New York Herald expressed similar reservations in its report

of the lyceum receipts on the third tour. It editorialized on ’’the money wasted’’ on the Englishman’s attractions, queried its readers; ’’Do we have a national, representative theatre with a ll this expended money?’’ 57 and answered its own rhetorical question with a resounding negative.

The end of the first decade of the lyceum tours in the United

States occurred in a period of serious financial recession. The general

shortage of work both within and without the theatrical profession in­

creased American concern with the lyceum*s pecuniary success. This

concern considerably weakened the claim of Irving’s supporters that he

had contributed significantly to the social.status of the American

theatre. The Daily American ran a caricature of a greedy Irving clasping

two bulging sacks labeled with dollar signs. In the article accompanying

the drawing, the American noted:

Here, at the end of the most disasterous year ever known, idien we a ll turned out our old waistcoat pockets and crowed over a discovered dime, come the English actors to carry off the dollars we have scraped together. ■5°

A more serious threat to Irving’s declared beneficial influence

came from th e p ro fe ssio n i t s e l f . None o th e r than R ichard M ansfield was

^^Taggart’s Times (Philadelphia), December 18, 1887. '

^TNbtw York Herald. December 21, 1887. ^^The D aily American (New York), November 12, 1893. 146 loud in his complaints during the depression year. He asserted that eight thousand American actors were unemployed while "foreign artists ÇQ take the public's money.

Anglo-phobic tendencies reinforced by financial crises might have been sufficient to undermine the Englishman's claim to bettering the profession if it were not for two fortuitous circumstances. First,' the depression was soon over; second, the English actor achieved unimagined social distinction. In 1895 he became the first English actor to be awarded a knighthood.

3h an age when even rock-and-roll performers are common figures on the Queen's honors list,' the importance of Irving's elevation to slightly higher honors might be too easily underrated. To his contem­ poraries, however, the distinction forever silenced criticisms concerning his social distinction and his support of the theatrical profession.

Carping from the anti-English segment of the American press turned to other targets; Irving's financial successes were suddenly interpreted as rightful offerings to the Englishman's august presence, and his creden­ tials as a primary influence on the increased social stature of the theatrical profession were considered unassailable. Indeed,' Irving’s social position and its effect on that of his peers became so important in American thinking that by the time of his final tour this contribution to the American theatre outweighed a ll others and became,' in itself,' a condition that tended to obscure his in itial influence on United States theatre practice.

^^The World (New York), November 21, 1893. 147

The impact of Irving's knighthood may be gauged from the reaction of the two most prominent New York newspapers: %e Tribune.

TaV>if«Vi had unfailingly supported the Englishman's accomplishments, and the Times, which had questioned his motives and potential influence even before his arrival in this country. Both contributed extensive, lauditory comments to the occasion. Both dedicated editorials to the significance of Irving's knighthood to the profession in general. Both devoted two front page news articles to the event, ran lengthy interior features on the knighthood, and rushed to interview Irving on the status of the profession tdien he arrived that fall on his fifth American tour.^®’^^

Mr. Irving had become Sir Henry, and invariably the press of this country used his title to designate the actor in headlines, articles, and reviews. The Anglophiles and Anglophobes were united in their recogni­ tion of the great influence for the good of the stage that Irving's distinction represented.

Meanwhile, American disillusion with Irving's theatrical offerings continued to grow. The next ten years saw accelerating distrust of the

English knight's choice of plays. In the same period, the American stage witnessed wide-spread application of the staging principles Irving had once uniquely represented. His productions were no longer novel in so far as their stage management was concerned, for Irving held to his practice while America cau^t up with him.

^^ew-York Tribune. May 25, 26, 28; July 19; September 8, 1895.

^^ew-York Times. May 26; June 16; July 21; September 1, September 8, 1895. 148

The last decade of the nineteenth century -was an especially

important one in the evolution o f American theatre practice. Sumptuous, harmonious, carefully detailed visual effects were the forte of

Augustin Daly who had reached the zenith of his career by 1890. That

same year marked the beginning of David Belasco's activities as an

independent producer; he would soon startle his contemporaries with the

realistic illusions created for The First Bom (1892), Zaza (1899), and

Madame Butterfly (1900). Elaborate scenic effects were facilitated by

the innovations devised by Steele MacKaye for his never completed

Spectatorium (1893) and Scenitorium, which opened in 1894. By the end of

the decade, in 1899, manipulation of crowd scenes and spectacular scenic

effects reached new heights of excellence in the sensational Ben Hur.

AH of these were, in part, the result of Irving’s impact on the

first tours. However, in the period when great changes were shaping

American practice, Irving’s habits held him to his traditional patterns;

his effects were no longer new. Contemporary American critics recognized

th e f a c t:

In the production of ”Becket” he shows us no new thing in stage management or acting or dressing of the scene, nothing in the way of art superior to tdiat he showed us ten years ago.

So his production in 1893 was received. Six years later the same

theme was repeated. The stage management of the crowds in Robespierre were

b e s t d escrib ed by re fe re n c e to p a s t Lyceum successes.

^%ew~York Times. November 12, 1893. 149

The management of this great scene of confusion in the Chamber of Deputies may well be imagined by persons v b o remember other Irving productions,

Indeed, Irving had become so set in his practice the mid-

1890*s that he could not cope with unexpected situations. He had produced The Merchant of Venice a t West Point in 1888 without benefit of scenery, and his biographers were so proud that they invariably mentioned the fact. However, by I 896, habit was all; his traditional practices had to be observed. In April of that year, when the scenery for the same play failed to arrive on time for his Boston engagement, Irving cancelled the performance. The audience received its money back, and the theatre remained dark until Merchant could be presented in its habitual mounting.4.4 64

Hy the time of his death in 1905 the brilliance of the accomplish­ ments on the first tours had dimmed; American emulation of his techniques and gradual disillusion with the plays he produced were two of the reasons Irving’s in itial influence was forgotten. The American tributes paid the dead actor-manager illustrate the results of a third factor

Tdiich obscured his contributions to theatre practice—the impact of his effects was attenuated, to be supplanted by increased awareness of his social importance to the profession.

Sir Henry Irving died unexpectedly in England after a perform­ ance of Becket on Friday evening, October 14, I 905. As might be expected

^%ew-York Times. October 31, 1899.

^^Boston Journal. April 21, I 896. 1 50

at the death of a person of his prominence, his professional associates

in the tfaited States qtiickly released prepared statements to the press.

That most of ihe statements were prepared was indisputable, for identi­

cally worded comments appeared in newspapers as diverse in location and

distribution as the New York Times.The Chicago Tribune.and th e

Dramatic M irror.

The statements were especially significant for they reflected

those attributes of Irving’s career most readily remembered by his con­

federates in this country. Generally, comment emphasized three factors:

Irving’s acting, his stage management, and his contribution to the

social dignity of the theatre profession. Tributes in the Dramatic

Mirror are illustrative.

Admirers of the Englishman’s acting, typified by William Winter,

lamented that the English-speaking stage had lost its "greatest actor."

We have already noted that Irving’s influence on this country was not the

result of his acting, however, so these comments need not concern us here.

Statements on Irving’s stage management are of particular

interest because of their infrequency. Only two of the eleven American

professionals cited by the Mirror. David Belasco and Heinrich Conreid,

published regrets over the loss of an important stage manager, and these

^%ew York Times. October 14, 1905.

^^The Chicago Tribune. October 15, 1905.

^7pramatic Mirror (New York), October 21, 1905. 151 two appeared Influenced by their admiration of the English actor- manager *s dual function. Belasco stated, "he /Irving was the greatest actor and the greatest stage director of modem times, " and Conreid grieved that "the world has lost one of its greatest actors and surely the greatest of stage managers."

By far the preponderance of professional opinion focused on

Irving’s social influence. Otis Skinner felt the loss to the stage of

"the man who labored more nobly and effectively for its dignity and value than ai^ one since David Garrick. " Minnie Maddem Fiske observed,

"He /Irving has enobled dramatic art and conferred an added dignity to the profession. Even Richard Mansfield, who had complained so vociferously over the loss of work caused by the lyceum’s fourth tour, found Irving’s social attributes to be his principle contribution. The

Englishman was "generous to a fault" and "gave his whole life to his a r t . "69

Other assessments by general observers supported the opinion of the United States theatre professionals. The Nation thought Irving "the greatest of modem actor-managers," but qualified this point by noting he often "descended to popular melodrama." The conclusion of the article

stressed the Englishman’s indisputable contribution—his influence upon the enhanced social dignity of the profession. "He raised not only the

^^Dramatic Mirror (New York), October 21, I9 0 5.

^%ew York Times. October 14, 1905. 152 condition of the stage,' but the social position of the performers theaa- selves. The Times echoed this view in an editorial devoted to

Irving’s social attainments.

There are still exceptional barriers to be broken dcwn in order that an actor may be recognized as one of the glories of his country in which it is entitled to take pride, ill the more honor to S ir HENRY IRTTDIG, who managed to break those special barriers. ' ^

George Pierce Baker, soon to become perhaps the most important academic influence on American dramaturgy, carefully avoided mention of

the scripts Irving chose to produce. Instead, Professor Baker treated

the actor-manager’s attention to details.

A great manager and actor~he taught the public—espe­ cially in this country, to appreciate productions of plays Tdiich have been as artistic as they were sumptuous. His care as a manager moulded an infinitude of details into a whole so harmonious that only the experienced eye could detect the endless pains behind.

However, in his evaluation of Irving’s principle influence.

Baker agreed with the theatre professionals and general commentators.

The scholar, too, found the impact on American theatre practice made by

the Lyceum’s first tours to be a secondary consideration. He ended his

observations with a stress on the Englishman’s social stature.

For the last twenty-five years his presence has dignified the stage and the profession of the actor.

^°The Nation. October 19, 1905. 313-314.

^^New York Times. October 21, I 905. 72 "Henry Irving Dead," New England Magazine (November, I9 0 5), 330. 153

The death of Sir Henry overshadowed the influence of Mr. Irving.

The plays Irving produced would die with him; his habitual techniques of stage management, once extolled for their impact and influence on this country, had lost their novelty, but the recognition Sir Henry attained for his chosen profession remained. The ghost of the distinguished knight was greater than the spirit of the actor-manager; the larger of the two was the best remembered. CHAPTER VI

CONCLOSION

In the previous pages Irving's Amerioan oontemporaries have been allowed to speak for themselves. It is apparent that they did not speak with one voice. Anti-British prejudices often colored their opinions, and native patriotism as frequently led them to demean the Englishman's accomplishment. Nevertheless, Henry Irving and the company under his management created a profound impact upon the American theatre. An impact that, in many ways, had rmnarkably modem overtones.

Irving's staging theory and practice was, first of all, predicated on the assnmption that every facet of a theatrical production should be ultimately controlled by a single person. Only in this way conld the

-unity and harmony of the entire presentation be assured. Certainly this idea had falteringly evolved within America, but the lyceum productions on -the first tours represented an unforeseen culmination of the trend.

The English actor-manager 's disciplined, harmonious illusions were infinitely superior to American accomplishmen-ts prior to 1883, and native managers were quick to emulate -them.

Harmony, not spectacle, was the keys-tone. His American contem­ poraries recognized Irving's genius in the -thorough-going atten-tion to details -that marked his stage management. All production elemen-ts in -the lyceum representations, music, light, scenery, and costumes, were subor­ dinated to the unified -fdiole. The first tour presentations were remarkable in -that mere scenic display was obviously not the goal. Instead, the visual and aural factors of -the theatre were used -to

15^ 155 enhance the emotional tone of the scene and to reinforce the meaning of the script. Similarly, "üie co-ordinated ensemble of the entire company m s a revelation. That ensemble consisted of three elements: excellence in the acting of each member of the company, co-ordinated byplay between individuals within that company, and group action that m s orchestrated to achieve unified effect. Never before had Americans witnessed such conscientious management of the ensemble; the entire company, from principals to extras, contributed to the central idea of the play with­ out distractions or atdcmrdness.

Unfortunately, the lyceum’s impact m s obscured by many factors.

Among them were the alacrity with which Americans adopted the English­ man’s practices, Irving’s insistence he be considered an actor rather than a stage manager, his habitual adherence to standard practice, his espousal of a dramaturgy which m s behind the movemait in contemporary playwriting, and his increased social stature. This ^ tte r factor ms

especially important. In the United States as in England, Irving con­ tributed significantly to the social acceptance of the theatrical

profession. Indeed, so amre were his American critics of his contribu­

tions in this regard, that it overshadowed his influence on American

stag in g .

Irving’s theory of stage management, as eijqjounded in the United

States interviews, reveals that the Englishman ms consciously working

tomrd the goals he attained. A single mind, whose disciplined, thorough-going attention to all details created a unified production in

which every aspect contributed to the whole, ms Irving’s ideal. Stage 156 management shoiild assist the imagination and aid the audience better to understand the meaning of the play. Regrettably, his espousal of immediate audience response as the single criterion for success led

Irving to elaborate upon already proved spectacular effect rather than to improve upon the subtlety of past accomplishment. 3h addition, he

•ms led to postulate standards for playwriting -sdiich reflected his management practice. The wholesome, idealized plays he admired were antithetical to the growing school of realistic drama. He slighted

Shakespeare on his American tours and presented plays whose literary merit was of dubious distinction.

In total, the original influence of the Lyceum productions as perceived by their American contemporaries was attenuated. When his stage management is remembered today it is for the spectacular visual effects Irving created. This view is in error. Irving’s original con­ tribution was toward the idea of subtle, co-ordinated, harmonious, unified

I effects which encompassed both aural and visual factors and employed both actors and scenic devices. The unity and discipline tdiich mark the goals of the best American staging today were brought here by British invaders in the eighth decade of the nineteenth century—Henry Irving and the Lyceum company. APPENDIX

HENRY IRVING'S TOURS OF NORTH AMERICA

Date C ity Theatre Events of Interest

FIRST TOUR: 1883-1884

Oct. 29 New York Star Theatre The B ells F irst production in Tftiited States Oct. 30 II II Charles I First production in United States Oct. 31 II It 11 Nov. 1 II II II Nov. 2 II II II Nov. 3 II II II (Matinee) The Bells (Evening)

Nov. 4 SUNDAY Nov. 5 II If Louis XI First production in United States Nov. 6 II It Merchant of Venice First production in Uhited States Nov. 7 II ff II Nov. 8 II II 11 Nov. 9 II If II Nov. 10 II II II (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Nov. 11 SUNDAY Nov. 12 " II Itvons Mail First production in United States Nov. 13 " II II Nov. 14 II It Merchant of Venice Nov. 15 " II It Nov. 16 II II It Nov. 17 II II Louis XI (Matinee) Date C ity Theatre Play Events of Interest

Nov. 18 SDNràï Nov. 19 New York Star Theatre Belle's Stratagem The B ells Nov. 20 " Louis H Professional Matinee Belle's Stratagem The B ells Nov. 21 II Louis XI Nov. 22 It Lyons Mail Nov. 23 II Merchant of Venice Nov. 24 II Belle's Stratagem (Matinee) The B ells (M atinee) Richard 111 - Act I (Evening) Belle's Stratagem (Evening) Eugene Aram (Poem)

Nov. 25 SDND/LY Nov. 26 P hiladelphia Chestnut St. Louis XI Opera House Nov. 27 II II It Nov. 28 n » Merchant c Nov. 29 II II II Nov. 30 It II It (M atinee) Dec. 1 II It It (M atinee) The B e lls Penn Club reception after play

Dec. 2 SDNmY Dec. 3 II " Charles I Dec. 4 II " Hamlet First production in United States Dec. 5 tt II tt Dec. 6 11 1! It Dec. 7 It " Charles I Dec. 8 It " The B e lls

The B ells (Evening) Belle's Stratagaa (Evening) Date Theatre P lay Events of Interest

Deo. 9 SUm&T Dec, 10 Boston Boston Theatre Louis XI Deo. 11 " Deo. 12 " Merchant of Venice Deo. 13 " Deo. 14 " Deo. 15 " " (M atinee) The B ells (Evening) Captain of the Watch First Production in United States (Evening) St. Batolph's Club reception

Deo. 16 SüNDàY "Elegant” Somerset Club dinner Deo. 17 ’■ tt C harles I Deo. 18 '■ II Lyons Mail Deo. 19 " ÎI Hamlet Deo. 20 " II Deo. 21 " IT Lyons Mail Deo. 22 " II Charles I (Matinee) The Bells (Evening) Belle's Stratagem (Evening)

Deo. 23 SONDAT Deo. 24 Baltim ore Academy-Music Louis XI Deo. 25 " II Merchant of Venice Christmas Deo. 26 " tl Deo. 27 " Hamlet Deo. 28 " The B ells Belle's Stratagem Deo. 29 " Charles I (Matinee) The Bells (Evening) Belle's Stratagem (Evening) Date City Theatre Play Events of Interest

Dec. 30 SUNDAY Dec. 31 Brooklyn Haverly's loxtis XI Jan. 1 " " " Jan. 2 " " Merchant o f Venice Jan. 3 " " " Jan. 4 " " The B ells B elle's Stratagem Jan. 5 " " Charles I (M atinee) The B ells (Evening) Belle's Stratagem (Evening)

Jan. 6 SUNDAY Jan. 7 Oiicago Haverly's Louis XI Jan. 8 " " " Jan. 9 " " Merchant of Venice Jan. 10 " " " Jan. 11 " " " Jan. 12 " " " (M atinee) The Bells (Evening) Reception: Chicago Press Club Captain of the Watch (Evening)

Jan. 13 SUNDAY Jan. 14 " ” Lyons M ail Jan. 15 ft II II Jan. 16 II Jan. 17 " " Louis Acts 2, 4, and 5 B elle's Stratagem Jan. 18 " " The B e lls Belle's Stratagem Jan. 19 " " Charles I (Matinee) The B e lls (Evening) I-& Belle's StMitagem (Evening) ^ Bate Theatre Play Events of Interest

Jan. 20 SONIAT Jan. 21 St. Louis Olympic Louis XI Jan. 22 " II Merchant of Venice Jan. 23 " ff Jan. 24 " Lyons Mail Jan. 25 " Belle's Stratagaa The B ells Jan. 26 " Charles I (Matinee) B elle's Stratagem (Evening) The Bells (Evening)

Jan. 27 SOKIAY Jan. 28 Cincinnati Grand Opera Louis XI House Jan. 29 II It Merchant of Venice Jan. 30 II II II Jan. 31 II II Lyons Mail Feb. 1 11 II Belle's Stratagem The B ells Feb. 2 Charles I (Matinee) Belle's Stratagem (Evening) The Bells (Evening)

Feb. 3 SUNTAY Feb. 4 Columbus, 0. Comstock's Belle's Stratagem Opera House The Bells Feb. 5 " Belle's Stratagem Louis XI Feb. 6 Indianapolis English's Opera Belle's Stratagem House The Bells Feb. 7 " B e lle 's Stratagam Louis XI os Feb. 8 II " Merchant of Venice Feb. 9 II Charles I (Matinee) The B ells (Evening) Merchant of Venice (Act 4) Date City Theatre Events of Interest

Feb. 10 SUNDHT Feb. 11 Chicago H averly’s Belle’s Stratagem The B ells Feb. 12 " Belle’s Stratagem Lotiis H Feb. 13 tl ff Hamlet Feb. 14 II ft Feb. 15 It II Much A

Feb. 17 SUNDAY Feb. 18 Detroit Whitney’s Belle’s Stratagem Opera House The B ells Feb. 19 " Belle’s Stratagem Louis XI Feb. 20 Only Day off on tour - visit to Niagara Falls Feb. 21 Toronto Grand Opera Belle * s Stratagem House The B ells Feb. 22 II Merchant of Venice Feb. 23 tt Charles I (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Feb. 24 SUNDAY Feb. 25 Boston Boston Theatre Belle’s Stratagaa Louis XI Feb. 26 " Belle’s Stratagem The B ells Feb. 27 Much Ado About Noidiing Feb. 28 It Feb. 29 Merchant of Venice March 1 Much Ado About Nothing March 2 Date C ity Theatre Events of Interest

Mar. 2 SUNDAY Mar. 3 Washington N ational Belle's Stratagem LoTils ^ Mar. 4 II It Belle's Stratagem The B ells Mar. 5 II II Hamlet Mar. 6 It It Merchant of Venice Mar. 7 tt tt Much Ado About Nothing Mar. 8 It II " (Matinee; Belle's Stratagem (Evening) Louis XI (Evening)

Mar. 9 SUNDAY Mar. 10 New Haven, Carll's Opera Louis XI Ellen Terry Off for Week Conn. House Mar. 11 WorChester, W orchester Louis XI M Mass. Mar. ■ 12 Springfield, G ilm ore's Louis XI Mass. Opera House Mar. 13 H artford, R o b ert's Louis XI Conn. Opera House Mar. 14 Providence, Low's Grand Louis XI R.I. Opera House Mar. 15 tl tt The B ells (M atinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Mar. 16 SUNDAY Mar. 17 Philadelphia Chestnut St. Belle's Stratagem Opera House Louis XI Mar. 18 Much Ado About Nothing Mar. 19 tr Mar. 20 II Mar. 21 Merchant of Venice Mar. 22 Much Ado About Nothing (Matinee) & The B ells (Evening) Merchant of Venice (Act 4) (Evening) Date Theatre HLay Events of Interest

Mar. 23 SDNDAY Mar, 24 Brooklyn H averly’s Merchant of Venice Mar. 25 " II If Mar. 26 " Belle’s Stratagem The B ells Mar. 27 " lyons M ail Mar. 28 " If Mar. 29 " Merchant of Venice (Matinee) loTiis XI (Evening)

Mar. 30 SÜNMT Mar. 31 New York Star Theatre Much Ado About Nothing Apr. 1 Apr. 2 Apr. 3 Apr. 4 Apr. 5 (M atinee) lyons Mail (Evening)

Apr. 6 SÜNIAY Apr. 7 Much Ado About Nothing Apr. 8 Apr. 9 Apr. 10 Apr. 11 Apr. 12 (M atinee) Louis XI (Evening)

M- Date City Theatre Play Events of Interest

Apr. 13 SDNDA.T Apr. 14 New York Star Theatre Much Ado About Nothing Apr. 15 Apr. 16 Apr. 17 Apr. 18 Apr. 19 (M atinee) Captain o f th e Watch (Evening) The B e lls (Evening)

Apr. 20 SÜNIAY Apr. 21 " Much Ado About Nothing Merchant (Act 4) at Benefit for Abbey Apr. 22 Louis M Apr. 23 Merchant of Venice Apr. 24 Apr. 25 C harles I Apr. 26 Louis XI (Matinee) Merchant of Ve^ce (Act 4) (Evening) Louis XI %Act 4) (Evening) Charles I (Act 3) (Evening) Much Ado About Nothing (Act 4) (Evening)

5^ Date Theatre Play Events of Interest

SECOND TOUR - 1884-1885

S ept, 30 Quebec Music Hall Merchant of Venice Oct. 1 Montreal Acadengr o f Louis XI Music Oct. 2 " Much Ado About Nothing Oct. 3 " Hamlet Oct. 4 " Merchant of Venice (Matinee) The Bells~TEv9ning)

Oct. 5 SUNDAY Oct. 6 London, Ont. Grand Opera Louis XI House Oct. 7 Hamilton, Ont. Grand Opera Louis XI House Oct. 8 Toronto Grand Opera Merchant of Venice House Oct. 9 ft ft Much Ado About Nothing Oct. 10 tt Hamlet Oct. 11 ft Much Ado About Nothing (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Oct. 12 SUNDAY Oct. 13 B uffalo Academy of Louis XI Music Oct. 14 " Much Ado About Nothing Oct. 15 " Merchant of Venice Oct. 16 Syracuse Wieting Opera Louis XI House Oct. 17 " tl Merchant of Venice Oct. 18 " tl Much Ado About Nothing (Matinee) (Evening) No performance - en route to Boston os ON Date C ity Theatre Play Events of Interest

Oct. 19 SUNDAY Oct, 20 Boston SLobe Hamlet Got. 21 If II It Oct. 22 II tl It Oct. 23 II It Merchant of Venice Oct. 24 ft II tt Oct. 25 II II Hamlet (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Oct. 26 SUNDAY Oct. 27 It II Merchant of Venice Oct. 28 ft tl Much Ado About Noidilng Oct. 29 It II II Oct. 30 It II It Oct. 31 It tl tl Nov. 1 It II Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Lyons Mail (Evening)

Nov. 2 SUNDAY Nov. 3 ft Much Ado About Nothing Nov. 4 ft II Louis XI Election night Nov. 5 II If Twelfth Night First production in Ifaited States Nov. 6 fl II It II Nov. 7 ft tt Nov. 8 It ft ” (M atinee) Crammond B rig (Evening) The B ells (Evening) Nov. 9 SUNDiY Nov. 10 New York Star Theatre Merchant of Venice Nov. 11 II It II ' Nov. 12 II It It tt Nov. 13 Much Ado About Nothing II t-* Nov. 14 tt o\ It It -o Nov. 15 Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening) Date CISC Theatre Events of Interest Nov. 16 SUNDA.T Nov. 17 New York Star Theatre ItVPns M ail Nov. 18 " Twelfth Night Nov. 19 " Nov. 20 " Louis XI (Act 4) at Elks benefit Nov. 21 " Merohant of Yer^oe Nov. 22 »' Twelfth Night (Matinee) Lyons Mail (Evening )

Nov. 23 SONIAY Nov. 24 " Twelfth Night Nov. 25 " tt Nov. 26 " Hamlet Fire on Stage - Panic averted Nov. 27 " Thanksgiving Nov. 28 " Nov. 29 " " (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Nov. 30 SUNDAY Dec. 1 " It Merchant of Venice Dee. 2 " tl H arnlet. Dec. 3 " tl Much Ado About Nothing Dec. 4 " It Twelfth Night Merchant (Act 4) - Actor’s fund b e n e fit Dec. 5 " ft Charles I Dec. 6 ” It Twelfth N i^t (M (Mati atinee) The BeHs (Evening)

& Date City Theatre Play Events of Interest

Dec. 7 SUNDAY Dec. 8 Hiiladelphia Chestnut St. Merchant of Venice Opera House Dec. 9 " " " Dec. 10 " " Hamlet Dec. 11 " " Much Ado About Nothing Dec. 12 I! Dec. 13 " " Merchant of Venice (Matinee) louis XI (Evening)

Dec. 14 SUNDAY Dec. 15 " " Ijyons M ail Dee. 16 " " Tw elfth N ight Dec. 17 " " " Dec. 18 " " Hamlet Dec. 19 " " Merchant of Veirice Dec. 20 " " Twelfth______Nighti ^ t (Matinee) The Bells (Evening)

Dec. 21 SUNDAY Deo. 22 Pittsburg Opera House Louis XI Dec. 23 " " M erchant o f Venice Dec. 24 No performance - Christmas Dec. 25 No performance - Christmas Dec. 26 " " Much Ado About Nothing Dec. 27 " " Merchant of Venice (Matinee) The B e l l s lEvening) Date Çit% Theatre P lay Ev«nts of Interest Dec. 28 SDND&T Dec. 29 Cleveland Opera House louis XI Dec. 30 ff Merchant of Venice Dec. 31 t! Much Ado About Nothing Jan. 1 No performance - New Years Day Jan. 2 D e tro it W hitn^’s (k*and Merchant of Venice Opera House Jan. 3 It II Much Ado About Nothing (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening]

Jan. 4 SUND&Y Jan. 5 Chicago H averly’s Merchant o f Venice Jan. 6 II II Jan. 7 II II Hamlet Jan. 8 It II Jan. 9 II II Charles I Jan. 10 II 11 Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Ivons Mail (Evening)

Jan. 11 SÜNDA.Y Jan. 12 IIII Twelfth Night Jan. 13 It II Crammond B rig The B ells Jan. 14 II II Crammond B rig F irst performance in United States Eugene Aram Gordon Craig’s first stage appearance Jan. 15 II 11 Much Ado About Nothing Jan. 16 II II Twelfth Night Jan. 17 IIII " (M atinee) Crammond B rig (Evening) The B ells (Evening) Date City Theatre Events of Interest

Jan . 18 SDNTAT Jan . 19 Chicago H averly’s Much Ado About Nothing Jan . 20 " It R ichelieu First performance in Ihiited States Jan . 21 " II II Jan . 22 " ft Charles I Jan . 23 " U Crammond Brig Eugene Aram Jan. 24 " Richelieu (Matinee) Crammond Brig (Evening) Eugene Aram (Evening)

Jan. 25 SDNIAY Jan. 26 " II Merchant of Venice Jan . 27 " If Hamlet Jan . 28 " II Much Ado About Nothing Jan . 29 " II Louis XI Chicago Theatre Mechanics Benefit Eugene Aram (Poem) Jan . 30 " II Eugene Aram Jan . 31 " It Much Ado About Nothing (Matinee) Louis XI (Act 2) (Evening) Charles I (Act 3) (Evening) Merchant of Venice (Act 4) (Evening) The Bells~7Âct 3) (Evening)

Feb. 1 SUNIAY Feb. 2 Tffeshington Albaugh’s Crammond Brig Opera House The B ells Feb. 3 II Merchant of Venice Feb. 4 II C harles I Feb. 5 II Eugene Aram Feb. 6 II Much Ado About Nothing Feb. 7 II Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening) -oI-*- Date C ity Theatre HLay Events of Interest

Feb, 8 SDNDA.Ï Feb. 9 Philadelphia Chestnut St. Eugene Aram Opera House Feb. 10 II II Merchant of Venice Feb. 11 11 11 Much Ado About Nothing Feb. 12 II Twelfth Night Feb. 13 II II Charles I Feb. 14 II II Much Ado About Nothing (Matinee) Louis XI (Act 4) (Evening) The B ells (Evening)

Feb. 15 8UNDA.T Feb. 16 Boston (xLobe Eugene Aram Feb. 17 II II Merchant of Venice Louis XI (Act 2) - Elks Benefit Feb. 18 II II Much Ado About Nothing Feb. 19 II II C harles I Feb. 20 II II Twelfth Night Feb. 21 II II " (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Feb. 22 SDNDA.T Feb. 23 II 11 Merchant of Venice Feb. 24 II II Eugene Aram Feb. 25 II II Much Ado About Nothing Irving H I - Did not perform Feb. 26 II II Merchant of Venice II II II II II Feb. 27 II II II II Feb. 28 II II Much Ado About Nothing ft (M atineeT^ Louis XI (Evening)

73 Date C ity Theatre Events of Interest

Mar. 1 SUNDAY Mar. 2 Brooklyn Brooklyn Merchant of Venice Theatre Mar. 3 Lyons Mail Mar. 4 Charles I Mar. 5 Much Ado About Nothing Mar. 6 Merchant of Venice Mar. 7 Much Ado About Nothing No Matinee

Mar. 8 SUNDAY Mar. 9 New York Star Theatre Eugene Aram Mar. 10 It Mar. 11 Much Ado About Nothing Mar. 12 Merchant of Venice Mar. 13 Twelfth Night Mar. 14 " (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Mar. 15 SUNDAY Mar. 16 Much Ado About Nothing Mar. 17 Merchant of Venice Mar. 18 Twelfth Night Mar, 19 Charles I Mar. 20 Merchant of Venice Mar. 21 Much Ado About Nothing (Matinee) Lyons Mail (Evening)

3 Date Çit% Theatre K êZ Events of Interest Mar. 22 STJNIAY Mar. 23 New York Star Theatre Merchant of Venioe Mar. 24 Much Ado About Nothing Mar. 25 Twelfth Night Mar. 26 Hamlet Mar. 27 Much Ado About N o t h ^ Mar. 28 Merchant of Venice (Mhtinee) The B ellslEvenlng)

Mar. 29 SUNDAY Mar. 30 " Twelfth Night Irving absent - Harvard address "The A rt o f A cting" Mar. 31 Much Ado About Nothing Apr. 1 Merchant of Venice (iMatinee) Apr. 1 The B ells^Evening ) Apr. 2 Charles I Apr. 3 Much Ado About Nothing Apr. 4 Louis XI (Matinee) Merchant of Venice (Evening)

Apr. 5 SUNDAY Apr. 6 Testimonial Dinner a t Del Monico's Date C ity Theatre Events of Interest

THIRD TOUR - 1887-1888

Nov, 7 New York Star Theatre Faust Nov. 8 It II It Nov. 9 tl II II Nov. 10 It 11 11 Nov. 11 tl II II Nov. 12 II II " (Matinee) The B ells

Nov. 13 SÜND4Y Nov. 14 II II F aust Nov. 15 If II II Nov. 16 It II II Nov. 17 tl IIII Nov. 18 It II II Nov. 19 II II " (M atinee) Louis XI

Nov. 20 SDNDAY Nov. 21 II II Faust Nov. 22 II It II Nov. 23 II II ft Nov. 24 II It II Nov. 25 It tl « Nov. 26 II II " (Matinee) Jingle (Evening) The B ells (Evening)

i-k Bate C ity Theatre Play Events of Interest

Nov. 27 SUNDAY Nov. 28 New York Star Theatre FaTist Nov. 29 II 11 II Matinee Benefit - Beecher Statue " (Evening) Fund Nov. 30 ff ff If tl II ft Dec. 1 Actor’s Fund Benefit - Jingle Dec. 2 11 II 11 Dec. 3 It 11 " (M atinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Dec. 4 SUNDAY Dec. 5 II F aust Dec. 6 It II Merchant of Venice Dec. 7 II II tl Dec. 8 11 It II Irving Honorary Member Mutual Protective Union Dec. 9 IIII It Dec. 10 II II " (Matinee) Jingle (Evening) Louis XI (Evening)

Dec, 11 SUNDAY Dec. 12 Philadelphia Chestnut St, F aust Opera House Dec. 13 It II II Dec. 14 11 IIII Dec. 15 II It 11 Dec. 16 11 II II Dec. 17 11 II " (M atinee) Jingle (Evening) The B ells (Evening) Date C ^ Theatre Play Events of Interest

Dec, 18 SUNDA.Y Dec, 19 Philadelphia Chestnut St. Olivia First production in United States Opera House Dec, 20 II II It Irving Lecture, ’’English Actors” - Contemporary Club Dec, 21 II tl ” (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening) Eugene Aram (Poem) Dec, 22 11 If O liv ia Dec. 23 II II Merchant of Venice Dec, 24 No performance - en route Chicago

Dec, 25 SDNDiY Dec, 26 Chicago McVicker*s F aust Deo, 27 M » 11 Dec, 28 It II II Dec, 29 II If II Dec, 30 II IIII Dec. 31 11 ” (Matinee) Jingle (Evening) The B ells (Evening)

Jan, 1 SUNEAT Jan, 2 ” If F aust Jan, 3 It tl It tl Jan. 4 « II Jan. 5 tl It II Jan, 6 IIIIII Jan, 7 It f t ” (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening)

I-* Date C ity Theatre Play Events of Interest

Jan. 8 SDNTAY Jan. 9 Chicago McVioker*s Merchant of Venice Jan. 10 II It F aust Jan. 11 II If II Jan. 12 ff « II Jan. 13 II II Merchant of Venice Jan. 14 11 II " (Matinee) Jingle (Evening) The B ells (Evening)

Jan. 15 SüNDàY Jan. 16 II II O liv ia Jan. 17 fi IIII Jan. 18 If If II Jan. 19 n II Louis XI Jan. 20 IIII Merchant of Venice (Act Louis XI (Act 2) The Bells (Act 3) Olivia (Act 3) Jan. 21 It ft O liv ia No evening performance - en route Boston

Jan. 22 SUNDAY Jan. 23 Boston Boston Theatre F aust Jan. 24 II It II Jan. 25 If It It II Jan. 2 6 IIII Jan. 27 II IIII Jan. 28 II II " (M atinee) Jingle (Evening) The Bells (Evening)

•â Date C ity Theatre F lay Events of Interest

Jan. 29 SDNDA.Ï Jan. 30 Boston Boston Theatre Faust Jan. 31 tl Feb. 1 " tl Feb. 2 " Feb. 3 " Feb. 4 " " (Matinee) louis XI (Evening)

Feb. 5 SUNDAY Feb. 6 tl F aust Feb. 7 tl O liv ia Feb. 8 11 Misc. reading for benefit - Boston School of Expression Feb. 9 It Feb. 10 II lyons Mail Feb. 11 II Olivia (Matinee) Lyons Mail (Evening)

Feb. 12 SUNDAY Feb. 13 " 11 F au st Feb. 14 " tl II Feb. 15 " II Merchant of Vei^ce Feb. 16 " It Faust (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening) Feb. 17 " II Lyons Mail Feb. 18 " ft Louis XI (Matinee) Merchant of Venice (Evening) Date Çitg; Theatre KLay Events of Interest

Feb. 19 SUNTAY Feb. 20 New York Star Theatre Olivia Feb. 21 Feb. 22 Feb. 23 Feb. 24 Feb. 25 (M atinee) Lyons Mail (Evening)

Feb. 26 SUNDAY Feb. 27 Lyons Mail Feb. 28 O liv ia Feb. 29 Mar. 1 Mar. 2 Mar. 3 " (Matinee) Lyons Mail (Evening)

Mar. 4 SUNDAY Mar. 5 F aust Mar. 6 Mar. 7 Mar. 8 Mar. 9 Mar. 10 (M atinee) Louis XI (Evening)

00 o Date Theatre KLay Events of Interest

Mar. 11 SD1ÎDA.Y Mar. 12 New York Star Theatre F aust Mar. 13 " tt It Mar. 14 " II It Mar. 15 ” tl It Mar. 16 " IJ tt Lecture by Irving, "Goethe as Stage Manager" to Goethe Society Mar. 17 " " (Matinee) Jingle (Evening) The Bells (Evening)

Mar. 18 SUNDAY Mar. 19 West Point Merchant of Venice Special performance without scenery Mar. 20 New York Star Theatre Faust Mar. 21 " Merchant of Venice Mar. 22 " O liv ia Mar. 23 " Merchant of Venice Mar. 24 " louis XI ^Matinee) Olivia~TEvenlng )

Mar. 25 SUNDAY

00 Date C ity Theatre Play Events of Interest

FOURTH TOUR - 1893-1894

Sept. 4 San Francisco Grand Opera Nance Oldfield House The B ells S ept. 5 ff II Merchant of Venice Sept. 6 If II Becket First performance in S ept. 7 Tl II II Sept. 8 It II 11 Sept. 9 ff II " (Matinee) Lyons Mail (Evening)

S ept. 10 SUKDAY Sept. 11 11 II O liv ia S ept. 12 II II C harles I Sept. 13 II II Merchant of Venice Sept. 14 II II II Sept. 15 II II Becket Sept. 16 II II Merchant of Venice (Llatinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Sept. 17 SUHDA.Y Sept. 18 P o rtlan d , Ore, Marquam’Grand Merchant of Venice Opera House S ept. 19 II fl Nance Oldfield The B ells S ept. 20 Seattle Seattle Merchant of Venice T heatre Sept. 21 Tacoma Tacoma Theatre Merchant of Venice S ept. 22 En Route M inneapolis S ept. 23 II II II

Sept. 24 8 Date C ity Theatre Play Events of Interest

S ept. 24 SONDAT Sept. 25 En ro u te M inneapolis S ept. 26 Minneapolis Grand Opera Nance Oldfield House The B ells S ept. 27 « It Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening) S ept. 28 S t. Paul Metropolitan Becket Opera House Sept. 29 " t l Nance Oldfield The B ells Sept. 30 " tl Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Oct. 1 SUNDAY Oct. 2 Chicago Columbia Merchant.of Venice Oct. 3 II Oct. 4 " IIII Oct. 5 " II Oct. 6 ” It II Oct. 7 " 11 " (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Oct. 8 SUNDAY Oct. 9 " tl Merchant of Venice Oct. 10 " ft Oct. 11 " tt II O ct. 12 " U II O ct. 13 " tl II Oct. 14 " tl " (Matinee) A Regular Fix (Evening) The B ells (Evening) 3 Date City Theatre Play Events of Interest

Oct. 15 SDM&T Oct. 16 Chicago Colombia Becket Oct. 17 II II 1' Oct. 18 " " I t Oct. 19 " " " Oct. 20 " " " Oct. 21 " " " (M atinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Oct. 22 SUNDAY Oct. 23 " " Becket Oct. 24 " " " Oct. 25 " " " (M atinee) Nance Oldfield (Evening) The Bells (Evening) Oct. 26 " ” Becket Oct. 27 " " " Oct. 28 " " " (Matinee) Nance Oldfield (Evening) The Bells (Evening)

O ct. 29 SUNDAY Oct. 30 " " Merchant of Venice Oct. 31 " " " Nov. 1 " " " Nov. 2 ” " Becket Irving-address - "Shakespeare as Playwright," Contemporary Club Nov. 3 " " " Nov. 4 " " Merchant______o f Venice (M (M atinee) atinee) Louis XI (Evening)

I Date C ity Theatre Events of Interest

Nov. 5 SUNDA.T Nov. 6 No performance - election night Nov. 7 It It tt It Nov. 8 New York Abbey’s Becket Opening of Abbey’s Theatre Nov. 9 It 11 II Nov. 10 n 11 II Nov. 11 It II " (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Nov. 12 SUNDAY Nov. 13 II II Becket Nov. 14 11 II II Nov. 15 IIIIII Nov. 16 ft 11 tl Nov. 17 11 11 It Nov. 18 -11 II ” (Matinee) A Regular Fix (Evening) The B ells (Evening)

Nov. 19 SUNDAY Nov. 20 II ff Becket Nov. 21 It II Nov. 22 IIII 11 Nov. 23 II 11 11 Nov. 24 It t l II Nov. 25 IIII " (Matinee) lonis XI (Evening) Date Çitg: Theatre Events of Interest Nov. 26 SUNDAY Nov. 27 New York Abbey's Merchant o f Venice Nov. 28 " It Nov. 29 " II Nov. 30 " tl Dec. 1 " II Deo. 2 " tl (M atinee) A Regular Fi% (Evening) The B ells (Evening)

Deo. 3 SUNDAY Deo. 4 " i t Henry v m First production in United States Deo. 5 " II fl Deo. 6 •' 21 Deo. 7 " II Deo. 8 " t l Deo. 9 " 1! *' (Matinee) lyons Mall (Evening)

Deo. 10 SUNDAY Deo. 11 " Henry v m Deo. 12 t l Deo. 13 " Deo. 14 »' Deo. 15 " Deo. 16 •' " (M atinee) Lyons Mail (Evening) Date C ity Theatre Play Events of Interest

Dec, 1 7 SÜNDA.T Dec. 1 8 New York Abbey's Henry v m II II Dec. 1 9 Merchant of Venice It Dec. 2 0 II II Dec. 2 1 II tt Becket 11 Deo. 2 2 11 II 11 Dec. 2 3 " (M atinee) Louis XI (Evening) D Dec. 2 4 SUNDAY II It Dec. 2 5 Merchant of Venice Dec. 2 6 It 11 Nance Oldfield The BÆ ls If II Dec. 2 7 Nance Oldfield The B ells Dec. 2 8 tl tl O liv ia ft t l Dec. 2 9 Merchant of Vaiice Dec. 3 0 It tl Louis XI (Matinee) Olivla'TEvening )

Dec. 3 1 SUNDAY Jan. 1 Boston Tremont Becket Jan. 2 If fl II It ft tt Jan. 3 Jan. 4 II 11 II 11 Jan. 5 Jan. 6 II II " (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening) Date City Theatre Play Events of Interest

Jan. 7 SDNDA.T Jan. 8 Boston Tremont Henry v m Jan. 9 " n Jan. 10 " Jan. 11 " II Jan. 12 " w Jan. 13 " (Matinee) A Regular Fix (Evening) The B ells (Evening)

Jan. 14 STJHIAY Jan. 15 Henry VTH Jan. 16 C harles I Jan. 17 Merchant of Venioe Jan. 18 Jan. 19 Jan. 20 " (Matinee) Lyons Mail (Evening)

Jan. 21 SDND/LY Jan. 22 «' II Becket Jan. 23 »' II O liv ia Jan. 24 fl II Jan. 25 ” It Mance O ld fie ld The B ells Jan. 26 *' II Merchant of Venice Jan. 27 " ft Louis XI "TMatinee) Jan. 27 fl Nance Oldfield (Evening) Merchant of Venice (Act 4) (Evening) Olivia (Act 3) (Evening) Eugene Aram (Poem) (Evening)

i Date City Theatre KLay Events of Interest

Jan, 28 SÜND4Y Jan. 29 Philadelphia Chestnut St. Becket Opera House Jan. 30 II tl 11 Jan. 31 tl II tl Feb. 1 tl II O liv ia Feb. 2 tl 11 Merchant of Venice Feb. 3 II 11 Becket (Matinee) lyons Mail (Evening)

Feb. 4 SUNDAY Feb. 5 If Much Ado About Nothing Feb. 6 II It II Feb. 7 tl II Becket Feb. 8 11 tl Nance Oldfield The B ells Feb. 9 It 11 Merchant of Venice Feb. 10 11 II ïotâ.s ÏL (M atinee) Charles I (Evening)

Feb. 11 SUNDAY Feb. 12 Washington Albaugh’s Becket Opera House Feb. 13 II fl tl Feb. 14 11 tl Merchant of Venice Feb. 15 II 11 O liv ia Feb. 16 II II Nance Oldfield The B ells Feb. 17 II 11 Merchant of Venice (Matinee) louis XI (Evening)

§ Date Theatre Flay Events of Interest

Feb. 1 8 SUNDAY Feb. 1 9 Toronto Grand Opera Becket House fl Feb. 2 0 fl Nance Oldfield The BeUs tl Feb. 2 1 tJ Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Feb. 2 2 M ontreal Academy o f Becket Music II II Feb. 2 3 Nance Oldfield The B ells Feb. 2 4 t l t l Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Louis X I (Evening)

Feb. 2 5 SUNDAY Feb. 2 6 New York Abbey's Becket n IIII Feb. 2 7 Feb. 2 8 II II O liv ia t l II Mar. 1 Charles I Mar. 2 11 II Much Ado About Nothing II II Mar. 3 " (M atinee) Lyons Mail (Evening)

Mar. 4 SUNDAY Mar. 5 II Merchant of Venice It Mar. 6 II Becket If It Mar. 7 Olivia (Matinee) Louis X I (Evening) Mar. 8 ft II Much Ado About Nothing ft II Mar. 9 O liv ia Mar. 1 0 It II Nance Oldfield (Matinee)

Merchant of Venice (Evening) VO o Date Theatre g a z Events of Interest

Mar. 11 SUNDAY Mar. 12 Boston Tremont Becket Mar. 13 " tl Much Ado About Nothing Mar. 14 " " (Matinee^ Lyons Mail (Evening) Mar. 15 " Nance Oldfield Irving Harvard Address - "The The B ells Value of Individuality" Mar. 16 " O liv ia Mar. 17 " Nance Oldfield (Matinee) The Bells (Ifeitinee) Merchant of Venice (Evening)

!-*■ VO Date Theatre Play Events of Interest

FIFTH TOUR - 1895-1896

Sept. 16 M ontreal Academy o f F aust Music Sept. 17 S ept. 18 Merchant of Venice S ept. 19 King Arthur F irst performance in jbnerlca S ept. 20 It S ept. 21 " (Matinee) Waterloo (Evening) The Bells (Evening)

S ept. 22 SDNDÂ.Ï Sept. 23 Toronto Grand Opera F aust House Sept. 24 Sept. 25 Merchant of Venice Sept. 26 King Arthur Sept. 27 II Sept. 28 " (Matinee) Waterloo (Evening) The Bells (Evening)

Sept. 29 SÜNDA.Y Sept. 30 Boston Tremont Nance Oldfield The B ells O ct. 1 King Arthur F irst performance in l&iited States Oct. 2 tt Oct. 3 Oct. 4 Oct. 5 " (Matinee) Becket (Evening) (8 Date C ity Theatre Play 1Events of Interest

Oct. 6 SÜNIAT Got, 7 Boston Tremont King Arthur Oct. 8 It II 11 Oct. 9 II IIII O ct. 10 It II 11 Oct. 11 II 11 tt Oct. 12 It t l •' (Matinee) Waterloo (Evening) Corsican Brothers (Evening)

Oct. 13 SUKIAT Oct. 14 11 tl Nance Oldfield Corsican Brothers Oct. 15 II It F aust Oct. 16 11 II 11 Oct. 17 II II Merchant of Venice Oct. 18 It tt ft Oct. 19 II II " (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Oct. 20 SUNDAY Oct. 21 11 I t Much Ado About Nothing Oct. 22 11 It Oct. 23 . II It O ct. 24 It It O ct. 25 ft It Oct. 26 11 II

S Date C ity Theatre Play Events of Interest

Oct. 27 SUNDAY Oct. 28 Oct. 29 New York Abbey’s Macbeth First production in United States Oct. 30 fl II II Oct. 31 If If II Nov. 1 ft II II Nov. 2 If II " (Matinee) larons Mail (Evening)

Nov. 3 SUNDiY Nov. 4 " II King Arthur Nov. 5 If II ft Nov. 6 If fl II Nov. 7 IIII II Nov. 8 fl fl II Nov. 9 If tl " (Matinee) louis XI (Evening)

Nov. 10 SÜNDA.T Nov. 11 " fl King Arthur Nov. 12 It II II Nov. 13 II fl II Nov. 14 II II II Nov. 15 It II fl Nov. 16 II It " (Matinee) Becket (Evening) Nov. 17 SÜND4Ï Nov. 18 If II King Aridiur Nov. 19 t! If II Nov. 20 It If If Nov. 21 11 II It Nov. 22 II II fl Nov. 23 II II " (Matinee) $ Becket (Evening) Date Ç il^ Theatre Events of Interest

Nov, 24 SUNDAY Nov, 25 New York Abbey’s Faust Nov, 26 Nov, 27 Merchant of Venice Nov, 28 Nov, 29 Nov. 30 " (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Dec, 1 SUNDAY Deo, 2 F aust Deo, 3 II Deo, 4 Much Ado About No tiling Deo, 5 tl Deo. 6 II Dec, 7 " (Matinee) A Christmas Story (Evening) The Bells (Evening)

Deo, 8 SUNDAY Deo, 9 " Macbeth Deo, 10 " II Dec, 11 " Don Quixote Waterloo Journey’s End in Lovers Meeting Deo. 12 Don Quixote Waterloo Journey’s End in Lovers Meeting Deo, 13 Don Quixote Waterloo Journey's End In Lovers Meeting Dec, 14 Don Quixo'te (Matinee) Waterloo (Matinee) Journey’s Ehd in Lovers Meeting (Matinee) Same b ill evening performance Date Ç l^ Theatre Play Events of Interest

Dec. 15 SUNDA.T Deo, 16 New York Abbey’s Macbeth Dec. 17 " It II Dec. 18 " Nance Oldfield The B ells Dec. 19 " Journey’s End in Lovers Meeting Lyons Mail Dec. 20 " If C harles I Dec. 21 " p Becket (Matinee) Christmas Story (Evening) Waterloo (Evening) King Arthur (Act 3) (Evening) Much Ado About Nothing (Act 4) (Evening)

Dec. 22 SONDAT Dec. 23 Philadelphia Chestnut St. Merchant of Venice Opera House Dec. 24 " Dec. 25 " Dec. 26 " Deo. 27 " Dec. 28 "

Dec. 29 SUNDAY Dec. 30 " tl King Arthur Dec. 31 " It II Jan. 1 " II Jan. 2 " II II Benefit for Jefferson Maternity Jan. 3 " tl II H ospital Jan. 4 " II " (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening) Date C ity Theatre Elay Events of Interest

Jan. 5 SONDAT Jan. 6 Baltim ore Academy of Merchant of Venice Music U Jan. 7 II Jan. 8 It II If Jan. 9 II Jan. 1 0 11 II Jan. 1 1 11 II

Jan. 1 2 SUNI?AT Jan. 1 3 Washington Allen’s Grand Merchant of Venice Opera House Jan. 1 4 fl II King Arthur 11 Jan. 1 5 II If Jan. 1 6 If If II If II Jan. 1 7 Journey’s End in Lovers Lyons Mail Jan. 1 8 ft II Waterloo (Matinee) The B ells (M atinee) Becket (Evening)

Jan. 1 9 SUNDAY Jan. 2 0 Eichmond Academy o f Merchant of Venice Music Jan. 2 1 II II Nance Oldfield Matinee Only The B ells Jan. 2 2 Charleston, Academy of Merchant of Venice s.c. Music Jan. 2 3 Savanah Savanah Theatre Nance Oldfield The B ells Jan. 2 4 Atlanta Atlanta Grand Merchant of Venice Opera House It II Jan. 2 5 Becket (Matinee) Nance Oldfield (Evening) The Bells (Evening) Bate City Theatre Play Events of Interest

Jan. 26 SUNmY Jan. 27 New Orleans Grand Opera House Jan. 28 tt Jan. 29 II Jan. 30 II Jan. 31 II Feb. 1 It

Feb. 2 SUNMY Feb. 3 Memphis Grand Opera House Feb. 4 It Feb. 5 N ashville Vendôme Merchant of Venice Feb. 6 II It Nance Oldfield The B ells Feb. 7 loiiisville M oiuley's Merchant of Venice Feb. 8 tl II Becket Qlatinee) Feb. 5 Nance Oldfield (Evening) The Bells (Evening)

Feb. 9 SUNMY Feb. 10 S t. Louis Grand Opera Merchant of Venice House Feb. 11 " Nance Oldfield The B ells Feb. 12 II II King Arthur Feb. 13 II II Feb. 14 II t l Feb. 15 II II Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Becket (Evening)

% Date City Theatre Play Events of Interest

Feb. 16 SüHmï Feb. 17 Cincinnati Grand Opera Merchant o f Venice House Feb. 18 •' Nance Oldfield The Bells Feb. 19 II II King Arthur Feb. 20 It II Feb. 21 It II Feb. 22 II II Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Becket (Evening)

Feb. 23 SmSDkY Feb. 24 Chicago Columbia King Arthur Feb. 25 Feb. 26 Feb. 27 Feb. 28 Feb. 29 (M atinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Mar. 1 SDNmy Mar. 2 Chicago Columbia King Arthur Mar. 3 Mar. 4 Mar. 5 Mar. 6 Mar. 7

I-* Date Theatre Play Events of Interest

Mar. 8 SDNDA.Ï Mar. 9 Chicago Columbia Macbeth Mar. 10 tl It 11 Mar. 11 11 « ft Mar. 12 II II It Mar. 13 11 11 11 Mar. 14 II 11 Godefroi and Tolanoi (Matinee) Don Quixote (Matinee) Waterloo (Matinee) Becket (Evening)

Mar. 15 SONDAY Mar. 16 11 It King Arthur Mar. 17 It ft *' Irving Address -'Macbeth, " University of Chicago Mar. 18 II 11 Merchant of Venice Mar. 19 « 11 JoTimey’s End in Lovers Meeting Lyons M ail Mar. 20 II II Nance Oldfield The B ells Mar. 21 11 II Becket (Matinee) Waterloo (Evening) Merchant of Venice (Evening)

Mar. 22 nhdianapolis E n g lish ’s Opera House Mar. 23 tl II Mar. 24 11 11 Mar. 25 II 11 Mar. 26 D e tro it Detroit Opera Nance Oldfield House The B ells Mar. 27 It II King Arthur Mar. 28 II It Merchant of Venice (Matinee) § Louis XI (Evening) Date C ity Theatre ÎOay Events of Interest

Man 29 SÜNDA.Y Mar. 30 Cleveland Euclid Avenue Nance Oldfield Opera House The B ells Mar. 31 11 11 King Arthur Apr. 1 11 fl Merchant of Venice Apr. 2 Buffalo Star Theatre Merchant of Venice Apr. 3 ft fl Nance Oldfield The B ells Apr, 4 fl tl King Arthur (Matinee) Waterloo (Evening) The B ells (Evening)

Apr. 5 smrni Apr. 6 Pittsburgh Alvin Theatre Nance Oldfield The B ells Apr. 7 11 It King Arthur Apr. 8 fl 11 It Apr. 9 If ft Merchant of Venice Apr. 10 II II It Apr. 11 tl 11 Louis XI (Evening) Matinee unknora

Apr. 12 SUNDAY Apr. 13 Philadelphia Chestnut St. Merchant of Venice Opera House Apr. 14 If II Macbeth Apr. 15 If ft II Apr. 16 ÎI II King Arthur 1! Apr. 17 It fl Irving Address - ’Macbeth" Contemporary Club Apr. 18 11 ft " (Matinee) Becket (Act 4) (Evening) The Bells (Act 3) (Evening) Lyons Mail (Act 3) (Evening) Louis XI (Act 4) (Evening) Godefroi and Yolandi Date C ity Theatre Play Events of Interest

Apr. 19 SUNDAY Apr. 20 Boston Tremont No-show - baggage for Merchant l o s t Apr. 21 ir II Macbeth Apr. 22 If 11 Apr. 23 ft tl Apr. 24 1! II Apr. 25 11 11

Apr. 26 SUNDAY Apr. 27 Providence Providence Merchant of Venice Opera House Apr. 28 ft 11 King Arthur Apr. 29 II II Nance Oldfield The B ells Apr. 30 Springfield, Court Square Merchant of Venice Mass. May 1 Hartford P ro c to r's It Opera House May 2 New Haven Hjyperion II

May 3 SUNDAY May 4 New York Abbey’s Godefroi and Yolandi lyons M ail May 5 ÎI tt Macbeth May 6 tt , It II May 7 tt It II May 8 II tl Merchant of Venice May 9 If II Macbeth (Matinee) louis XI (Evening) Date C ity Theatre P lay Events of Interest

May 10 SUNDAY May 11 New York Abbey* s King Arthur May 12 11 tl II May 13 fl If Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Waterloo TËvening) The B ells (Evening) May 14 It 11 Merchant of Venice May 15 ft 11 Don Quixote Journey's End at lovers Meeting Eugene Aram (Poem)

N> 3 Date City Theatre Play Events of Interest

SIXTH TOUR - 1899-1900

Oct. 30 New York Knickerbocker Robespierre First production in United States Oct. 31 " " " Nov. 1 " " " Nov. 2 ” " " Nov. 3 " " " Nov. 4 " " Nance Oldfield (Matinee) Amber H eart (M atinee) Waterloo (Evening) The B ells (Evening)

Nov. 5 SUNDAY Nov. 6 " " R obespierre Nov. 7 " « " Nov. 8 *' ” » Nov. 9 " ” •* Nov. 10 " « » Nov. 11 " " Nance O ld fie ld (M atinee) Amber H eart (M atinee) Waterloo (Evening) The B ells (Evening)

Nov. 12 SUNDAY Nov. 13 " " Robespierre Nov. 14 " " » Nov. 15 ” " ' Merchant of Venice Nov. 16 " « « Nov. 17 ” " « Nov. 18 « « " (M atinee) Nance Oldfield (Evening) The Bells (Evening) ^ g Date City Theatre Play Events of Interest

Nov. 19 SUNDAY Nov. 20 Boston Hollis Robespierre Nov. 21 « « II Nov. 22 »• « Nov. 23 " II II Nov. 24 " II II Nov. 25 ” ” Nance Oldfield (Matinee) Amber H eart (Ifatinee) Tfeterloo (Evening) The B ells (Evening)

Nov. 26 SUNDAY Nov. 27 ” ” Robespierre Nov. 28 " *' « Nov. 29 " " « Nov. 30 " " " Dee. 1 »' " " Deo. 2 " Nance Oldfield (Matinee) Amber H eart (M atinee) Waterloo (Evening) The B ells (Evening)

Dec. 3 SUNDAY Dec. 4 " " Robespierre Dec. 5 " " " Dec, 6 " " " Dec. 7 ” ” M erchant o f Venice Dec. 8 " « I: Dec. 9 " II 11 (M atinee) Vfeiterloo (Evening) Nance Oldfield (Evening) Merchant of Venice (Act 4) inj Robespierre (Act 4) iS Date City Theatre Play Events of Interest

Dec. 10 SUNDUY Dec, 11 Philadelphia Chestnut St. Robespierre Opera House Dec. 12 " " " Dec. 13 " " " Dec. 14 ” " " Dec. 15 fl Dec. 16 ” " Nance Oldfield (Matinee) Amber H eart Q ^ tin e e ) yfaterloo (Evening) “Hie B ells (Evening)

Dec. 17 SUNDAY Dec. 18 " " ’* R obespierre Dec. 19 " « « Dec. 20 " " « Dec. 21 " " Merchant o f Venice Dec. 22 " « " Dec. 23 " " ¥ (Matinee) D Waterloo (Evening) The B ells (Evening)

Dec. 24 SUNDAY Dec. 25 Washington National Robespierre Dec. 26 « « » Dec. 27 " » w Dec. 28 " « " Dec. 29 " " Merchant of Venice Dec. 30 ’* " Nance Oldfield (Matinee) Amber H eart (M ktinee) Waterloo (Evening) The Bells (Evening) ^ & Date City Theatre Play Events of Interest

Dec. 31 SDNÛA.T Jan, 1 Baltimore Academy of Robespierre Music Jan. 2 If ft Jan. 3 t l tl II Jan. 4 tl It II Jan. 5 If ri Merchant of Venice Jan. 6 If tl Nance Oldfield (Matinee ) Amber H eart (Ifatinee) Waterloo (Evening) The B ells (Evening)

Jan. 7 SUNDAY Jan. 8 Brooklyn Columbia Robespierre Jan. 9 ” II II Jan. 10 " II II Jan. 11 " tl II Jan. 12 " tl Merchant of Venice Jan. 13 " f l Nance Oldfield (Matinee) Amber Heart (Aitinee) Waterloo (Evening) The B ells (Evening)

Jan. 14 SUNDAY Jan. 15 P ittsb u rg h A lvin Robespierre Jan. 16 If II II Jan. 17 II II Jan. 18 II II Jan. 19 II II Merchant of Venice Jan. 20 II Nance Oldfield (Matinee) Amber H eart (M atinee) Waterloo (Evening) to o The B ells (Evening) •>0 Date City Theatre Events of Interest

Jan 21 SONDAT Jan. 22 Cleveland Euclid Ave. Robespierre Opera House Jan. 23 II t l Jan. 24 n it Merchant of Venice Jan . 25 D e tro it Detroit Opera Robespierre House Jan. 26 II XI Jan. 27 II l] Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Nance Oldfield (Evening) The B ells (Evening)

Jan. 28 SUNDAY Jan. 29 Toledo V alentine Merchant of Jan. 30 Columbus, 0. Southern II Jan. 31 Dayton, 0. Victoria n Feb. 1 Indianapolis English's II Opera House Feb. 2 louisville Macauley's Robespierre Feb. 3 11 fl Merchant of

The B eils (Evaoine)

Feb. 4 SUNDAY Feb. 5 St. Louis Olympic Robespierre Feb. 6 If » II Feb. 7 I t tl II Feb. 8 f t tl II Feb. 9 tf It Merchant of Venice Feb. 10 ti " (Matinee) Nance Oldfield (Evening) The B ells (EvCTiing) N) s Date City Theatre Play Events of Interest

Feb. 11 SUNDA.Y Feb. 12 Chicago Columbia Robespierre Feb. 13 « " t l Feb. 14 " ” ft Feb. 15 " " ” Feb. 16 « " " Feb. 17 " " Nance Oldfield (Matinee) Amber H eart (M atinee) Waterloo (Evening) The B ells (Evening)

Feb. 18 SUNDAY Feb. 19 " " " Robespierre Feb. 20 " « « Feb. 21 « « « Feb. 22 " " " Feb. 23 " » " Feb. 24 " ” Nance Oldfield (Matinee) Amber H eart (M atinee) Waterloo (Evening) The Bells (Evening) Feb. 25 SUNDAY Feb. 26 " " Merchant of Venice Feb. 27 " " II Feb. 28 " " Amber H eart (M atinee) Waterloo (Matinee) Nance Oldfield (Evening) The B ells (Evening) 1 " Merchant of Venice Mar. 2 " " " Mar. 3 " " Amber H eart (M atinee) ro Waterloo (Matinee) 5 Nance Oldfield (Evening) The B ells (Evening) Date City Theatre Events of Interest

Mar. 4 SDNDAY Mar. 5 Toronto Grand Opera Robespierre House Mar. 6 11 fl Mar. 7 fl Merchant of Venice (Acts Ellen Terry Taken ill 1. 2. 3,“Ç) W aterloo Mar. 8 Montreal Academy o f Robespierre Music Mar. 9 ” II Mar. 10 " 11

Mar. 11 SUNDAY Mar. 12 New York Knickerbocker Robespierre Mar. 13 I» Mar. 14 Mar. 15 Mar. 16 Mar. 17 " (Matinee) Mar. 17 " (Evening)

Mar. 18 SUNDAY Mar. 19 New York Knickerbo oker Robespierre E llen Terry back w ith company Mar. 20 If Mar. 21 Merchant of Venice Mar. 22 t l Mar. 23 Mar. 24 Amber H eart (M atinee) Waterloo (^tinee ) Nance Oldfield (Evening) The Bells (Evening) ro o Date C ity Theatre P lay Events of Interest

Mar. 25 SUNDAY Mar. 26 Providence Providence Robespierre Opera House Mar. 27 If ft II Mar. 28 If fl Merchant of Venice Mar. 29 SprlMgfield, Gilmore*s Nance Oldfield Mass Court Square The B ells Mar. 30 Hartford Parsons Nance Oldfield The B ells Mar. 31 New Haven Hyperion Nance Oldfield (Mat; The Bells (Matinee) Merchant of Venice

Apr. 1 SUNDAY Apr. 2 Albany Jacob's lyceum Merchant of Venice Apr. 3 Syracuse Weiting Opera II House Apr. 4 Rochester Lyceum II Apr. 5 Apr. 6 B uffalo Star Theatre Apr. 7 II II

Apr. 8 SUNDAY Apr. 9 C in cin n ati Grand Robespierre Apr. 10 t t II II Apr. 11 It 11: II Apr. 12 ft II Merchant of Venice Apr. 13 II « Nance Oldfield Amber H eart Apr. 14 II II Waterloo (Matinee) The B eils (M atinee) No evening performance Date C ity Theatre Play Events of Interest

Apr. 1 5 SUND&Y Apr. 1 6 Kansas City, Coates Opera Merchant of Venice Mo. House t l t l Apr. 1 7 Robespierre Apr. 1 8 II II Nance Oldfield The B ells Apr. 1 9 S t. Joseph T o o tle’s Merchant of Venice t l Apr, 2 0 Omaha Boyd Apr. 2 1 t l II ** (Matinee) Nance Oldfield (Evening) The B ells (Evening)

Apr. 2 2 SUNDAY Apr. 2 3 Chicago Powers Merchant of Venice Apr. 2 4 II II If II t l Apr. 2 5 Robespierre' Irving Address - “Acting: An Art, “ University of Chicago Apr. 2 6 II II II II II II Apr. 2 7 Apr. 2 8 If 11 " (Matinee) Nance Oldfield (Evening) The B ells (Evening)

Apr. 29 SUNDAY Apr. 3 0 S t. Paul Metropolitan Robespierre Opera House May 1 It Nance Oldfield The B ells May 2 Minneapolis Metropolitan Robespierre May 3 May 4 Nance Oldfield % e B ells May 5 Merchant of Venice (Matinee) ro Waterloo ^Evening) The Bells (Evening) Date City Theatre Play Events of Interest

May 6 SDNDA.Y May 7 Milwaukee Davidson Merchant of Venice May 8 » Hance Oldfield The B ells May 9 No performance May 10 Philadelphia Chestnut St. Robespierre Opera House May 11 May 12 Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Nance Oldfield (Evening) The B ells (Evening)

May 13 SDNDAT May 14 Harlem Harlem Opera Robespierre House May 15 ft tl 11 May 16 II It tf May 17 t! n Nance Oldfield The B ells May 18 Merchant of Venice

e Date City Theatre Play Events of Interest

SEVMTH TOUR - 1901-1902

Oct. 21 New Y( Knickerbocker Charles I Oct. 22 II Oct. 23 II II Oct. 24 II It Oct. 25 II Merchant of Venice Oct. 26 II Charles I (Matinee) Loxiis XI (Evening)

Oct. 27 8UNDA.Y Oct. 28 II Madame Sans Gene First production in United States Oct. 29 II It Oct. 30 II n Oct. 31 II Merchant of Venice Nov. 1 tl Nance Oldfield The B ells Nov. 2 It Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Lyons Mail (Evening)

Nov. 3 SDNDA.Y Nov. 4 It 11 Merchant of Venice Nov. 5 tt It Nance Oldfield The B ells Nov. 6 tt 11 Merchant of Venice Nov. 7 11 11 Louis XI Nov. 8 II tl Charles I Nov. 9 tt It Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Waterloo ^Evening) The B ells (Evening) Date C ity Theatre Flay Events of Interest

Nov. 10 SUNDAY Nov. 11 Brooklyn Montauk Merchant of Venice Nov. 12 11 11 Charles I Nov. 13 If II Nance Oldfield The B e lls Nov. 14 1( 11 Merchant.of Venice Nov. 15 It ft Louis XI Nov. 16 tt f t Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Waterloo ^Evening) Lyons Mail (Evening)

Nov. 17 SDNDA.I Nov. 18 Philadelphia Chestnut St. Madame Sans Gene Opera House Nov. 19 fl fl Nov. 20 11 ft Merchant of Venice Nov. 21 tt If r Charles I Nov. 22 11 tl Louis XI Nov. 23 11 tl Lyons Mail (Matinee) Nance Oldfield (Evening)

i The B e lls

Nov. 24 SUNDAY Nov. 25 11 tt Madame Sans Gene Nov. 26 If « II Nov. 27 fl tf Merchant of Venice Nov. 28 If tf Charles I Nov. 29 It II Louis XI Nov. 30 It 11 Lyons Mail (Matinee) Nance Oldfield (Evening) The B e lls (Evening) w Vi Date City Theatre Play Events of Interest

Deo. 1 SDNDiY Dec, 2 Chicago Illinois Merchant of Venice Theatre Deo. 3 fl tl tf Dec, 4 fl II ft Dec, 5 It It Nance Oldfield The B ells Deo, 6 II If Madame Sans Gene Dec, 7 tt 11 Merchant of Venice (Matinee) lonis XI ^Evening)

Dec, 8 SDNDiY Dec, 9 II Nance Oldfield The B ells Deo, 10 It If C harles I Dec, 11 It It II Dec, 12 ft II Madame Sans Gene Dec, 13 It It Merchant of Venice Dec, 14 It II Charles I^Matinee) Ifaterloo (Evening) Lyons Mail (Evening)

Dec, 15 SDNDA.Y Dec, 16 n It Merchant of Venice Dec, 17 If II Nance Oldfield Lyons Mail Dec, 18 ft It Merchant of Venice Dec, 19 It ft Madame Sans Gene Dec, 20 It ft Nance Oldfield The B ells Dec. 21 It Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Lonls XI livening) ^ o\ Date C ity Theatre Play Events of Jhterest

Dec. 22 SÜNDA.T Dec, 23 St, Paul Metropolitan Merchant of Venice Dec. 24 fl tl Madame Sans Gene Dec. 25 fl fl W aterloo Louis n Dec. 26 Minneapolis Metropolitan C harles I Dec. 27 tt fl Madame Sans Gene Dec. 28 tl fl Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Waterloo "(Evening) The Bells (Evening)

Dec. 29 s m m z Dec. 30 Omaha Boyd Merchant of Venice Dec. 31 It tt Waterloo The B ells Jan. 1 ft tl Nance Oldfield Madame Sans Gene Jan. 2 Kansas City Auditorium Nance ÜJLcuield The B ells tl Jan. 3 ft Waterloo Madame Sans Gene Jan. 4 ft tl Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Jan. 5 SUNDAY Jan. 6 S t, Xotiis Olympic Merchant of Venice Jan. 7 « ft C harles I Jan. 8 II tl Nance Oldfield The B ells Jan. 9 II tl W aterloo Madame Sans Gene Jan. 10 ft ft Nance Oldfield Lyons M ail Jan. 11 ft II Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Louis XI ^Evening) Date C ity Theatre Events of Interest

Jan. 12 SDNEAY Jan. 13 Indianapolis E n g lish ’s O.H. Merchant of Venice Jan. 14 " tl Nance Oldfield The Be31.s Jan. 15 Colm bus, 0. Southern Merchant of Venice Jan. 16 " II Nance Oldfield The B ells Jan. 1? Toledo, 0. V alentine Nance Oldfield The B ells Jan. 18 •' Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Louis XI (Evàîing)

Jan. 19 SÜND4Y Jan. 20 Pittsburgh A lvin Merchant of Venice Jan. 21 It C harles I Jan. 22 Nance Oldfield The B ells Jan. 23 W aterloo Madame Sans Gene Jan. 24 Nance Oldfield Lyons M ail Jan. 25 Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Jan. 26 SUNDAY Jan. 27 Cleveland E uclid ol.H. Merchant of Venice Jan. 28 Charles I Jan. 29 Nance Oldfield The B ells Jan. 30 W aterloo Madame Sans Gene Jan. 31 Nance Oldfield Lyons M all ë Feb. 1 Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening) Date Theatre Events of Interest

Feb. 2 sm d n i Feb. 3 Buffalo Star Theatre Merchant of Venice Feb. 4 ft II Waterloo Madame Sans Gene Irving Address - ’’Actors Acting,” Liberal Club Feb. 5 II II Charles I Feb. 6 R ochester Lyceum Nance O ld field % e B e lls Feb. 7 II II Waterloo Madame Sans Gene Feb. 8 tf II Merchant of Venice (M atinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Feb. 9 sTJumi Feb. 10 Syracuse W elting O.H. Nance Oldfield The B eU s Feb. 11 tl II Merchant of Venice Feb. 12 Albany Hermann Sleeker Merchant of Venice H all Feb. 13 II II Nance Oldfield The B e lls Feb. 14 Springfield, Court Square Nance Oldfield Mass.- The B e lls Feb. 15 II II Merchant of Venice (M atinee) Louis XI (Evening)

M (-> ■ VO Date City Theatre Flay Events of Interest

Feb. 16 sm m j Hollis Charles I Feb. 18 tl It Merchant of Venice Feb. 19 II . II Madame Sans Gene Feb. 20 It 11 Nance Oldfield The B ells Feb. 21 It II Nance Oldfield The B ells Feb. 22 11 II Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Feb. 23 su m iT Feb. 24 11 It Nance Oldfield The B ells Feb. 25 tl 11 Merchant of Venice Feb. 26 It ft Nance Oldfield Lyons Mail Feb. 27 11 I! Merchant of Venice Feb. 28 It II If Mar. 1 II It ” (M atinee) Mar. 1 II II Lyons Mail (Evening)

Mar. 2 SUNDA.T , Mar. 3 II 11 Merchant of Venice Mar. 4 II II Madame Sans Gene ^igene Aram (Poem) Mar. 5 II II Merchant of Venice Mar. 6 II 11 If Mar. 7 II II W aterloo Charles I Mar. 8 II II Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening) ^ ro o Date C ity Theatre Play- Events of Interest

Mar. 9 SDKDA.Y Mar. 1 0 Providence Providence O.H. Merchant of Venice t l t l Mar. 1 1 W aterloo C harles I Mar. 1 2 t f II Nance Oldfield The B ells Mar. 1 3 Hartford Parsons Waterloo Charles I Mar. 1 4 IIII Merchant of Venice Mar. 1 5 New Haven Hyperion Charles I (M atinee) Louis X I (Evening)

Mar. 1 6 SONDAT Mar. 1 7 Harlem Harlem O.H. Merchant of Venice Mar. 1 8 II It Waterloo Charles I Mar. 19 Irving*s Trask lecture at Princeton - **Bacon and Shakespeare*' Mar. 2 0 fl f l Nance Oldfield The B ells Mar. 2 1 tl f l Merchant of Venice Mar. 2 2 f l II " (Matinee y Louis XI (Evening) Date City Theatre Play Events of Interest

EIGHTH TOUR - 1903-1904

Oct. 26 New York Broadway Dante Oct. 27 IIII It O ct. 28 It It ft O ct. 29 It If It Oct. 30 II fl It Oct. 31 II It " (Matinee) " (Evening)

Nov. 1 SDNDiY Nov. 2 tf fl It Nov. 3 ft If II Nov. 4 ft If It Nov. 5 « It II Nov. 6 It II II Nov. 7 fl tl " (Matinee) " (Evening)

Nov. 8 SUNDAY Nov. 9 ft It Merchant of Venice Nov. 10 It If Louis XI Nov. 11 II 11 Merchant of Venice Nov. 12 It If W aterloo The B ells Nov. 13 II It Merchant of Venice Nov. 14 II ft ” (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening)

8 Date City Theatre Play Events of Interest

Nov. 15 SUNDAY Nov. 16 P h ilad elp h ia Chestnut S t. Dante Opera House Nov. 17 " « " Nov. 18 " " " Nov. 19 " " " Nov. 20 " " " Nov. 21 « " " (M atinee) !! (Evening)

Nov. 22 SUNDAY Nov. 23 ” " Merchant o f Venice Nov. 24 " " W aterloo The B ells Nov. 25 " " Merchant o f Venice Nov. 26 " W aterloo The B ells Nov. 27 ” " Merchant of Venice Nov. 28 " " « ^ M a tin e e ) Louis XI (Evening)

Nov. 29 SUNDAY Nov. 30 Boston Colonial Dante Dec. 1 " tl It Dec. 2 " II tl Dec. 3 " " « Dec. 4 " « » Dec. 5 ” " " (Matinee) " (Evening) Date City Theatre Play Events of Interest Dec. 6 SUNDAY Dec. 7 Boston C olonial Waterloo The B ells Dec. 8 It ft Louis XI Dec. 9 II « Merchant of Venice Dec. 10 tf tl Waterloo The B ells Dec. 11 II Merchant of Venice Dec. 12 tl II " (M atinee) h II Louis XI (Evening)

Dec. 13 SUNDAY Dec. 14 Springfield, Court Square Dec. 15 I f II Dante Dec. 16 H artford Parsons Dec. 17 II II Dante Dec. 18 New Haven Hyperion Dec. 19 Dante (Matinee)

Dec. 20 SUNDAY Dec. 21 Brooklyn Montauk Dec. 22 « II Dec. 23 " II Dec. 24 " t l Dec. 25 " fl Dec. 26 « t f

I Date C ity Theatre Play Events of Interest

Dec. 27 SUNDAY Dec. 28 Washington New National Waterloo The B ells Dec. 29 (1 II Louis XI Dec. 30 tl U Merchant of Venice Dec. 31 tt II Waterloo The B ells Jan. 1 tf 11 Dante Jan. 2 It fl Merchant of Venice Louis XI (Evening)

Jan. 3 SUNDAY Jan. 4 Trenton Taylor O.H. Merchant of Venice Jan. 5 H arrisburg New Lyceum II Jan. 6 Scranton Lyceum II Jan. 7 Ith aca Lyceum II Jan. 8 Syracuse W eiting O.H. It Jan. 9 Rochester Lyceum " (M atinee) Evening performance nnkno'wn

Jan. 10 SUNDAY Jan. 11 Pittsburgh Alvin Waterloo The B ells Jan. 12 if Louis XI Jan. 13 tl II Merchant of Venice Jan. 14 tt II Jan. 15 II II Jan. 16 tl 11 Date City Theatre Play Events of Interest

Jan. 1 7 SUNmY Jan. 1 8 B uffalo Teck O.H. Merchant of Venice If ft Jan. 1 9 Waterloo The B e lls Jan. 2 0 If If Merchant of Venice It It Jan. 2 1 Louis XI Jan. 2 2 Albany Hanaanos Merchant of Venice Bleaker Hall it Jan. 2 3 11 Louis XI (Evening) Matinee performance unkno'wn

Jan. 2 4 SUNDAY Jan. 2 5 Montreal Jan. 26 If tt Jan. 2 7 Jan. 2 8 Jan. 2 9 Ottowa R u ssell Merchant of Venice II ft Jan. 3 0 Both performances nnkncHn

Jan. 3 1 SUNDAY Feb. 1 Toronto Feb. 2 t t 11 Feb. 3 Feb. 4 D etro it D etro it O.H. liJaterloo The B e lls 11 It Feb. 5 Merchant of Venice Feb. 6 II 11 Both performances -unknown Date C ity Theatre Play Events of Hhterest

Feb. 7 S D N D A . Y Feb. 8 Chicago I l l i n o i s Merchant of Venice f l f l Feb. 9 Waterloo The B e lls Feb. 1 0 t l f l Merchant of Venice f l Feb. 1 1 If Waterloo The B e lls Feb. 1 2 II 11 Merchant of Venice 11 11 Feb. 1 3 " (Matinee) Lotiis XI (Evening)

Feb. 1 4 S U N m Y I t t l Feb. 1 5 Feb. 1 6 II II II 11 Feb. 1 7 Feb. 1 8 11 f l 11 It Feb. 1 9 Feb. 2 0 11 II

Feb. 2 1 STMDA.Y Feb. 2 2 S t. Louis Olympic Merchant of Venice II f t Feb. 2 3 Waterloo The B e lls Feb. 2 4 f l f l Merchant of Venice 11 II Feb. 2 5 Waterloo The B e lls Feb. 2 6 f l f l Merchant of Venice 11 11 Feb. 2 7 " (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening)

w -si Date City Theatre Play Events of Interest

Feb. 28 SDHDA.Ï Feb. 29 C in cin n ati Grand Merchant of Venice Mar. 1 11 II Waterloo The B ells Mar. 2 11 11 Merchant of Venice Mar. 3 It t l W aterloo The B ells Mar. 4 fl If Merchant of Venice Mar. 5 11 II " (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening)

Mar. 6 smmAT Mar. 7 Indianapolis English’s O.H. Louis XI Mar. 8 ft II Merchant of Venice Mar. 9 Mar. 10 Coltunbus, Ohio Great Southern Mar. 11 If II Mar. 12

Mar. 13 sramA.y Mar. 14 Cleveland Euclid Ave. Merchant of Venice Opera House Mar. 15 11 II Waterloo The B ells Mar. 16 If II Merchant of Venice Mar. 17 tl II Waterloo The B ells Mar. 18 If II Merchant of Venice Mar. 19 II It " (Matinee) Louis XI (Evening) Date C ity Theatre Play Events of Interest

Mar. 20 SBNDA.Y Mar. 21 Harlem Harlem O.H. Merchant of Venice Mar. 22 » " Waterloo The B e lls Mar. 23 « Merchant of Venice (Matinee) Louis XI ^Evening) Mar. 24 tt Waterloo The B e lls Mar. 25 II Louis XX

« BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Abegglen, Homer N. Methods of Staging in the London Theatres in the Last Half of the Nineteenth Century Special Emphasis on the Decade from 1880-1890. Cleveland, Ohio : Western Reserve University, 19^.

Archer, William, The Fashionable Tragedian: A Criticism. Edinburgh; T, Grey & Co., 1877.

______. Henry Irving. Actor and Manager. London: Field & Tuer, Ye Leadenha.ll P resse, 18Ô3. - -

The Old Drama and the New. Boston: Small, Maynard & Co., 1923. Baker, Henry Barton. History of the London Stage. London; W. H. Allen & Co., 1904.

Bemheim, Alfred L. The B usiness o f Ih ea tre. New York: B. Blom, 1964.

Birkmire, William H. The Planning and Construction of American Theatres. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., I 896.

Borsa, Mario, The English Stage of Today. Trans. Selwyn Brinton. London and New York: J. lane, I 908.

Brereton, Austin, Henry Irving. A Biographical Sketch. New York: Scribner & Welford, 1884,

The Life of Henry Irving. 2 vols. London: Longmans, Green & Co., I 9O8.

The Lyceum and Henry Irv in g . London: Lawrence & B ullen, 1903.

Brown, Thomas AUston. A History of the New York Stage from the First Performance in 1732 to I 90I . New York: Dodd, Mead & C o., I 903.

Clapp, Henry Austin. Reminiscences of a Dramatic Critic, with an essay on the art of Henry Irving. Boston and New York: Houghton, M ifflin and Company, I 902.

Clunes, Alec. The British Theatre. London: William Clowes & Sons, L td .,

230 231

Coquelln, Constant, Irving, Henry, and Boucicatilt, Dion. The Art of Acting. New York: Coltmbia University Press, for Dramatic Museum of Columbia University, 1926.

Craig, EdTJard Gordon. Ellen Terry. Her Secret Self. London: Sampson Low, Marston & Co., Ltd., 192?.

______. Henry Irving. Hew York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1930.

_. Henry Irving. Ellen Terry. Etc., a Book of Portraits. Chicago: H. S. Stone & Co., 1899.

On the Art of Theatre. Boston: Small, Maynard & Co., 1925.

_. The T heatre Advancing. Boston: L i ttle , Brown & Co., 1919.

Daly, Frederic. /Lovd.s Frederic A usti^. Hen^ Irving in England and America. New York: R. Worthington, 1884.

Drew, John. My Years on the Stage. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1922.

Feldhedm, Marvin. The Theatre of Augustin Daly. Cambridge, Mass.- : Harvard University Press, 195^.

Fitzgerald, Percy H. Shakespearean Representation. Its laws and Limits. London: E lliot Stock, 1908.

______. Sir Henry Irving, a Biography. Philadelphia: G.W. Jacobs & Co., 190^

Goodale, Katherine /K itty Molon;^. Behind the Scenes with Edwin Booth. Boston and New York: Houghton, M ifflin Company, 1931.

Gottsberger, ¥. S. Henry Irving, a Short Account of his Public Life. New York: Press of W. S. Gottsberger, 1883.

Grossman, Edwina Booth. Edwin Booth. New York: The Century Co., 1894.

Hapgood, Norman. The Stage in America. I 897-I 900. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1901.

Harker, Joseph Cunningham. Studio and Stage. London: Nisbet & Co L td ., 1924.

Harvey, Sir John Martin. T ^ Autobiography of Sir John Martin-Harvey. London: S. Low, Marston & Co., Ltd., 1933.

Hatton, Joseph. Henry Irving's Impressions of America. Boston: J. R Osgood & Co., 1884. 232

Hewitt, Bernard, Theatre U.S.A.. 1665-1957. New York: McGraw-Hül Book Co., 3 h c ,, 1959.

Hiatt, Charles, Henry Irving: a Record and Review. London: G. BeU & Sons, 1899.

Horhblow,' Arthur. A History of the Theatre in America from its Beginnings to the Present Time. Philadelphia and London: J. B. lAppincott, 1919.

Irving, Sir Henry. Die Drama: Addresses, second ed. London: W. Heinemann, 1893.

______. English Actors: Their Characteristics and Their Methods. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1886.

______. The Theatre in its Relation to the State. Boston: E. H. Bacon & Co., 1 8 ^ .

______,' Marshall, F. A. eds. %e Works of Willi am Shakespeare. London: Blackie & Son, 1888-90.

Irving, Laurence. Henry Irving. London: Faber & Faber, 1951.

Irvingite, an. /Pseudonyi^. Henry Irving. Actor and Itoiager. London: G. Routledge & Sons, 1883.

Jefferson, Joseph. Autobiography. Cambridge, Mass.; The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1964.

Jones, Henry Arthur. The Shadow of Henry Irving. London: Richards, 1931.

Macfall, Haldane. Sir Henry Irving. Boston: John W, Luce & Co., I 906.

Mammen, Edward William. The Old Stock Company School of Acting. Boston: Trustees of the Public Library, 1945.

McGlinchee, Claire. The First Decade of the Boston Museum. Boston: Bruce Humphries, Inc., I 940.

Menpes, Mortimer. Henry Irving. London; A. & C. Black, I 906.

M iller, Orville Crowser. Sir Henry Irving, the Public Speaker. Fayetteville, Arkansas: University of Arkansas, 1929.

Moses, Montrose J. and Brown, John Mason, eds. The American Theatre as Seen ^ its Critics 1752-1934. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., _ I n c ., 1934. 233

Nicoll, Allardyce. The^ English E ngl: Theatre. London and New York: J. Nelson & Sons

______. History of Late Nineteenth Century Drama 1850-1900. Cambridge, England: The University Press, 19^7.

OdeU, George C, C. Annals of the New York Stage. Vol. IX, ”1870- I 875 , " Vol. XU, "1882-1885”. New York: Columbia University P ress, 1927- 49.

. Shakespeare from Betterton to Irving. 2 vols. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1920,

Pearson, Hesketh. The Last Actor-Managers. New York: Harper & Bros., 1950.

Pollock, TrJalter Herries. Impressions of Henry Irving: gathered in public and private during a friendship of many years. London: Longmans, Green & Co., l9(®.

Quinn, Arthur Hobson. A History of the American Drama. Vol. H I, "From the Civil~War to the Present Day”. London: Harper & B ros., 1927.

Rigdon, Walter. The Biographical Encyclopaedia & Who’s Who o f th e American Theatre. New York: James H. Heinemah, Inc., 1966.

Rosewater,' Victor. History of Co-operative Hewsgathering in the United States. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1930.

Rowell, George. The Victorian Theatre. London: Oxford IMiversity P ress, 1956 .

Ruggles, Eleanor. Prince of Players. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1953.

Saintsbury, Harry Arüiur. ^ Saw Him Act, a Symposium. london: Hurst & Blackett, 1939.

Scott, Clement. From the Bells to King Arthur. London: John MacQueen, 1896.

Shaw, G. B. Our Theatre in the Nineties. London: Constable & Co., Ltd., 1932.

Sprague, Arthur Colby. Shakespeare and the Actors. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 1944. 234

Sprague, Arthur Colby. Shakesperlan Players and Performances. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard Universilgr Press, 1953.

Stoker, Bram. Personal Reminiscences of Henry Irving. 2 vols. New York and london; Macmillan Co., 1906.

Talma, Francois J. Reflections of the Actor's Art. with an introduc­ tion by Henry Irving. New York: Dramatic Museum of Columbia University, 1915.

Terry, Ellen. Memoirs, with a preface, notes and additional biographi­ cal chapters by Edith Craig and Christopher St. John. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1932.

______. The Story of My life . New York: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1909.

Thomas, Augustus. The Print of My Remembrance. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922.

Towse,' John Rankin. Sixty Years of the Theatre. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 191^

Vardac, A. N. From Stage to Screen: Theatrical Method from Garrick to G riffith. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1949.

Wills, Freeman. W. G. Wills. Dramatist and Painter. London and New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1898.

W ilson, A lb e rt Edward. The Lyceum. London: D. Y ates, 1952.

Wingate, Charles Edgar Lewis. Shakespeare's Heroes on the Stage. New York and Boston: T. Y. Crowell & Co., 1895.

Shakespeare's Heroines on the Stage. New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co., 1895.

Winter, William. Henry Irving. New York: G. J. Coombes, 1885.

life and Art of Edwin Booth. New York: Macmillan and Co., 1893.

_. Of Other Days. New York: Moffat, Yard & Co., I 909.

_. Shakespeare on the Stage. New York: Moffat, Yard & Co., I 9I I .

_. The Wallet of Time. New York: Moffat, Yard & Co.., 1913. 235

Articles and Periodicals

Archer, William. "The Stage of Greater Britain" %e Eclectic Magazine. n.s. XLUI, no. 1, (January, 1886).

Ball, William T. W. "Henry Irving Dead" The New England Magazine (November, 190^

______. "Henry Irving’s Influence Upon the Stage" The New England Magazine, n.s. X, no. 2 (April, 1894).

Barlow, G. "Henry Irving and the English Drama" New Review (London: December, 1892).

Bates, William. "Irving's Influence on the American Stage" Spirit of the Times (April 26, 1884).

Chicago Daily Tribune. 1883-1905.

Church, Howard Wadsworth. "Henry Irving and Goethe’s Faust" Germanic Review. Vol. H I, no. 2 (April, 1928).

Clapp, H, A. "Henry Irving" Atlantic Monthly. 53:413.

Collier, R. L. "Henry Irving" lippinoott’s Magazine (Philadelphia: November, 1883).

Cosmopolitan Magazine. "Costuming the Modem Play" (March, 1902).

Courtney, W. L. "Mr. Irving’s Faust" Fortnightly Review, n.s. XXXIV (January, 1886),

Fiske,' Stephen. "The Irving Influence in America" The Theatre, n.s. XXVH (February 1, I 896).

Irving. Henry. "Address at Hsirvard" The C ritic. XXIV (New York: March 24, 1894).

______. "The American Audience" The Eclectic Magazine, n.s. XT.T (New York; April, I 885 ).

______. "Faust" Nineteenth Century Magazine (June, I 887).

______. "Inspiration and Naturalism in Dramatic Art" Education (Boston; July, 1885).

Leylahd, J. "Henry Irving" American. VI, VH (Philadelphia).

Lucas, Seymour. "The Art of Dressing an Historical Play" The Magazine of Aii, Vol. XVH (1894). 236

Marston, Richard, "Art in the Theatre: The Decline cf Scenic Art in America" The Magazine of Art. Vol. XVH, (I89A). New York Dramatic Mirror. 1879-190$.

New York Times. I87O-I905.

New York Tribune. I870-I 905. Norman, H. "Henry Irving in America" Nation. Vol. XXXVU, no. 9 (New York). Pollock, W. H. "Faust" lippincott*s Magazine. Vol. XXXVH (April, 1886). "Henry Irving’s Stage Management" The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine, n.s. IV, no. 6 (New York: October, 1883).

Runnion, James B. "Henry Irving” The Dial. Vol. IV (Chicago: Jansen, McClurg & Co., March, 1884).

Saturday Review. Vol. LVI, LVH. "Henry Irving in America" (london).

The Spectator. Vol. LVTTI. 'Mephistopheles at the Lyceum" (December 26 , 1885).

Stoker, Bram. "Irving and Stage Lighting" Nineteenth Century and After. vol. LK3X, (New York; Leonard Scott Publication Co., May, I 9II).

Towse, J. R. "Henry Irving" Century Magazine, vol. XXVH (March, 1884).

Unpublished M aterial

The Bram Stoker Scrapbooks of Henry Irving’s American Tours. Ohio State University Theatre Collection Film # 2046.

Programs of the first Irving American tour. The Ohio State University Theatre Collection Film # I63 I.

Swinney, Donald H. "Production at the Wallack Theatres 1852-1888". Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Speech-Theatre, University of Indiana, I 962.