INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zoeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 It 76-24,559 BERRY, Douglas Matthew, 1948- SIR HERBERT BEERBOHM TREE AT HIS MAJESTY'S THEATRE, 1897 - 1914: THE EDWARDIAN THEATRICAL EXPERIENCE. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1976 Theater

Xerox University Microfilms,Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 PLEASE NOTE:

Page 217 is lacking in number only. No text is missing. Filmed as received.

UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS. SIR HERBERT BEERBOHM TREE AT HIS MAJESTY1 S THEATRE, 1897 - 191^: THE EDWARDIAIT THEATRICAL EXPERIENCE

DISSERTATION

Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University

' By Douglas M. Berry 3 B. A.a M. A.

)fc a|c sf: ste sfc

The Ohio State University 1976

Reading Committees Approved By

Dr* Alan Woods Dr* John A. Walker Dr* A. R. H Ichols ^jl^ljAAnrA^ A dvisor Department of Theatre For Iiady Jane* Who lived with the work* P a t l e n t l y a

Through its completion.

i i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are a number of people and institutions whom I should like to thank for their help in this-work?

A lan Vfoods, who in s p ire d and advised th e work, and whose erudition and enthusiasm -were of great benefit; my Heading

Committee 3 whose members helped to sharpen the work; the Ohio State University Department of Theatre, for a grant enabling me to travel and study at the Folger Library; the staff of the Shields Library of the University of Cal­ ifornia at Davis, for allowing me to use microfilm copies of material from their Herbert Beerbohm Tree Collection; Mr* George Nash of th e V ic to ria and A lb e rt Museum, fo r h is suggestions, and for providing me with a handlist of the

Tree Estate (which had been part of the Enthoven Collec­ tion); Miss Anne Brooke Barnett, Keeper of the Theatre Col­ lection, University of Bristol, for her invitation to study their definitive collection of Beerbohm Tree material; Mr.

Michael J. Berry, for providing some of the illustrations used in the study; and to my parents, Douglas and Katherine

Berry, for their help and support in carrying out my re­ search*,

i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... i i i

LIST OF FIGURES ...... v

C hapter I . INTRODUCTION...... 1

I I . HIS MAJESTY'S THEATRE': THE PLAYHOUSE STRUCTURE...... 17

I I I . THE THEATRICAL EVENT AT HIS MAJESTY'S T H EA T R E ...... 67 IV. THE THEATRICAL EXPERIENCE AT HIS MAJESTY'S T H E A T R E ...... 112

V. CONCLUSIONS...... 190 SOURCES CONSULTED...... 203 APPENDIX A* CALENDAR OF PERFORMANCES AT HIS MAJESTY'S THEATRE 1897 - 1 9 1 ^ ...... 213 B. SPECIAL EVENTS AT HIS MAJESTY'S THEATRE, A REPRESENTATIVE L I S T ...... 22?

lv LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Facade* His Majesty's Theatre ...... 21 Figure 2. Auditorium* His Majesty's Theatre • ••••• 26

Figure 3* Grand Vestibule and Box office* His Majesty's Theatre . 29

Figure Proscenium arch, His Majesty's T h e a t r e...... 32

Figure 5. Longitudinal Section* His Majesty's T h e a tre 0...... 51 F ig u re 6 , Ground Plan* His Majesty's T h e a t r e...... 52

Figure 7* Reconstructive Drawing* His Majesty's Theatre ...... • • • • 53 F ig u re 8 . Box office* Front View* His Majesty's Theatre • • •• • ...... 51** Figure 9- Julia Neilson as Constance* in King John- His M ajesty'sTheatre* 1899 ...... 77 Figure 10. D. G. Rossetti* La Pia De Toleraei . • • . • 78 Figure 11. Herbert Beerbohm Tree in False Gods. His Majesty's Theatre, 1909 ...... 82 Figure 12. Playbill, His Majesty's Theatre* 191* + ...... 1^6 Figure 13. Program, His Majesty's Theatre ...... 153

Figure l*u Program* His Majesty's Theatre

Figure 15• Production Booklets* His Majesty's T h e a t r e...... 157

Figure 16. Souvenir Program* His Majesty's T h e a tre • ••••.•••••••••••• 162 v CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In the late l890's 3 as Henry Irving's star vas beginning to fade 3 '‘like a bright exhalation in the eve­ ning^* **• another was on the ascendency. In 1897a Diamond Jubilee Year for Queen Victoria, Herbert Beerbohm Tree

opened his "beautiful theatre" (so he always called it) in

the Hayraarket. In honor of the Queen it was named Her Maj­ esty's Theatre. For the next twenty years Her Majesty's, which became His Majesty's in 1902 upon the accession of

King Edward (and will be referred to as such throughout most of the present study )3 was managed by Tree in such a fashion that it became the major theatre in the kingdom. Tree in­ herited the mantle of the head of the profession from Henry Irving; it was passed to him by popular acclaim upon the death of the latter actor and remained in Tree's possession until his death in 1917* Under Tree's management, His Majesty's became the official home for Shakespeare in London. Other managers did of course produce the Bard 3 but as Tree's record

1 J. C. Trewin, The Theatre Since 1900 (London: Dakers Ltd., 1951), p. 7JI supports, no one did so as consistently or for as long a tim e. 2 Hesketh Pearson, Tree's biographer, calls Tree's productions "the major theatrical events of the period," 3 a statement that may be supported by some attendance fig­ ures quoted by Tree himselfI between the years 1898 and

1901 2^-2,000 people attended Julius Caesar. 170,000 saw

King John, and 220,000 w itnessed A Midsummer N ig h t's Dream. ^ In effect His Majesty's was a national theatrej that it never became so officially was to be one of Tree's major disappointments. In addition to Shakespeare, the re­ pertoire at His Majesty's was a curious (to modern taste) combination of spectacular melodrama and costume drama, Pineroesque society drama, innovative verse drama (Tree was instrumental in the attempt to create a modern British blank verse drama with the poet Stephen Phillips), adapt­ ations of novels (Tolstoy, Dickens, and others), even an

Ibsen (An Enemy of the People) and a Shaw (the premier of Pygmalion). Tree was an actor manager in the nineteenth cen­ tury tradition of Kean and Irving. He represented the tradition at its height, in the Edwardian era, just before

2 H. B. T ree, Times (London), October 1913* p . 10. 3 The Last of the Actor Managers (London: Meth­ uen, 1950)* P* 21. ** Tree, "Living Shakespeare ,11 Thoughts and After­ thoughts. ed. Tree (London: Cassel & Co., 1v13)Y P* w . the cataclysm of the First World War. He was* however* an actor manager -with a difference: he was not a throw­ back to the Victorian era who had somehow survived well

into the twentieth century (as he is often characterized* a viewpoint I shall attempt to demonstrate to be inaccur­ ate), In a recent article Rosenfeld points out that Tree was an experimentor, in the same twentieth-century trad­ ition that is represented by Granville Barker* introducing new and untried authors to the West End. ** He also orig­ inated (in 1905) and produced (until 191*f) the London Shakespeare Festival. The Festival was an unprecedented endeavor to introduce classic theatre in true repertory to the West End* and was quite successful. 6 Tree was a pioneer in the use of film as an artistic medium* prod­ ucing several Shakespearean films* beginning with Scenes from King John, as e a rly as 1899* The Academy ( la te r

Royal) of Dramatic Art was also Tree's idea* and was found­ ed by him in 190*+.

Considering Tree's record* briefly outlined above* it is surprising how little scholarship exists on the

5 Sybil Rosenfeld* "Some Experiments of Beerbohm Tree*" Nineteenth Century Theatre Research 2 (197^)1 75-83. 6 George Rowell* "Tree's Shakespeare Festivals," Theatre Notebook 29 (1975)1 7**-8l, ? Robert Hamilton Ball, "The Shakespeare Film as Record: Sir Herbert Tree's King John.11 Shakespeare quar­ terly ^ (1952): 227-336,* idem. ."Tree's King John Film: an Addendum," J3(£ Zh (1973) - 155-59* If subject. In addition to the four articles cited above,

two doctoral dissertations are devoted partly to Tree, 8 and he is the subject of three biographies, 9 the b est known that by Pearson. Tree is, of course, mentioned in

the theatre history texts, but in these sources he is

accorded little importance and the pictur presented is often done in such scant detail that the subject is often

misrepresented. For example, after spending ten pages on the work of Henry Irving, Oscar Brockett states that "The

most famous actor-manager between 1900 and 1910 was Her­

bert Beerbohm Tree," 1° and then devotes exactly two short paragraphs to Tree. Although Brockett does mention Tree's

p o p u la rity , the F e s tiv a ls , the Academy, and T re e 's good

casting, he characterizes the His Majesty's productions with the cliched story of real rabbits in Mid summer Night's Dream and lets it go at that. It is true of course that

in such a work as Brockett's not everything can be covered

® Thomas Booth Haas, "Kean, Irv in g , and Tree* Shake­ spearean Production Aesthetics" (Ph.D. dissertation, Univ­ ersity of VJisconsin, 1963); Anthony B. Schmitt, "The v/inter's Tale in Production" (Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State Univer­ s it y , 1970). 9 Max Beerbohm, ed. Herbert Beerbohm Tree. Some Memories of Him and His ,Art (London: Hutchinson' & CoY, " i9lby?~ Ws.~Geor'ge Cran. Herbert Beerbohm Tree (London! Bodley Head, 1907)? Hesketh Pearson, Beerbohm Tree. His Life and Laughter (New Yor!^; Harper Bros., 19^). 10 Historv of the Theatre (Boston! Allvn and Bacon. 1968), p. if73o equally, but even in such specialized works as Speaight's Shakespeare on the Stage, although a bit more space is devoted to Tree, much the same picture is presented, in­ cluding the story of real rabbits. 11

If the most important thing that ever happened at

His Majesty's was the use of live rabbits on the stage, to increase a popular naturalism already well developed, the i subject would hardly be worth extensive examination. This is, however, not the case. Tree, and more importantly, His

Majesty's Theatre, represents in many respects the nature of the Edwardian theatrical experience in London. I do not mean to suggest that His Majesty's was the "essence*' of the Edwardian era theatre, for it was atypical in as many ways as it was typical. I suggest rather, that the importance of the subject lies in the direction of larger questions than Tree's naturalism on the stage. Tree considered himself to be a caterer for the public, and as such he knew and manipulated the public taste. He made special occasions of theatre events, im­ buing them with what he knew (or at least what he thought) would excite the public. Therein lies his, the manager's, art. Max Beerbohm once wrote that all of the extra­ theatrical trappings, all the sense of celebration and oc­ casion attendant on the theatre, especially on first nights,

11 (Bostons L ittle, Brown, & Co., 1973)a PP. 125- 1 2 8 . was probably detrimental to the art of the theatre. He concluded* however* that these were the real reason why he went to the theatre in the first place, 12 Wilson writes (in the 1950*s) t h a t "we have made p ro g ress in th e art of the theatre* even if* as I think* play-going is a much less exciting experience than it was wont to be." 13

Both writers share my belief that the experience involved in going to the theatre is as important an aspect of what constitutes the theatrical experience as is the theatre event itself. Dunton noted* in 1907* that it "does seem to be true that seeing any sort of a play in London is a much more real and significant experience than seeing a play in New York." I1* Priestley characterizes the chief problem of the Edwardian theatre* the lack of interest in serious plays (except Shakespeare)* as stemming from the party-like atmosphere in which the Edwardian attended the theatre. ^ With these statements in mind* the questions the present is addressed to concern the nature of the theat­ rical experience* and a methodology by which it may be

12 "First Nights*" Around'Theatres (New York* Tapplinger, 1969)* p. 52. 13 Edward Wilson, The Edwardian Theatre (London: Arthur Barker Ltd.* 1951)* p* 27. 1^ E. K. Dunton* "The Englishman as Playgoer*" The.JBookman 25 (Way 1907)1 277* 1^ J. B. Priestley* The F,Award ians (New York: Harper and Row* 1970)* p. 155* documented. In his Historians 1 Fallacies. David Hackett Fis­ cher has devoted a chapter to the art of framing questions for use in historical inquiry. ^ Following the first two of Fischer's axioms for good questions* that a question be operational (resolvable in empirical terras) and be open- ended* I have asked the question "What happened at His Majesty's Theatre* from 1897 to 191^?". The present study is an attempt to answer that question* keeping in mind* rather as goals* several frames of reference* described below. In his excellent introduction to The Theatrical Manager in England and America. Joseph Donohue provides a discussion of the rationale of the study of theatre his­ tory, and suggests as the aim of the modern theatre histor­ iographer the creation of what he calls a "sociological esthetic of dramatic performance." in so doing he has spoken for a great many theatre historians •LO1 ftwhose study of the theatre is aimed at something at once more inclusive and elusive than the documentation of (for example) Beer­ bohm Tree's use of live rabbits on the stage. The present

(New York: Harper & Row* 1970), pp. 38-39* 17 *

In answering the question stated above one frame of reference, the most obvious one, is the nature of the performances that took place at His Majesty's Theatre dur­ ing the Edwardian era. The theatrical performance, in the context of the present study, may be defined as:

a phenomenon, that begins as the enterprise of certain persons in a particular time and place but that, as we subsequently study it, appears in a significant posture before that portion of society that composes its audience and, further, h o ld s im p lic it some e s s e n t i a l p a r t of th e c u ltu r e of its age. All of this, moreover, is perceived within the historical continuum that connects the production with our own day, 19 The performance then is one frame of reference. But, as stated above, the stage performance "holds implicit some essential part of the culture of its age." Unless we explore the relationships between the performance and its culture we will understand only a part of the theatrical ex­ perience. The underlying meaning of the performance is most clearly apparent in the point of contact between the audience and the staged event. That point of contact is termed the theatrical experience. This aspect of the per­ formance is most evanescent, and is yet crucial when con­ sidering what happened at a theatre. It is therefore the documentation of the theatrical experience which provides

■**9 Donohue, "The Theatrical Manager," p. 12. the second frame of reference to he used In answering the

study1s original question. Both frames of reference are touchstones for clusters of questions: "What did Tree's costumes look like?"; "VIhat kind of stage pictures did Tree compose?"; "What did the sets for Ulysses look like ? 115 "How ■were the scenes in The Musketeers structured?". All of these are questions directed specifically at the performance.

Examples of questions directed at the point of contact between the audience and the performance, the theatrical experience, are I "What was the atmosphere at His Majesty's like?"; "Was it comfortable?"; "Who would go there, where did they sit, and what did they expect?";

"What was the occasion of attending a performance like?". The question clusters of the first frame provide support for the second frame of reference. 20 The ultimate goal of the theatre historian is to provide a clear sense of event and occasion. It is for • this reason the present study is directed at the ambience in which the performance exists« The history of the thea­ tre is a history of human experience, it is more than the sum of the facts that have been left as the records of the events.

2^ Donohue, "The Theatrical Manager," p. I1*. His suggestion that one employ a "historiography of enactment" to arrive at a sociological aesthetic of dramatic perfor­ mance is the basis for the above method of question fram­ ing O 1 0 The conditions that govern the performance and

Its reception* and the experience of those conditions* det­ ermine the theatrical occasion* It is the experience of this occasion that I am particularly interested in for* in understanding this experience* ve may come closest to recapturing the theatre of.a past age. The actual art object* the theatrcial event* exists only in this occasion* for the art of the theatre is only real and tangible as it is perceived. We cannot recreate the actual perceptions of persons in the past* but -we may attempt to recapture the conditions that govern those perceptions* Such is the aim of the present study* The parameters of the study are provided by time and Zeitgeist. It deals v;ith the Edwardian era in London*

1897 to 191^. 2^ Ih e year 1897 'was Diamond Ju b ile e Year* the celebration of the Empire and fifty years of Victoria's reign. It -was "at once the crowning glory and the swansong of the Victorian age and the beginning of the Edwardian." 22 Although it was s till four years before Edward would mount the throne* currents that shaped the Edwardian era were

21 I do not provide in this chapter* or anywhere else* an overview of the Edwardian era* its society* art* politics, etc* Space and time limits prevent such a study, which for that matter, has been done already by a number of authors. See bibliography for best references. 22 \i* Maviueen-Pope* C arriag es a t Eleven (London; Hutchinson & Co., 19^8), p. HI already strong* ^ 1897 was also the year that Tree opened his new theatre (for the ten years previous he had run the smaller Haymarket) and it was no accident that

Her Majesty's opened that year. The ceremony on the open­ ing night was in the full spirit of the Jubilee, as was

the entire city. The Prince of Wales presided over the festivities at Her Majesty's, and in the audience was

everybody who was anybody (as well as a full gallery and pit consisting of persons who were not eminent). The

ceremony set the tone, the sense of occasion, that was to

characterize Tree and his theatre for the next seventeen years. His Majestyfs was always a rather special place to

go. By 191^ however, things had changed a great deal; the Jubilee spirit had sombered under the turmoil that created World War One, and although it seems almost too convenient

a date for a second parameter, the 1911+/19l 5 season was ok Tree's last at His Majesty's. Beerbohm Tree was the leading actor manager of his day, and his acting abilities were (and still are) endlessly debated. ^ The interest of the present study, however,

23 See Samuel Hynes, The Edwardian Turn of Mind (Princeton: Princeton University Press, i 960). ok * Tree spent the following year in America, tour­ ing and filming Macbeth in Los Angeles. Upon his return to London, before his new season opened, he died of a blood c l o t . See Tree's biographies for a number of viewpoints on the subject of his acting. 1 2 lies in his activities as a manager* not as an actor.

Vlhether or not Tree was a great actor* the present study

demonstrates that it was not Tree*s acting which drew

people to His Majesty 1s* hut the theatrical event he so carefully nurtured. It is* furthermore* the relationship

of the public to the art object taken as a whole* and the

manager*s function in helping to foster the relationships between the public and the theatrical performance* which

characterized the Edwardian theatre.

The research materials the study is based on are

varied. They include newspaper accounts* reviews, and

advertisements* programs and souvenir programs* booklets

and books* promptbooks and promptbook reconstructions;

photographs* drawings* and architectural plans; biographies

and memoirs; Tree's o\m published writing; the art of the

period* painting* sculpture* decoration, and illustration 5 and, on a secondary level* scholarship on the theatre* soci­

ology , art, politics* intellectual atmosphere* and econom­

ics of the period. Of particular note in the category of. newspaper

materials has been the Times (London), whose index provides a veritable catalog of activity at His Majesty's Theatre, year by year* throughout the period. Every reference in

that index concerning Tree and his theatre has been care­

fully examined. Other papers and periodicals have also

been consulted* especially the Illustrated weeklies. 13 The programsa souvenir programs, souvenir books, and souvenir booklets of His Majesty*s Theatre productions* in the special collections of three iibraries have been examined, and from them much valuable information has been gleaned. The Folger Libraryfs fine collection of His Majesty*s material has been examined, as have the many programs and souvenirs from His Majesty's Theatre at the

Center for the Performing Arts Library. The promptbooks examined (Merchant of Venice. The Tempest. Twelfth Wight.

Julius Caesar, and the School for- Scandal) are also from these sources.

The study is organized into five chapters and sev­ eral appendices. Chapter II is an examination of the phys­ ical theatre Tree built, the playhouse called His Majesty's Theatre. It seems logical to begin such a study as the present one with the given, the most concrete factor in the elusive experience that we are after: the physical environ­ ment or space of the event and occasions under consideration.

In order to answer the question governing the study the theatre in question must be described. The attempt is made to go beyond what some historians dub the "doors and floors" approach and to describe what being in the

^ Microfilms of these now reside at the Ohio State University Theatre Research Institute.

27 see Woods, ed. The Historiography of Theatre History for a m ulitplicity of similar views and approaches. lb building was like, and how the physical structure of the theatre affected the theatrical event and the experience that took place there*

Chapter III examines Tree's production style, or more specifically, examines the nature of the theatrical events staged at His Majesty's, and the practices and aesthetics that Tree, as manager, used in creating them.

It also examines the way in which these events were per­ ceived by their audience and how they have been perceived in the continuum of the theatre's history. This chapter is a study of the art object, as such, that was produced by Tree at His Majesty's Theatre during the Edwardian era.

As such the chapter is, hopefully, a touchstone of the cul­ tural, artistic, and social atmosphere of the age. It also deals specifically with what Tree's productions were like. I have not concentrated however on one production with the aim of reconstructing it. Such an approach to the present subject, as described elsewhere by Donohue, ^8 would be possible, but the present study deals with the theatrical events in a larger way than the minute detailing of one production might allow. That is, the study is con­ cerned with the myriad conditions surrounding the

oQ . ° "The First Production of The Importance of Beinr; Earnest: A Proposal for a Reconstructive Study," jEssays on the Nineteenth Century British Theatre. Ken­ neth Richards and Peter Thomson, eds, (London; Methuen, 1971), pp. 127- 28. 1 ? performance of the theatrical event. By treating the larger implications of the theatrical events, the picture of the theatrical experience this study creates should be of greater use than a study of one specific production might be.

Chapter IV documents what may best be termed the theatrical experience at His Majesty*s Theatre,, and is the focal point of the study. The theatrical manager is that person who brings together the art object and its audience (in addition to creating the art object in this case) and5 in so doing, creates the dynamic occasion of the performance. Tree had a particular "sense of event" which allowed him to create theatrical occasions that en­ tailed a good deal more than directing a play. It is in the study of the sense of event and the theatrical occasion that I hope to come the closest to that point of contact between the performer and audience that is essential for the establishment of the sociological esthetic of dramatic performance.

In each of these chapters I am seeking to provide a variety of answers, and sub-questions, to my original question. The fifth chapter serves to provide a summary of the inquiry and to present the nature of the conclusions drawn. If the study of the theatre Is valuable largely in that It provides a unique key to other cultures and times, and I believe that this Is so, then the present study will 1 6 be of use to a far wider range of potential readers than those interested strictly in stage production, Tree*s theatre was above all a popular theatre, indeed the most popular theatre in London for twenty years* The study of what happened there should be of interest to anyone con­ cerned with the English people during that era. CHAPTER I I

HIS MAJESTY'S THEATRE: THE PLAYHOUSE STRUCTURE

The site in the Haymarket where a new theatre was erected in the spring of 1897 Had been the location of a theatre for over two hundred years, 1 On th a t s i t e , on 28 A p ril 1897, Her Majesty's Theatre, called by Bernard Shaw "quite the handsomest theatre in London," 2 opened to the town. Tree planned, 3 built, owned, ^ and managed His Maj­ esty's from that opening until his death in 1917*

The playhouse will be described beginning with the exterior, working inward toward the stage. In the present context, the facade and the house and its environs are con­ sidered of equal, if not greater, importance than the stage. In fact, the real emphasis in the theatre's design was given to parts of the building other than the stage; this is a fact which is of utmost importance when considering the Edwardian theatrical experience.

1 I l l u s t r a t e d London News. 1 May 1897, p. 59 3 . 2 G. B. Shaw, Our Theatres in the Nineties. 3 vols. (London: Constable and Company, Ltd.,1948), 3* 116. 3 Edwin 0. Sachs, Modern Opera Houses and Theatres. 3 vols, (London: B. T. Batsford, I 896-I 899), 2: 3&, **■ Pearson, Beerbohm Tree, p. 101* 17 18

The Times stated that although London "was not rich in theatres of architectural pretention* the new theatre Her Majesty*s Theatre does much to alleviate thls.""^

Located on a corner site* that of Charles Street and the Hay- market* with each side completely open to public thorough­ fare and backed by an open arcade* Her Majesty's occupied almost the ideal spot for a theatre. ^ The Sketch noted the "dignity and charm '1 that Her Majesty's lent to the Haymarket, saying that there had been little tendency to build theatres of architectural importance in London*" and welcomed the ad­ d it i o n . 7 The Graphic referred to it as a "splendid new home" for Tree and his company* and called its opening "An event in pur theatrical annals of more than ordinary interest." ®

Bernard Shaw said of Her Majesty's that "It rises spaciously and brilliantly to the dignity of art, . . ."9 0f the c r i t i c s who covered the opening of th e th e a tr e were moved to praise the new building for a variety of reasons.

Although Her Majesty's was designed by the noted theatre architect C. J. Phipps* Tree worked very closely with

Times (London)* 26 April 1897* p. 13 • 6 Sachs* Modern Theatres. 3T 1J?.

7 Sketch (London), 5 May 1897* P* ® Graphic (London)* l May 1897* p . 5^3- 9 Shaw, Our Theatres. 3 : 118. 1 9 him and was instrumental in much of its planning. 10 The theatre's handsomeness and design were "altogether to the credit of Mr. Tree's public spirit and artistic conscious­ ness." H It was reported that the theatre utilized "all possible improvements known to science," and predicted that that Her Majesty's "will in every way be pleasing to crowds." l^ This was a prediction that time proved correct.

E. 0. Sachs notes the outstanding design of Tree's new theatre time and time again. A theatre architect himself, Sachs wrote that Her Majesty's was "a playhouse so admir­ able in arrangement that it will be considered a model of its kind," and that "of playhouses planned to fulfill the usual requirements of the metropolis, i.e. those of a com­ mercial establishment where the architecture is restricted by financial considerations . . . Her Majesty's no doubt takes the leading position." He further states that Tree's theatre was the complete embodiment "of the customary demand for economic planning and modern equipment." Sachs was also most impressed with the safety features of the building. ^*3

11 Maude Tree, "Herbert and I," Herbert Beerbohm Tree, ed. Max Beerbohm, p. 98; Viola Tree, "My Father," ibid., p. 175s Sachs, Modern Theatres. 2: 36. 11 Shaw, Our Theatres. 3: 117.

. Sketch (London), 5 May 1897, p.

13 Sachs, Modern Theatres. 2s 35* 2 0

His Majesty*s -was built of Portland stone and trim­

med in red granite in the French Renaissance style, described

as more suitable for "modern tastes" than the severe classic

style of most of the London theatres. An excellent il­

lustration of this contrast is available in the frontspiece of Pearson's The Last of the Actor Managers. One may notice

the way in •‘which His Majesty's does not dwarf people, as does the Lyceum w ith i t s g ia n t columns r is in g up out of the

street. Rather, His Majesty's is fronted and flanked by a

long, open, rain roof that welcomed and protected the patrons from the elements instead of impressing them with a sense of grandeur. It is a friendly sort of gesture from a

building that nonetheless exhibits dignity and importance.

Shaw noted these qualities, writing that His Majesty's

Theatre was "wonderfully humanized and subtlized by the influence of modern anti - Renaissance although it

was in a Renaissance revival style ideas in decora­

tio n ." ^ The facade was an example of a l l th a t was new in

architecture, not only of the "most advanced methods of *t ft ■ theatre construction, but also echoing perfectly the fin

^ Times (London), 26 A p ril 1897s P* 13* 15 Our Theatres in the Nineties. 3: 118.

16 Illustrated London flews. 1 May 1897s P* 5931 see figure 1. 2 1

Figure 1. Facade, His Majesty's Theatre. (Sachs, Modern Onera Houses and Theatres,). 2 2 de siecle artistic consciousness; ^ a combination of

modern daring (Art Nouveau) and Romantic revival (French

Renaissance). The uniqueness of the style of the facade

■was noted; "it cannot be called very popular in London, despite its convenience and the useful effect of the Mansard towers." 3-8 A distinctive note was lent to the facade on the Haymarket side by the open collonaded loggia above the main vestibule. Sachs* however* thought that the facade did not reveal the purpose of the building and that the log­ gia was a waste of space. Atop the building on the Hayraar— ket side was a great bronze cupola, designed to "catch and gladden the eye from far off." 3-9 Tree was not satisfied with the shiny metal quality however, and could not wait for it to turn green with age. 2<3

His Majesty*s was not of course merely an artistic creation. It was chiefly a commercial establishment, a building designed to make a return for the investors who backed Tree. The actor manager always had to bear in mind both the financial and artistic considerations of every­ thing he did. Happily for Tree* His Majesty*s was a near

3-7 For a thorough treatment of Art Nouveau the reader should see Robert Schmutzler* Art Nouveau, trans. E, Roditi (New York: Abrams, 1962).

‘L® Sketch (London), !? May 1897, p. 3-9 I b id . 20.Viola Tree, "My Father," p. 1 7 1*-. 2 3 perfect combination of those two poles of interest. Sachs

compares the architectural barreness of the typical London theatre to the various "monuments to art" that existed on

the continent (the Paris Opera and the Vienna Hoffburg) and finds that, although the latter had real architectural distinction, they left something to be desired as theatres. His Majesty's, he writes, was the first successful combin­ ation of both elements. 21 Sachs also stressed this idea

in a speech made to the Royal Institute of British Archi­ tects, in which he said that Phipps was working "entirely under private speculation, but he has produced • .. . the best building that could be built under the conditions .11 22 His Majesty's was both a work of art and a working theatre, always called by Tree "my beautiful theatre." 23 The estimates of the cost of the theatre range from 000 2*f to £. 70, 000. 25 (Sachs quotes a nice middle figure of 60,000). 26 Hibbert also tells us (and therefore the figures may again be high) that by the time of Tree's death

21 Modern Theatres. 2: 2.

22 "Housing the Drama." The Builder. 12 February 1898, p. Ilf 9 . 23 Pearson, Beerbohm Tree, p. 101.

Ibid., p. 101. 2^ H. G. Hibbert, A Playgoer's Memories (London: G. Richards Ltd., 1920), p. 2 2 4 . 1

2^ Modern Theatres. 3; 3 6 . 2h in 1917 the theatre sold for 110, 000, and the ground

rent for the property stood at 3^00 yearly. This was a

comparatively high figure for the period and took into ac­ count the fact that the theatre was located on a choise cor­ ner site with 160 feet fronting on Charles Street, and 86 feet on the Haymarket. All sources are impressed with the

comparative expense of His Majesty's (in 1897 the Princess

Theatre sold for 20,500 and had a ground rent of some

1600 y e a r ly ) . 28 The large expense was a characteristic

of all facets of Tree's management. He never did anything

in a small way. One may note, in comparing the pain of His Majesty’s

to the plans of the various European theatres erected in ap­ proximately the same period (in Sachs} that His Majesty's, typical of the English theatres, is smaller. However, when compared to contemporary English theatres, His Majesty's proves to be rather larger than usual. 2^ Only Drury Lane, Covent Garden, and the Lyceum had larger seating capacities, and they were far less intimate than Tree's theatre. The block on which His Majesty's was built was also developed as a hotel and restaurant, the famous Carlton, all integ­ rated into an architectural whole. The effect vjas a. ;

27 Hibbert, Plavroer's Memories, p. 221+.

28 The Theatre. 1 March 1897* p. 183. 29 John Parker, ed.. Who's Mho in the Theatre 191*+ (Boston: Small, Maynard, & C o .,19140, p. 867. 2 5 continuity that was entirely lacking in most London theatres

(again, note figure 1 ), which were generally part of an archi­ tectural hodgepodge. The creation of a total entertainment environment, as noted by Sachs, is a small scale version of the grandiose theatres on the Continent. The total dev­ elopment of the environment was an integral part of Tree's

idea of the theatrical experience (although he did not have any official capacity at the Carlton), helping to create a sense of occasion by insuring that the entire area of the theatre would be pleasing to the patron. Concerning the inside of the theatre, Sachs notes

the "most ingenious" arrangement of the entrances and exits,

a feature in direct contrast to the twisting passageways and jumbled corridors of most London theatres* 3° in an

interview Tree made special note of the eleven entrances and exits, designed for public convenience and safety. 31

Some of these entrances and exits were gained by simply

reversing the traditional arrangement. Such is the case of the door that is visible in the front of the pit in

figure 2. As Macomber notes, this door is the location of the traditional pit entrance, but in His Majesty's it is marked "way out," serving as an exit for the stalls. 32

30 Modern Theatres. 2! 36. 31 Tree, "Illustrated Interview;" Strand Magazine (April 1897), clipping, NYPL scrapbook (MWJ32 6I 87). 32 ii^he Iconography of London Theatre Auditorium Architecture" (Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State Univ., 1959)* P • l o l « 26

Figure 2, Auditorium a His Majesty fs Theatre. (Sachs 3 Modern Onera Houses and Theatres). 2 7 The convenience of such an arrangement is obvious; it

permits the stalls patrons to exit 'without having to

traverse the entire length of the auditorium back to the

main foyer.

All of the newspapers covering the opening of the

theatre (and an indication of the Importance of the event lies in the fact that all of the papers did cover it) note

the complete dependence, "rather bold," 33 UpQn electric light. There were three sources of electricity in order

to cope with any possible failure. 31* Ironically, Lady Tree writes that on opening night, with the Prince of Wales

in the audience, the electricity did fail, although only momentarily. That the electricity was a safety feature as well as an artistic one is obvious. The arrangement of the paybox too has been singled out for praise. Both Sachs and Leacroft 35 note the econom­ ical and convenient design wherein all the sections of the auditorium could be serviced from different sides of the same box office. This was an improvement upon the system of locating a number of separate pay boxes throughout the theatre, a practice necessitated by the fact that, in the

Edwardian theatre, people were separated by classes. His

33 Times (London), 26 April 1897* P- 13- 3^ sketch. £ May 1897a p. *+. 35 Richard Leacroft, The Development of the English Playhouse (London: Eyre Methuen, 1973)a P« 274-* 2 8 Majesty1s Theatre was designed so that persons of each particular class would not need to mingle with one another when entering or leaving the theatre. The paybox design too permitted this convenience, and did so in an efficient majxner • The theatre's decoration, designed by H. Romaine Walker, was in a Regency sty le, combining characteristics of the Louis XXV and the Louis XV modes. The period was chosen because it lent "itself to a handsome yet simple scheme," and seemed "well adopted as a home for the Classic and Romantic drama." 36 as in the case of the entire layout of the theatre, the decoration was part of a well developed plan, and the plan was Tree's. The predominant color was white, relieved with red and gold. The color scheme lent to the theatre (see figure 2 ) a very light and bright at­ mosphere. The decoration was described in the press as "very simple" 37 an(^ "bright and effective." 33 r e l­ ative simplicity of the decor is important because it is very much against the la te Victorian trend of overdone "Bourgeois Baroque" style, in evidence at many theatres. 39

33 sketch. 5 May 18974 p. 5* 37 illustrated London News. L may 1 8 9 7, p. J?93*

33 S k etch T 5 May l8979 p« 5* 39 Donald C, Mullin, The Development of the Play­ house: a Survey of Theatre Architecture from the Renais­ sance to the Present (BerkeleyI University of California Press, 1 9 7 6), pp. 1 3 2 - 1^ o 29

Figure 3. Grand Vestibule and Box Office, His Majesty’s Theatre• (Sachs, Modern Opera Houses and Theatres). 3 0 Figure 3 shows the lobby or Grand Vestibule of the

main entrance, on the Haymarket. Its most striking fea­

tures are the parquet floor and the open white plaster work

of the ceiling. The bright effect is immediately apparent, yet at the same time it does not seem undignified. Shaw

said of His Majesty’s that it looked the part of a real

theatre, "where high scenes are to be enacted and dignified thing to be done," and that there were none of the trans­ planted qualities of a fancy shop or a P. and 0. steamer, so common to the theatres of the ninties. 1+0 Absent from the lobby of His Majesty*s too are the standard gigantic and useless mantlepieces, the panels of mirrors, and the

jungles of fern common in lobbies of the period. Instead, there were dark red wall panels, set inside white panels, upon which were mounted electric candle brackets, designed to resemble Fountainbleau candelabra, and white pilasters in a simple Doric mode. The ceiling was done in sculpted panels, but they too are relatively simple and do not ob­ tr u d e .

One may make an analogy of the actor-managers* theatres to a great house, where all guests were welcome and made to feel at home. It Is interesting to note, with this in mind, the nature of the staircase in the lobby.

Although it seems wide enough for public use, it is primar­ ily functional, and, with Its simple woodwork, looks like

**■0 Our T h eatres in the N in e tie s . 3S 1 1 7 . 3 1 a staircase in a private home. Note should also be made that directly under the main entrances, under the brass wall plaque, stands a homely radiator. It does not look out of place, and no attempt was made to hide its nature.

People need to be kept warm, and His Majesty's was designed for use by people. The interior of the auditorium and the proscenium arch are illustrated in figures 2 and The columns and pilasters of the arch were of Breche Violette marble, not gilt work. ^ Note should be made of the six boxes and the relatively small portion of the auditorium space they oc­ cupy. They too are not, by late nineteenth century stan­ dards, over decorated. The auditorium was illuminated by the ubiquitous chandelier, or "electrolier," of cut glass L-p and brass, which Sachs thought to have been too large for the room. He also thought that it hung too low and this prevented both the electrolier and the ceiling from being as effective as they might have been. ^ The elec­ trolier was augmented by the Fountainbleau candle brackets mounted in panels on the balcony (figure 2 ).

The ceiling that Sachs mentioned was done in a great wheel pattern in plaster. The "spokes" of the wheel were

1+1 Sketch. 5 May l897» p. 5* 1+2 I b id . **3 Sachs, Modern Theatres. 3 : 79. 32

'i*t332?W?3S

Figure Proscenium archa His Majesty's Theatre. (Sachsa Modern Ouera Houses and Theatres). 3 3 formed/by gilt musical instruments done in has relief.

They formed the frames for a wheel of panels painted by

A. J. Black representing Dawn, Sunrise, Morning, Noon, Afternoon, Sunset, Twilight, and Night, All of these panels, as well as many of the other panels on the theatre*s walls, were done in the Roccoco style of the French painter

Boucher. ^ The desired effect was apparently gained, for in "remembering" the atmosphere at His Majesty*s Ma^ueen -

Pope writes that "The paintings hung on the walls were » • • good pictures by celebrated artists," ^ The act drop also echoed Boucher. It was painted by Gignam and was designed to copy a tapestry made by

Gobelins, the company founded by Boucher. The desired ef­ fect was of a richness (the Sketch notes the fantastic ex­ pense of the original) and dignity. Of the act drop, it was reported that "those who suffer from the act drops of London few of which are even inoffensive, will probably find great pleasure in it." Although the decoration of His Majesty*s was hardly Spartan or avante garde, it was nonetheless a refreshing change from the norm. This is an important point. In coming to an understanding of a theatrical experience of

^ S k e tc h , 5 May 1897, p. 5. ^ W. MaQueen - Pope, Carriages at Eleven (London: Hutchinson & Co., 19^8), p. 3*>.

^ Sketch. 5 May 1897» P- 5* any age, an accurate idea of the environment is, of course, necessary. The common view of the late nineteenth century playhouse is a picture of clutter, dust - catching hangings,

loads of gilt work, and heavy ornamentation. All of that gives a picture of a heavy, somewhat oppresive atmosphere

to the twentieth century mind. That cluttered style was in existence and quite common: its "Bourgeois Baroque" qual­

it y has been w ell d esc rib e d n o ta b ly by Macoraber and M ullin. His Majesty*s Theatre was designed in reaction to this style, and should nQ.t be thought of as a part of it.

The atmosphere at His Majesty*s was distinctly light and

airy; Sir Squire Bancroft is reported to have said to Tree upon touring the structure "Hmm, a great many windows to

clean." Although dignified, His Majestyfs was not vul­ gar, ostentatious, or pompous in style. It was of course a product of its time, and its simplicity is relative. Ue

of the present might still tend to think of it as overdone,

but the distinction between its decoration and that of the

majority of the London theatres is there and is Important.

Even today the decorative quality may not be entirely ap­ parent, for although It may seem obvious, when Tree ran the

theatre, it was new.

It has been stressed that the thorough planning of

the decor was part of Tree*s desire for the proper setting

**■7 Pearson, Beerbohm Tree, p. 102. 35 for the theatrical event. He was personally involved in

the plans and wished everything to contribute to the whole scheme. The results of the idea have been described 3 b u t

the idea itself may best be illustrated in the words of

Lady Tree, describing the events the night before the new theatre opened. She writes:

Well.do I remember looking in as late as six o*clock and finding to our horror that some kind firm of pot­ tery makers had sent in hundreds of huge vessels, crude and shiny, in shades of yellow, peacock blue, crushed strawberry—the worst products of an ugly age. By dint of frantic labor, these abominations were removed in time to prevent their marring the beautiful symmetry and simplicity of Mr. Phipps 1 and Mr. Romaine Walker*s designs, but they had given us a terrible shock, and had nearly driven from my head the Poet Laureate*s inaugural address which it was my privilege to sp eak .

Although legends have developed about Tree and his vague, off-handed manner 3 which gave the impression that he never knew what was going on about him, he was always well aware of the details of management.

The design of the auditorium of His Majesty1s was perhaps the theatrers most innovative and salient feature.

It had a seating capacity of 1,720 persons, representing a potential gross of some£370. ^ It was here that Tree wel­ comed his patrons, who can be thought of as paying guests.

The focal point of the. theatre*s design was the auditorium.

The two governing factors of the design were a concern for

^ Maude T re e, "H erbert and I , " p . 103. ^9 the Play," The Theatre , 1 June 1897, p. 332. 36 the comfort and safety of the audience, and the desire to provide .the best possible view of the stage from every seat in the house. Tree stated that he got many of the ideas for the auditorium from the theatres in America and from Wagner's Festspielhaus at Bayreuth. The auditorium was described in this manner I "For the soul of the playgoer

Mr. Tree has built a lordly pleasure house; not so much for the soul perhaps as for the comfort of the playgoer's per­ son and the delights of his eye."

Beginning with the air that the patron breathed and felt, Tree spared nothing to make him comfortable. In the closing night speech at the Haymarket Theatre, speaking of his new theatre, Tree said: ♦ . suffice to say that I shall not forget the requirements of the public, and I shall direct attention to the all important question of vent­ ilation." Leacroft points out the traditional lack of temperature control in the London theatres and lauds Tree for alleviating that condition. ^ Tree stated that the "American air conditioning" of the New York theatres impressed him greatly, and served

"Illustrated Interview," Strand Magazine. April 1897 (clipping) NYPL Scrapbook (MYffiZ“6lU7)^ Illustrated London News. 8 May 1897 3 P* 65*+. Times (London), V? J u ly 1896, p . 12. ^3 pevelonment of the English Playhouse, p. 2 3 7 . 3 7 as the model for the His Majesty*s system. ^ This system was described as "remarkable 11 in its design to keep the aud-* itorium at a uniform temperature of 62° F., and to deliver 10,000 cubic feet of fresh air every hour. 55 By 1911 the air conditioning had been redone and updated, and all of the programs from that time on carried the message that "The Theatre has now been fitted with the Ozonaire System of Ventilation for the constant supply of fresh air." 56 This was good advertising, and a wholesome improvement upon the conditions governing the performance. The air inside the theatre was also unpolluted from the smoke of the very popular cigarette, for smoking was a semi-private affair, and separate rooms were provided for that purpose. The separate smoking rooms were standard features in the Ed­ wardian theatres, but Tree gave his patrons an improvement on the custom. This was an open, collonaded loggia on the second floor, an "open air smoking terrace," that afforded a fine view of the Haymarket and protection from the weath­ e r . 57 While the patron's olfactory and osculatory senses were attended to by the ventilation system, his ears were

5** "Illustrated Interview," NYPL Scrapbook.

^ Illustrated London Hews. 1 May 1897s P- 593* 5& His Majesty*s Theatre Programs; Folger, NYPL. 5 7 ■"At the Play," p. 332. 3 8 treated equally well. The shape and size of the audit­

orium made .it what one critic described as "accoustically

the best in London." 58 Indeed, the theatre was often given

over to both operatic and concert performances, and was

described by Fitzgerald as "almost an opera house." 59

The new theatre was one of' "which Mr. Tree and the entire playgolng public may be justly proud . . • spacious, comfortable, imposing." ^0 These were the very concepts

behind the planning and design of His Majesty's. In the Haymarket curtain speech, in addition to talking about the ventilation system, Tree spoke of the other considerations

that prompted the building of his theatre: the need for a larger stage 3 the need to increase the public comfort, and

a "craving" to have a pit located on the street level. At

the Haymarket, he explained, he had worked a sort of "Irish

compromise" and had placed the pit "upstairs" (most London

theatres had a pit located below the street level, so that

one had to descend to reach it). The patrons of the pit appreciated this change, he said, but he wanted to

. . . restore the pit to its rightful owners,

58 *«The Prompter," Penny Illustrated Paper (London), 28 A p ril 1897 3 clipping, NYPL Scrapbook '(MWEZ 618(d ). 59 Percy Fitzgerald, Shakesnearean Representation (London: Eliot Stock, 1908), p. 7 2 .

60 "At the Play," p. 331. 39 and to give them their seats on the ministerial bench instead of relegating them to that doubtful

coign of vantage described in another house as being "somewhere below the gangway*" This statement brought cheers from the pit. Tree was well ^ p aware,, as was Phipps, D

"backbone" of the audience, ^ and he wanted to be sure that they knew i t .

The auditorium at His Majesty1s was arranged for an audience divided into five classes, ^ an arrangement necessitated by the heterogeneous nature of the Edwardian audience, in a society characterized by rigid social classes. The auditorium with a separate section for each class was one of the characteristics of the Edwardian thea­ tre, and the demand for it was a major factor in the plan­ ning of His.Majestyls Theatre. In 1910 some of the ad­ vantages of such a system were noted by Clayton Hamilton. With humor, he writes that the main reason for the arrange­ ment was that there had always been a pit and gallery, and the traditionally conservative Britisher simply accepted it.

^ Times (London), lf> July 1896, p . 12. 62 c. J. Phipps, The Builder (London), 25 April I 863, pp. 2 91-292, as cited in Leacroft, Development of the English Playhouse, p. 23*K

63 E. Wilson, The Edwardian Theatre (London!. Arthur Barker, Ltd., 195l)a P- 23.

^ Illustrated London News. 1 May 1897a P* 593* He also states that the system served to "dress the house" by first, ensuring that all parts of the house had some people in them, and second ensuring there would be people who were "dressed" (in evening clothes) in several parts of the house. These persons were of course separated from those who were not dressed* Thus an orderly and pleasing effect was gained. The second advantage he mentions is that the class auditorium placed a desirable part of the house (the pit) at the services of "that important class of theatre goer" who could not afford to pay more than sixty cents. A third advantage to the system, he notes, is that it made it possible (for those who were willing to wait in line) to see a very popular play any night, even if all the reserved seats had been sold. This also discouraged the practice of scalping. 65 On the ground floor of His Majesty's was the pit,

"with a separate seat for every person," another distinc­ tive and innovative feature. A more common approach to the comfort of the patrons of the pit and gallery was that des­ cribed by Wilson. He notes that "even the best j^pits and galleries] were horrible," with long, dusty benches that had no cushions and no separate seats. He tells us that there were, in addition to these conditions, persons

65 Clayton Hamilton, "Going to the Theatre in Lon­ d on," Bookman 31 (August 1910): 604*.

66 Illustrated London Hews. 1 May 1897, p. 593• h i employed as "packers," generally burly men, who sat on the ends of the benches and forced the people sitting there as close together as possible, thus increasing the capacity and the money taken. ^ It was due to such conditions that Treefs improvements were cheered.

Also on the ground floor were the "pit stalls," that is,.the first few rows of the pit, and the orchestra stalls (or stalls proper) in front of these. The latter were the favored seats both to see the show and to be seen entering and leaving. By 1898, however,, as is shown on all the programs from that date onward, the pit stalls were abolished and there were only the pit and the stalls proper on that floor. The first tier contained the dress circle, or

"balcony stalls," and the cheaper "family circle," or balcony, directly behind the dress circle. The second tier consisted of the upper circle, the amphitheatre, and the gallery. "One of the most noticable features of the audit­ orium" was the fact that there were only two tiers, rather than the usual three. That this was considered an admir- 69 able arrangement is attested to in the press. The side boxes (figure 2 ) were within the proscenium arch, and it

67 Edwarjjian Theatre, pp. 22-25.

68 Times (London), 26 April 1897* p. 13. ^9 Graphic (London), 1 May 1897* P* Sketch. 5 May 1897, pp. 3-*+. **2 was noted that there were "only" six boxes* another dep­ arture from the standard London theatre* 70

The single most important factor concerning the auditorium was its overall layout: one that provided the greatest number of seats 3 each with the best possible view* and with none of them overly far from the stage* Thus Phipps created an auditorium that was smaller in capacity than only three theatres in London* but which was far more intimate than any of those houses. Of the influence on

Phipps* design by the Bayreuth Festspielhaus* mentioned by Tree* 71 the only sign seems to be the fact that in both theatres every seat faced the stage in a series of shallow arcs* and both auditoria were built with sharp rakes. Im­ proved technology provided the steel and concrete neces­ sary for building the cantilevered tiers at His Majesty's.

With such innovation* the old columns and supports, view obstructors always* were no longer necessary*

Every seat in His Majests^s* w,ith the exception of the six proscenium boxes* faced the stage. The cantilever design of the semi-circular auditorium ensured an unobstruct­ ed view of the stage from every seat in the house* and for this Tree was praised again and again. The improvement of the theatrical experience provided by such an arrangement

7° Times (London)* 26 April* 1897s P* 13. 71 Tree* "Illustrated Interview*" Strand Magazine* clipping* HYPL scrapbook (MWEZ 6l87)« can well be imagined by comparing the diagrams in Sachs.

The excellent seating arrangements remain today* Max

Beerbohm, Tree's half brother, wrote of the discomforts and the disadvantages of the seating arrangements of most of the

London theatres of the period, stating that from the pit one could neither see nor hear and that the players looked like puppets. 73 Although it seems that he is being hyper­ bolic for the sake of humor,his point must nonetheless be well taken. The U-shaped auditoria of many of the London theatres placed the pit much further back than did the shallow arcs at His Majesty's. The newspapers unanimously praised Tree for the im­ provement of the view of the stage that his theatre afford- . edj ^ the following examples are representative. "There is hardly a seat in the house where the entire stage is not visible," and the "width of the auditorium allows the family and dress circles to be very close to the stage, and they command a better view of it than is the case in any other theatre." 75 A "visitor can see and hear well in some parts

of the class-segregated auditorium at less than the usual

On a recent trip to London, Dr. Alan Woods con­ firmed the excellence of the seating at His Majesty's, all in situ, finding it to be far better than in any other ex­ tant theatre of the period. 73 Around T h e a tre s , p . If26.

^ NYPL Scrapbook (MWEZ 6l 86), clippings. 75 Times (London), 26 A p ril 1897, p. 13. 1>JII I,

prices," ^ and His Majesty's "possesses the inestimable

advantage of affording every member of the audience an un­

interrupted view of the stage." ^7 Perhaps the best description of all of these fea­

tures is provided in the following. The author states that "a more than heroic attempt has been made for the first time to construct a theatre for the primary object

of enabling the audience to see all that passes on the

stage in perfect cleanness and comfort." He maintains

that the auditorium was "lost as a showpiece" because the

semi-circular seating arrangement forced the patron to watch the stage and not his neighbor, and because the dress

circle was so near the stage that the pastime of "spotting"

(the notables in the stalls below) was not possible. Of

the pit and the pit stalls he writes, the effect was that

of looking through a funnel, for there were no distractions

(the "trifling ornaments" of the decoration were invisible

to nine tenths of the house). He concludes by stating that

Tree was determined to ensure the play was the thing to be seen at His Majesty's, a notion he describes as "plucky," and that the idea was a success. His Majesty*s was the

only theatre in London to afford a clear view of the stage.

76 Sketch, 5 May 1897 9 P* 77 nthe Play," p. 331*

^ Strand Illustrated. 15 May 1897, NYPL Scrapbook (MWEZ 6186), clipping. In addition to catering to the comfort of the spec­ tator , Tree and Phipps designed His Majesty's -with careful regard to his or her safety. The primary danger was that of fire, and in a tour of the new theatre given hy Tree and

Phipps to the .Architects Association, the latter man stated that "the first aim has been to take every precaution .ag­ ainst fire and panic." ^ The materials of the theatre were the overall safety factor; iron and steel are far less subject to fire than the traditional wooden construction. The entire building, with the exception of the stage and

Oa its equipment, was constructed of those materials. In the event of a fire, the stage, with its great potential for an updraft from the fly gallery, could be sealed off from the auditorium by a three ton, hydraulically ‘ Rl operated, asbestos fire curtain. OJ- To ensure the public of its existence and good operating condition, as a note in all of the programs attests, each evening the curtain would be lowered "in full view of the audience." In this way the curtain was protection against both fire and panic. Also, to prevent spread of fire should it begin, the auditorium at His Majesty's was designed with only two tiers, and with­ out the great "well" extending up from the floor through

^ Times (London), 8 March 1897a P- 12.

80 I b id .

8 1 I T b l id. « . k6 the ceiling. Sachs condemns the existence of* the well in

most London theatres because of the horrible updraft that it could and did create in the event of a fire. 82

Already mentioned in connection with the ventila­ tion and illumination systems, was the total absence of any gas in the theatre. All power was electric, and there were three separate sources. Also already mentioned, in passing, was the safety feature of the location of the pit and the stalls. In the majority of the London theatre's these parts of the house were located underground, reached by tortuous passages, 83 effectively trapping the audience 8^ in those sections caught in a fire. At His Majesty1a

"almost nothing" was located underground. This meant that in the event of a fire, few people would be forced to run upstairs to get out (always more difficult than coming down), and hopefully panic would be. alleviated. Also, if people did need to get out in a hurry, there were two sop­ s'? arate exits for each part of the house, ' all of which emp­ tied directly into the streets. The theatre1s site was an added safety feature, isolated as it was on three sides from any other buildings,

82 Modern Theatres. 21 passim .

^3 Hamilton, "Going to the Theatre in London," p . 6.

8^ Sachs, Modern Theatres. 36.

85 Times (London), 8 March 1897* P« 12. ±7 and with enough room for exiting patrons and fire fighting equipment. There was also an abundance of water hydrants located throughout the building and on the street.

Although there were a number of important innovations in the auditorium and its environs* the stage was, paradox­ ically, quite conventional, with only one ma^or deviation from the norm. The first thing that one would see when looking toward the stage would have been the great, high, formal proscenium arch, each side of which was formed by two huge Corinthian columns. Between the columns were lo­ cated the six boxes with the Royal box on the stage left side. There was no forestage, and the orchestra pitwas sunk below the level of the stalls. A good view may be seen in figure 7. Of the stage and its equipment Bernard Shaw wrote: "the equipment of its stage (apart from the electric light­ ing) was exactly what it would have been a hundred years ago, except that there are no grooves for the wings." 8^

In evaluating Shaw*s comments one must remember, however, his hostility to Tree*s production methods and take what he writes with the proverbial grain of salt. For instance, he does not mention the fly grid, which stood over sixty feet above the stage floor, thus permitting the flying of large

86 Sketch. 5 May 1897a p. 87 "From the Point of View of a Playwright," Her­ b e r t Beerbohm T re e . ed« Max Beerbohm, p* 2¥+# k8 set pieces and drops, without the necessity of folding or rolling them up, and this was innovative, 88 There i s truth in Shaw's statement though, for the arrangement of traps, slotes, and bridges was not of the advanced, hyd­ raulic, "Asphalia" type (like those installed by Sachs at

Drury Lane in 1898). Also, all of the stage equipment, including the fly grid, was of timber construction. All of the moving gear, as Leacroft shows in his modern photo­ graphs of the extant machinery, was operated with the tra­ ditional rope and drums below the stage floor. The only real innovation that Tree made on the stage was his break with the tradition, held since the Res­ toration, of the raked stage floor. This he replaced with a flat one. All of the newspapers attest to the novelty of such a design in a London theatre. One of the great features of the house at His Majesty's is the absolutely flat stage, which while common enough in America, is a novelty in this country and enables scenery to be shifted with much greater ease than a stage with a rake. 90

The Sketch reviewer expressed pleasure at the idea, saying an improved stage picture would be the result, especially for

88 Sachs, Modern T h e a tre s . 21 36 . 89 The Development of, the English Playhouse, pp. 210, 212, 2WT ‘ 90 Illustrated London News. 1 May 1897* p. 593# Booth's Theatre in New York City boasted the first flat stage floor, in 1869$ Brockett, History of the Theatre. p . 501. »+9 91 the patrons of the gallery* Shaw too noted the improve­ ment, and relates the story about Irving*s Macbeth produc­ tion, wherein goblets, knocked about during the banquet scene, were wont to go rolling toward the orchestra. 92

The flat stage would of course prevent this type of occur- ance. The flat floor also simplified scene shifting, 93 was more economical to build, easier to walk upon, and it improved sight lines. 9*+ It is interesting to note that Leacroft states the original drawings submitted to the London City Council show a raked stage. He does not pursue the point, but Sachs mentions that Tree had consulted with him on the advis­ ability of a flat stage instead of a raked one. 9& The f l a t stage idea would seem therefore to be one of Tree*s, a no­ tion that would compliment his stated 97 d e s ire fo r a la rg e

93-S k etc h ., 5 May 189 7s P* 92 pup Theatres in the Nineties. 3! 118. Shaw con­ tradicted the Sketch piece, saying that the gallery seats would get a terribly foreshortened view; but, knowing Shaw*s hostility toward the "gods" one suspects he had not actually ventured up there himself. 93 Leacroft, Development of the English Playhouse, p. 276. He also points out that Tree had been severely rid­ iculed for the innovation by theatre people.

9^ Sachs, Engineering (London), 12 February 1897s p . 2C^-. 95 Development of the English Playhouse, p. 275*

9^ Engineering. 12 February 1897* P* 20b. 97 Times (London), 13 July 1896, p . 12. 5o stage suitable for production on a grand scale with elab­

orate scenery. In the preceding 3 the attempt has been made to document the structure of His Majesty's Theatre and the

reasons for Its particular design. The following is a des-

c r i p t i v e 9 evaluative analysis of how His Majesty's function­

ed as a part of the theatrical experience of which Tree was the creator. It is assumed that His Majesty's was devel­ oped to meet the particular requirements of the period in

which it was built. For points of reference in the follow­

ing description the reader will be directed to the ground plans (from Sachs) in figures 5 and 6 , and the re­ construction (from Leacroft) in figure 7 . ^8

98 Mr. Leacroft's drawing is excellent, however, there appear to be several errors in it which ought to be kept in mind for the sake of accuracy. These are: 1. the changing of the staircase in the main lobby, marked by Sachs "c" and labelled "entrance to the dress circlej" to the stairs leading down to the stalls bar, located underthe lobby. The bar was down there, but it would make no sense for the stalls patrons to have to come all the way out to the lobby, up the stairs, and then down again to get to it. It seems far more logical that the entrance to the stalls bar was from the passage below the pit. Sachs has quite clearly marked the staircase for what it was. 2. Leacroft has shown the dress circle exit to emerge between the gall—r ery gods and the pittites, a highly unsatisfactory arrange­ ment. Leacroft's "Dress Circle Exit" is marked by Sachs as "d" and it corresponds to the entrance marked "d" on the opposite side of the building, for the family, not the dress circle. 3. Leacroft shows the exit on Charles St. to be the "Royal and Stalls Exit." This it was, but it would be more accurate to term it the Royal Entrance as well. The royal patrons would not enter at the front door, the alternative presented by Leacroft, along with the gen­ eral public. The Royal Waiting Room lies off the Royal Ent­ rance as well. That the royal entrance is on the same side Figure 5* His Majesty*s Theatre. (Sachs9 ern Opera Houses and Theatres)• VJl : ger.p.ralUauagCTvcni. »S3SWiao«» G 0ff'1&schateam. iiureau.1 H SiofsaiMaga-zu'- Depoll B. S^te^Erfi-iNchu^1^'iiiu n I1 Bali-Boom I3aa^p«in':r' , biota-MTMill anna) C Lott^iBchMnp»aal* R StageDoorRtieper. Poverl t e . **■“ *' D. Lofe^w v Dressing Hr'om, loge Ki'UHif-

% VJV LONGITUDINAL s e c t i o n - Coupe loagwdinale- H LaetigsscteU,. 5 2

PLAN. AREA. AREA. PLAN. TIER. I PLAN. Grundnss. Saal. Grundnss. Plan.Salie. 1 Gruntinss. piaa f ^

F ig u re 6 . Ground Plan* His Majesty's Theatre. (Sachs* Modern. Opera Houses and Theatres). 53

C > \\

Figure 7. Reconstrucive drawing* His Majesty*s Theatre (Leacroft* The. Develoment of the,English^Elayhouse). 9 *

F igure 8 , Box office, front view. His Majesty*s Theatre. (Sketch. E? May 1897)* 55 In f ig u r e 6 note the arrangements of the ent­ rances and exits, a feature highly touted by Tree and the press at the time of the theatre's opening. These are; " a 11 (stalls)j "b" (pit); "c" (dress circle); "d" (upper

circle); and "e" (gallery). Such divisions vere necessi­ tated by the society and by the diverse nature of the aud­

ience with its class distinctions. They were enforced by price and tradition. Note particularly how the design works to prevent the different classes from having to min­ gle while either entering or leaving the theatre.

The stalls patrons, paying half a Guinea (10 shil­ lings and sixpence), entered from the front of the building

on the Haymarket side. There they would be greeted by the huge Linkman, resplendant in his uniform, and ushered into'

the main lobby (Grand Vestibule). They bought their tickets

(or more likely, picked them up, having already ordered them from a "library") from the front of the paybox (figure 8 ) and descended the staircase marked "a" on the left side of

of the building, as the pit entrance.does not matter for the pit queue would have been inside the theatre long before the royal party arrived, and the two widely divergent groups would not need to meet. At the play's end the royal party would either be the first to leave,.or would retire to the Royal Waiting Room for social ammenities with the manager and company and leave after everyone else had done so. Leacroft shows pit benches when in fact they were separate seats. 99 All prices quoted are taken from programs of His Majesty's Theatre (Collections of the Folger Library and the New.York Public Library at Lincoln Center). the main lobby* or the Grand Vestibule, This led to a pas­ sage ‘below the pit that emerged on either side of the aud­ itorium in the entrance also marked "a". The main exit for the stalls patrons is the passage on the street level marked with the crown (also the Royal Exit). Quite separate from the wealthy stalls patrons* the patrons of the pit* the "pittites*" entered the door on

Charles Street marked "b"* paying two shillings and six-' pence (the pit stalls* while in existence* cost an even six shillings). Note how the pay box functions* having a separate window at the pit entrance (also "b" ). Once in­ side the theatre the pittites shared the street level of the auditorium with the same peopLe that they had been strictly segregated from while entering. The pit is div­ ided from the stalls only by a low* removable barrier. The pit exit* marked "b"* at the far left of the drawing* would let the pittites emerge into the Haymarket* around the cor­ ner from their wealthier neighbors.

The patrons of the dress circle (so called because evening dress was required there* as it was in the stalls) entered at the front of the theatre along, with the stalls patrons* and bought their tickets from the same part of the pay box* After the seven shillings and sixpence was paid* they ascended the staircase* marked "c"* on the right of the main lobby* to the first tier. Note* reserved for the 57 wealthier patrons (and the people in the family circle.,

although they would not be in evening dress) the commod­ ious foyerj the convenient bar 3 and the open smoking log­

g ia s "Cj "VP's and lfDri respectively. The dress circle pat­ rons would then exit on either side of the stairs they had

come up, and out the front .door in the main.lobbys perhaps

to a cab called by the Linkman.

The patrons of the xipper circle would enter at the

door marked "d"* on the Haymarket, to the right of the drawing. They would pay at their side of the box* either f o u r 3 th re e3 or two shillingsa depending upon whether they were in the front reserved sections or in the "amphitheatre" to the rear of the upper circle. They too had their own b a r 3 shown in the Leacroft drawing. These people would then exit down the staircase to the left of the drawings marked

"dns emerge in the street between the similarly attired patrons of the pit and the gallery. The cheapest seats in the house3 sold unreserved at one shillings were in the gallery 3 the entrance for .which is marked "e". This is located on Charles Street 3 next to the pit entrance. From there the gallery "gods" climbed to the topmost seats in the theatres forty five feet above the street. The behaviour of these people was always quite dis­ tinct. They were the most vocal part of the audience; their hoots and hisses caused Shaw to call for their being barred 5 8 from first nights. They too had their own bar* shown in the Leacroft drawing. The gods exited down the stairs at the right of the front of the buildings into the Haymarket. Thus their exit was next to that for the dress circle (although probably the latter persons came out the same way they went. in* unless an emergency arose). These particular divisions were not peculiar to His Majesty's. They were the common feature of the Ed­ wardian theatrical experience. The convenience of the ar­ rangement was* however 3 peculiar to His Majesty's. The seating plan is a concretes visible part of the theatrical experience. The mere fact that the audience was forced to conform to such a seating arrangement reveals how the phys­ ical playhouse itself is a significant factor in contrib­ uting to that experience.

It may be noted (figure 6 ) that all of the seats did not face the stage 3 as was reported in the newspapers, th a t i s3 they do not all completely face the stage* espec­

ially the end seats in the first tier. Although the sight lines would not be bad 3 and would certainly be better than in most London theatres of the day* they are not perfect.

The relatively small space taken up by the boxesa and the shallow* semi-circular arrangement of the tiers accounts for the comparatively excellent sight lines. In general*

1°° Our Theatres in the Nineties. 2165. 59 the view of the stage improves the further up one goes in the t i e r ,

.Also of particular note are the size and number of

rooms devoted to the public comfort. As mentioned above,

each of the separate auditorium sections had its own bar, and the more costly sections (stalls and dress circles) had use of commodious foyers, lounges, and smoking rooms

as well. Of especial note is the second floor loggia, its

collonade overlooking the Haymarket, where the patrons of

the stalls and the first tier could stroll and smoke away

the intermissions. YJhat is particularly striking about

these rooms is their proportion. They are on neither the

absurdly grandiose scale of the Continental monuments to art of the Edwardian era, like the Paris Opera (or, of

our own day and country, the Kennedy Center in Washington

D. C.)3 nor are they the cramped and semi-squalid public rooms familiar to todayrs Broadway playgoer.

Several characteristics are apparant in figure 5*

Sachs' longitudinal section. The first is that the stage

is completely separated from the rest of the house by a double wall, for reasons of safety. The space between is oc­ cupied by the wardrobe, indicated in figure 7. The second is the great cupola that stood high above the Haymarket, and which provided a landmark that could be seen from afar when approaching the area. It was under this structure that Tree had his "Dome," a suite of private rooms, where he usually 60 lived and from where he directed the operations of the theatre. It was up there that, on occasions called by

Lady Tree "Herbert at Dome," Tree followed the Irving tra­ dition of wining and dining the celebrities that were his colleagues and audience. It was in the Dome that the theatrical experience, for a selected "few" (often to­ taling several hundred) was sometimes extended far into the night with a great banquet.

The office space, running most of the length of the Charles Street frontage on the level of the first tier, seems to be adequate. The dressing rooms included windows, 101 an unusual feature noted by the press, supplying a light and airy quality. The stage, as it is pictured by Leacroft, is ordinary enough: note should be made of the lack of grooves, the arrangement of the traps, slotes and bridges, and the large space behind the proscenium, the wings needed for the heavy and complex set pieces that Tree used. Note also the thunder run, the wooden fly grid, and the scene painting bridge that runs along the rear of the stage. Mullin delineates six ma;}or errors that theatre architects have, over the years, committed and although many buildings of widely divers origins fall into one or more of them. His Majesty*s falls into none. Mullin asks

"Did theatre architects of the past generations really not

01 Times (London), 26 April 1897s P* 13* 6 1 understand theatre? Or did they understand and translate * their comprehension into terms suitable to the time and place and materials at hand?" 102 The latter question predicates exactly -what Phipps and Tree* in His Majesty*s

T h e a tre5 accomplished. His Majesty*s Theatre9 in addition to being a physical playhouse, was also a symbol for the Edwardian playgoer. Bernard Beckerman notes the phenomenon of the playhouse as symbol, and although he writes of the Eliz­ abethan era, his statement has significance for the Ed­ wardian period as well. He writes:

• the playhouse signifies more than a physical structure for the presentation of plays. It became the symbol for an entire art. Its construction initiated a glorious decade during which the company achieved a stability and a quality of production rarely matched in the history of the theatre. 103

It is the symbolic nature of His Majesty*s that caused such latter day writers as MaQueen-Pope to wax sentimental in his eulogy, "... treasured thoughts of great nights at the theatre, and of great actor-managers

• • • And the greatest theatre of Edwardian times was His Majesty*s, and the greatest actor-manager, Sir Herbert Tree;" and to wax grandly romantic about it in ."quoting" those who were in Tree's employ as having called it "The First Theatre in the Greatest Empire the Ylorld Has Ever

102 Develooement of the Playhouse from the Renais­ sance to the' Preserit. pp. 7i*“ 7I? •

103 Shakespeare at the Globe, p. v. 62 Seen"). It was the symbolic nature of His Majesty*s

that caused comtemporary critics to write of it, in the

manner of the Daily Telegraph critic in 19101 "the theat­ rical season may be said to have definitely opened with

the production of Henry VIII at His Majesty*s Theatre."

It was the symbolic nature- of His Majesty's that caused

another contemporary to describe it as "that noble, beau­

tiful playhouse, laid out on amphitheatrical principles,

and which is more suited than any other house in town for the presentation of Shakespeare's plays." It was the symbolic nature of the theatre that caused over 10,000

applications to be received for opening night tickets (or at least caused the legend of 10,000 applications). It was the symbolic nature of His Majesty's that caused

Gilbert Parker to inaccurately write, in a memorial to his

friend Tree, that "he was taking on a theatre that was

larger than any actor in London ever had. ..."

How did His Majesty's acquire this symbolic nature,

. what does it mean, and what part does it play in the

I0** Carriages at Eleven, p. 32.

105 c l i p p i n g , IJYPL (14WE2 1 0 ,5 0 7 )3 Stead Scranbook. 106 F itZgerald, Shakespearean Heoresentatlon. p. 72.

'L0'? Cran, Herbert Beerbohm Tree, p. li8 . 108 G ilb e r t P a rk e r, "To th e Memory of a F r ie n d ," Herbert Beerbohm Tree, ed. Max Beerbohm, p® 237* 63 historiography of the theatrical experience? If we think of His Majesty's as just a playhouse* a building* ■ as we tend to think of theatres today* a whole perspective of the

Edwardian theatrical experience will be lost. To carry the point further* if we go to see a play on Broadway today* which would bb roughly analogous to going to a West End theatre in Tree's day* we go to see a play. It does not matter if it is at the Winter Garden or the Broadhurst. These places are just buildings and are irrelevant to the experience that we seek. But when the Edwardian went to the theatre* the situation was entirely different.

If the playgoer went to Tree's theatre* he went* to be sure* to see a play* but moreover he went to see a play at His Majesty's Theatre. He was seeking the His Majesty's Theatre experience. He was thinking of His

Majesty's as a symbol of a particular type of theatrical experience and a particular type of theatrical event. The fact that His Majesty's had a symbolic meaning was not peculiar to it (although its particular symbolic meaning was)* for all the West End playhouses in the Edwardian era had symbolic meanings. The concept of theatre as symbol is basic to the understanding of the Edwardian theatrical ex­ perience* for it lies behind the practice of the actor man­ agers and their "house style." A very good description of this characteristic of the Edwardian theatre, the house style* may be found in Pearson1s The Last of the Actor Managers. He notes that

"when I arrived in London in 1906 . * . each theatre had its policy of presenting plays suited to the tastes of the actor manager." MaQueen-Pope too notes the "brand- *i i n ed goods" that each theatre sold, and Hibbert states that "in the old days, when every theatre sold its part­ icular wares, and none other, as surely as a shoemaker sells boots. ..." Hibbert goes on to write of Crit­ erion Comedy (at the Criterion Theatre, run by Sir Charles Wyndham), and the Gaiety girls of George Edwardes* Gaiety

Theatre. Contemporary journalists also noted the practice of the house style in the London theatre. Hamilton notes the phenomenon and considers it to have arisen because of what he sees as the essentially conservative nature of the B r ito n . 112 He also notes that an excellent play could fail if it were done in the wrong house. Hutchinson writes of the house style .stating that each theatre had its own clientele who knew what to expect from their theatre, and who were fiercely loyal.

1°9 Pearson, Actor Managers, p. v.

Carriages at Eleven, p. 9« A Playgoerfs Memories, p. ll^f.

"Going to the Theatre in London," p. 609. 113 "people Who go to Plays," Living Age. 5 June 1909, p. 618. 65 The house style symbolized not only the thea­ trical event, but the theatrical experience as well. Each theatre stood for a particular way in which the patron was treated, a particular relationship, to be had. It was a far more intimate and personal audience/artist relation­ ship than anything we are used to, rather like that of a guest and genteel host. Each of the actor-managers was linked to a particular theatre of which he was generally the "sole lessee and manager." During the period under consideration there were: Irving at the Lyceum, Cyril Maude and Fred Harrison at the Haymarket, Sir Charles Wyndham at th e C r ite rio n and l a t e r a t Wyndham 1s, Harley Granville Bark­ er at the Court, Oscar Asche at the Garrick, George Edwardes (although he was not an actor) at the Daly*s and the Gaiety, and Tree's chief rival Sir George Alexander, at the St.

James's. There were also a group of managers who operated at a variety of theatres and who, except in the case of

Benson, never operated in a stable enough fashion to cre­ ate symbols of their theatres. In addition to Sir Frank Benson one could class in this group lewis Waller, Sir John­ ston Forbes-Robertson, Sir John Martin-Harvey, H. B. Irving,

Herbert Trench, and William Poel. All these managers sought to create their own brand of theatrical experience and had their own production style. Each manager sought to link his name (or had his name linked) to a symbol, in the public eye 0 For some, Martin-Harvey and Forbes-Robertson, that symbol was a particular role. For others, notably Lewis Waller- who attracted a fan club called K. 0. W. (keen on Waller), the symbol was a sexual one. But the leaders of the pro­ fession had as their symbol their theatre, and it stood for their own brand of theatrical experience. The play­ house was a more inclusive and tangible symbol than any other. The actor-managers were the dominant force in the

Edwardian theatre, and their playhouses gave the theatre of the period its character. It is this reason that has necessitated the present chapter. The specific kind of theatrical event and theatrical experience, which stood behind the symbol of His Majesty*s, provide the next areas of investigation. CHAPTER I I I

THE THEATRICAL EVENT AT HIS MAJESTY'S THEATRE

The art of Shakespeare production, as It is produced at His Majesty's Theatre, is a new art, which it would be.folly to judge by the principles and stand­ ards that apply to any hereto recognized and clas­ sified form of artistic endeavor, • . , One is slow to recognize that a new thing has come into being which can by no means be forced into old pigeon h o le s. William Archer, The World. 31 January 1905 (NYPL 6190)

Despite storm and stress , . , he is at present the most interesting, the most conspicuous, represent­ ative of a profession which • . . basks in the sun of public adulation. As a manager, one who selects and produces plays. Tree has deserved well of his countrymen, although he may yet deserve better. J. T. Grein, Free Lance. 10 June 1908 (WYPL 6189)

He was always, without cessation, reaching out.for the new thing, the thing that had never been done before, the thing that no one else had ever thought of, the thing that seemed impossible. L. N. Parker, "A Tribute," Herbert Beerbohm Tree, p. 207

He was the most active, industrious, and ambitious British actor manager of the last decade. Anonymous o b itu a ry (NYPL 6186)

67 68 Thomas Booth Haas c h a ra c te riz e s Beerbohm T re e 's

productions as old fashioned, heavy handed, overly det­ ailed, overly realistic, poorly acted, textually plund­ ered, poorly managed exhibitions of bad taste, 1 W riting of Tree's productions of Shakespeare, Haas concludes that

the aesthetics governing the stage of His Majesty's "ex­

hibited the dangers of allowing the popular visual stage

arts to intrude upon Shakespeare's plays which were written for a completely different aesthetic," 2 Robert Speaight presents much the same view, considering Tree's Shakespeare

to be the tasteless extreme of a style that he stole from

Henry Irving, ^ Both writers provide as an example Df

Tree's style the story of the real rabbits used in the 1911 production of Midsummer N ig h t's Dreamt the same story is repeated by Brockett as the most characteristic description Jj. of a Tree production. Haas concludes that the importance

of Tree's work lies in its paving the way for the "modern" Shakespeare of Granville Barker, whom he considers to be a more important figure than Tree because of the influence Granville Barker 1 s productions have had upon the theatre of

1 "Kean, Irving, and Tree," p. 219-

2 Ibid., p. 238. 3 Shakespeare on the Stage, pp. 125-28.

^ History of the Theatre, pp. 69 the twentieth century, Anthony B. Schmitt points out that in the British theatre today Tree "is remembered as an old style actor-manager, whose excesses far outweighed £ his artistic merit," Tree's name has become a byword in the theatrical profession for all that is heavy handed 7 and ridiculous in the British theatre. 1 o The above is the consensus of opinion about Tree, and although there is some basis for such a characteriz­ ation, it seems largely based upon tradition, the legends that have sprung up around Tree, and a lack: of thorough investigation. It is also perhaps the product of an hist­ orical inquiry which proceeds from the premise that events and people in the past are important solely for the rel­ ationship they have to the development of the present sit­ uations and not for their own intrinsic interest. The theatre historiography of the Edwardian era is generally replete with the names of Craig, Appia, Granville Barker, Shaw, J. T. Grein, and others, who are singled out for their importance to the development of the theatre as we

5 "Kean, Irving, and Tree," p. 21?. ^ "The Winter's Tale in Production," p. 108. 7 Michael Billington. The Modern Actor (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1973)a P* 6. ® The most accurate and complete treatment of the subject is in J, C. Trewin, Shakespeare on the English __ Stage 1900-196^ (London: Barrie and hock1iff, 1y6¥ ) 3 p p . Trewin is concerned however only with Tree's Shakes­ peare productions, as his title indicates. know it. Tree is.compared with these visionaries and

appears very old fashioned, reactionary, the very es­

sence of that devil incarnate, the actor-manager. Such

a viewpoint ignores the fact that hundreds of thousands

of people saw Tree's theatrical events every year for

twenty years, and these were people who had probably never heard of Ellen Terry's son, or Appia, and who in­

cluded Shaw, Granville Barker, and Grein. Such a view­ point also ignores the fact that Granville Barker directed

Tree (in Julius Caesar for the 1911 Coronation G a l a ) ,9

that Shaw created the character of Blanco Posnet for

Tree, 1° and that Tree commissioned Gordon Craig to des- IT ign the sets for his 1911 Macbeth (there were, however, problems with Tree's staff,- notably Harker, and the Craig

sets never materialized). The following chapter is an at­ tempt to overcome some of these biases against Tree and his methods in order to present a more accurate picture

of the theatrical events that took place at His Majesty's

T h ea tre . His M ajesty's, under Herbert Tree's management, frankly forwent the claim to be the last word in dramatic art. It stood instead for the grandly,

9 Program, "Coronation Gala Performance," (II.M.T. 1911)i Shields Library, University of California at Davis. "H.M.T." refers to His Majesty's Theatre, in program notes. 10 Pearson, Beerbohm Tree, p. 17^.

11 Ibid., p. 21?. 7 1

lavishly popular in that line. For years it repre­ sented the central British conception of the drama ■when it is taken seriously, just as the Savoy Hotel represents the British conception of magnificence taken seriously. • • • 12 V/hat was that "central British conception of the drama when it is taken seriously" like? Why were Tree and His M ajesty*s so popular? What was th e re on th e stag e of His Majesty's that kept the people coming back for more for twenty years? What was the physical production style that Tree created at his theatre, and how was this style perceived? These are some of the central questions that the present chapter attempts to answer.

The first really successful and noteworthy pro­ duction on His Majesty's stage was Shakespeare's Julius C aesar. ^3 which opened on 22 January 1898 and ran until 10 June of that year, I1*" Julius Caesar was a production that caused a critic to write that it "set-a new tradition at a new theatre," 1? and another to write that "nothing finer in point of artistic force or impressiveness has been accomplished in Shakespearean revival than this," ^ The critic for the Magazine of Art described the production as

12 Desmond McCarthy, "From the S t a l l s ," H erbert Beerbohm Tree, ed. Max®, p. 217, 13 Cran, Herbert Beerbohm Tree, p. ^0.

Times (London), h October 1913* P« 10. 15 'idler at the Play," NYPL Scrapbook (MWEZ 618$). 1^ Times (London), 2*+ January 1898, p. 12, 72 "essentially a series of pictures," 17 and in so doing articulated the way in which the productions at His Maj­ esty's were perceived throughout Tree's career. Tree is still thought of for his "pictorial Shakespeare," 18 but this is an image that may be misleading for us. One of the pictures that was a part of Jpliiys Caesar is described in the following: The assassination scene is composed with all of the painter's skill. High on a chair of state sits Cae­ sar, with the conspirators as friends grouped around him. He is stabbed in the back as he sits, he stumbles forward and down the steps that lead from the dias, receiving dagger strokes from either side as he comes, until he falls into the arms of Brutus, who delivers the final stroke. 19

One of the biases implicit in the term "pictorial" Shakes­ peare is the idea that such a style is static, composed of pr'tty groupings. Although Tree.did use tableaux, these were for special effects? the pictures he composed were more often like that in Julius Caesar, described above. There is no question, however, that the productions at His Majesty's were visually oriented? Tree was called , .

"the Pre-Raphaelite of the drama" by many admirers. 20

17 11 a Shakespearean Revival," Magazine of Art 22 (1898): 331. 18 M. Berthould, History of Iforld Theatre (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1972 ), PP* '$57 a 577 • 19 Times, (London), 2H- January 1898, p. 12. 2® Cran, Herbert Beerbohm Tree, p. 1. 73 It is important for us to understand how the visual empha­

sis of his shows was perceived in his own day, though^ it is not enough to say they were pictorial and leave it at

that* Tree*s productions were often perceived as being

"cinematic," or as the people of the period were more often wont to say, "kinematographic." Although that term may also be loaded for the reader of today, it does certainly create a different impression than the term "pictorial*" The dif­ ference, and it is an important one* is that the former term denotes action (the cinema is, after all, moving pictures), while the latter denotes inaction. In addition to the cinematic quality of the pro­ ductions, mentioned above, there are five other character­ istics that were common to productions at His Majesty*s. Each of these, as well as that mentioned above, shall be treated separately. The characteristics are: illusion, el­ aborately mounted spectacle, much use of music, much visual action, and excellent casts of actors* All of these char­ acteristics are elements of a kind of total theatre, a term that, as such, has never been applied to Tree or His Maj­ esty^* Tree*s theatre was one in which the text, even when it was Shakespeare, was not the emphasis of the pro­ duction! His Majesty1s was a theatre of the senses. As

Schmitt points out, Granville Barker may have been a pro­ ducer of drama, but Tree was a producer of theatre* 21

21 "The Vflnterls Tale in Production," p. 116. f a Tree*s production aesthetic was governsd by his concept of creating illusion on the stage. Both Haas and Schmitt point out the importance of illusion for Tree, and both cite Tree*s own famous statement:

I take it the entire business of the stage is—-Illusion. As the entire aim of all art is Illusion, to gain this end all means are fa ire 22 A slight distortion of the picture will occur, however, if one assumes, as does Haas, 23 that Tree meant the "illusion of reality," or photographic realism. Brockett is much more correct when he refers to Tree's style as "romantic real­ ism ." 2^ Tree was known as the Pre-Raphaelite of the drama, and the awareness of such a reputation is crucial to our understanding of his productions. The relationship of the stage artists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries has not yet been fully investigated. Rowland Elzea, the Curator of Collections of the Delaware Art Mus­ eum, has, however, pointed out some aspects of this

22 "Kean, Irving, and Tree," p. 165; "Winterfs Tale in Production," p. 83; Tree, "The Living Shakespeare," Thoughts and Afterthoughts. p. 57-

23 "Kean, Irving, and Tree," p. 16^. 2** History of the Theatre, p. *f73s the term may be defined as a style that "assumes there is a difference be­ tween illusion . . . and reproduction. . . . The Romantic concern £or the ideal, the beautiful, the picturesque • • • and the tlxotic is combined with the Realistic exactitude of stage illusion." D. Berry, "William Telbin's Theories of Scene Painting? The Aesthetic of Romantic Realism," Theatre Studies. 21 (197V75): ^ 2~53. 75 relationship. He writes that

B oth p a in tin g and th e th e a tr e could s u s ta in a moment in which reality was suspended and one could approach ad possible the tension of the dreaming state while in the waking one. . . . Irrationality and super clarity a re two elem ents t h a t a l l dreams have in common. The life-like clarity causes one to overlook the rational flaws of a dream, and to be swept away on its wings. 2 5 Like the Pre-Raphaelites, the “English Dreamers,11 T ree did not aim merely at realism. Realism was not his goal, but a means to that goal; the illusion had to be believable.

The illusion of Tree*s productions was a world of fantasy, a world unto itself, as were the paintings of the Pre-

Raphaelite Brotherhood. He was no mere mechanical repro­ ducer of reality on stage* describing his illusion, he wrote that, "Briefly, mechanical devices should be avoided if the illusion can be given without them; and it may be remember­

ed that the real thing may, on the stage, be not so effec tive as the ingenious make-believe." 2^ Elsewhere he wrote that his Illusion was woven "with the golden thread of po­ etic imagination," entwined in "the woof of realism." ^

This attitude was reflected in the productions and the way in which they were perceived, as is shown in the

^Introduction, The English Dreamers, ed. David L a rk in (Nev; York: Peacock P r e s s /B a n t a m B o o k s, 1975), no pagination. 2^ "Some A spects of th e Drama Today," North Amer­ ican Review 16^- (January 1897)8 69-70. "Fallacies of the Modern Stage," Thoughts and /if te r thoughts . p. 183. 76 following statement t "His mechanical effects were not merely mechanical, but they were always the outcome of real artistic feeling, always redeemed by a touch of poetry, an air of mystery, and magic." 2® To illustrate the Pre-Raphelitisra of Tree and his productions, one may compare the photograph of Julia Niel­ son as Constance in Tree*s King John ( 1899) w ith R o s e ttifs fta Pia d'Tolomei. a major work of Pre-Raphaelite painting, in figures 9 and 10 • Besides the striking physical res­ emblance of the two women, note the pose, the expression, the nature of the costume, the dream-like quality, the mood. Each is typically Pre-Raphaelite. That the produc­ tions at His Majesty*s were perceived as such may be noted in the following description of Tree*s 1911 Macbeth in which the scene just before the murder of Duncan was "beau­ tiful in its Pre-Raphaelite symmetry, opposite flights of stairs leading to Duncan's room, in the very center, not of the stage, but of the vertical line between the stage and the flies. . • 29 The Pre-Raphaelite taste of the stage at His Majesty's may also be glimpsed in the following catalog of some of the attractions of Tree*s 1912 Othellot At every moment there is a feast for the eye; Roderigo's dress, Othello*s inlaid armor, the

2® Times (London), 7 September 1908, p. 11.

29 I b i d . , 6 September 1911 * p. 6 . Figure 9* Julia Neilson as Constance, in King John at His Majesty^s Theatre, 1899. (Souvenir program, NYPL scrapbook MWEZ 2102). 78

Figure 10. D. G. Rossetti, La Pia De’lolomei. (University of Kansas Museum of Art). 79 robes of the Doge, of Desdemona and Emilia. There •were architectural effects, rich or sombre, and glimpses of lovely landscape, masses of dark cypresses against the blue sky. . . . 30

The above could easily be a description of a painting by

M illais or Rossetti or Hunt, ■with hundreds of minute 3 f in e details and a rainbow of colors all vying for our atten­ t i o n . 31

The Pre-Raphaelite illusion that Tree created for his famous 1900 production of Midsummer Night's Dream. "With a carpet of thyme and wildflowers 3 thickets full of blossom 3 and a background seen through tall trees of the pearly dawns or the deep hues of the night sky ..." caused the critic to say of it that "the mind 3 in recalling i t 3 seems to dwell on some actual beauty of nature instead of a painted arrangement of canvas and pasteboard." 32 The illusion in that particular case was one of an enchant­ ed woodland. Writing of the illusion that he desired to c r e a te in Ifuch Ado About Nothing (1905) , Tree s ta te d "In the external presentation of this comedy, it has been my endeavor to realize the lux that characterized the early sixteenth century." 33 Similarly 3 for his 1902 production

30 Times (London), 10 April 1912, p. 6 . 31 p0p a good comparative study of the Pre-Raphael­ ite artists, painters and poets, see Cecil Y. Lang, ed .3 The Pre-Raphaelites and Their Circle (Boston: Houghton Mif- l'in , 196 ql. ^ Times (London), 11 January 1900, p. 33 Program, Much Ado About Nothing (H.M.T. 1905), F o lg e r. of Phillips* Ulvsses. Tree wanted to create the illusion of ancient Mycanea, and although the program booklet des­ cribes in great detail that ancient architecture (based, of course, on authoritative research), Tree assures his pat­ rons that "No pedantic has been or could be attempted, but the endeavor has been made (within the limits of the theatre) to present to the eye and imagination an harmon­ ious and suggestive whole." 31* The illusion created by that whole was "intended to give an idea of that peculiar system of architecture and decoration, the traces of which have lately been unearthed at so many sites of legend." 35 Or, writing of the costumes for his 1900 production of

Phillips* Herod. and their contribution to the desired il­ lusion, Tree stated that they "have been designed to illus­ trate the mixed Oriental and Greco Roman character of Jewish civilization in the Herodian age." 36 Although it had been customary for Charles Kean and Henry Irving to publish long accounts explaining their scenic embellish­ ments of Shakespeare, it must also be said that the Pre- Raphaelite painters did precisely the same with their . . paintings. 37 Both the artists of the Pre-Raphaelite

3^ Program booklet, Ulysses (H.M.T. 190?), Folger. I b id . 36 program booklet, Herod (H.M.T. 1900), Folger.

37 Holman Hunt, for example, wrote seven hundred words to accompany his painting titled "Lady of Shallot." 81 Brotherhood and Tree found that their respective dream

illusions were strengthened with rational, literary ex­ planations*

As Schmitt points out, in creating his illusions Tree relied upon the use of elaborate, realistic detail,

both in scenery and costumes, and in the movement and bus­ iness of-the actors. 3® This use of realistic detail may be seen in the costume in figure 11, or noted in the fact that Tree invented "hairy tights" for male actors. 3*? in

relation to the business and movement of the actors, the

attention to detail may be illustrated by the following

description of Tree's performance in An Enemv of the People * • When Dr. Stockman fTree] was inveighing stuffy, sel­ fish, ignoble homes, his wife, who had tried to pre­ vent him starting his campaign, sat beside him on a platform. In the midst of his harangue about the wretched homes he put his hand for an instant on her shoulder. The gesture said plainly, "Of course, my dear, this is not a hit at yhUs" and perfectly ex­ pressed their relationship. 4-0 The elaborate, realistic detail in draftsmanship is also one of the major characteristics of Pre-Raphaelite paint­

ings. In both these paintings and in Tree's theatrical events the viewer was given an illusion that was entirely believable, although absolutely unreal^ they were dreams in concrete form.

38 "The Winter's Tale in Production," p. 101. 39 Pearson, Beerbohm Tree, p. 119.

1+0 Ibid., p. 19^. Figure 11. Herbert Beerbohm Tree in False Gods, at His Majesty*s Theatre, 1909. (Souvenir pro­ gram, author*s collection). Fig-ure 11 83 The productions at His Majesty*s Theatre were often described by contemporary critics in terms of var­ ious "cinematic" or "kineraatographic" qualities. Today

Tree is often associated with "pictorial" stage production, and I suggest that this idea stems from the cinematic way in which his productions were perceived in their own time.

For a proper understanding of these productions we must, however, as I have indicated earlier, abandon the term pic­ torial, with its implications of inaction, and consider what was meant when a critic wrote of Julius Caesar ( 1898) as "Tadema's panorama, a series of impressive and beauti- ful pictures," He refers to Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema, the artist who designed the scenery for Tree*s production.

There was, however, no actual panorama used in the produc­ tion, which consisted of the following scenes* Act I, a public Place, Brutus' Orchestra, Caesar's House; Act II, the Forum; Act III, Brutus* Tent, the Plains of Phil­ ippi, The writer uses the term panorama to describe, by analogy to that popular forerunner of the film, the swiftly flowing action of Tree's production.

King John (1899)* Tree's next venture into Shakes­ peare production after the success of Julius Caesar, was described in terms even more specifically cinematic. It

1+1 Tribune (New York), 26 January I 898, NYPL S crap­ book (MWEZ 6lF6)Y 1+2 Souvenir, Julius Caesar (H.M.T. 1898) , F o lg e r. 8h was reported that Tree "regroups and recasts scenes to

accelerate action* which should be done in a chronicle

play . • • which should have something of the kaliedoscope*

or rather the kinematograph about them," That critic goes

on to note as well the "rapidity and vitality" of the pro­

duction* qualities "not less important than its picturesque quality*1' J Kina John was also the first of Tree*s sev­

eral experiments with film making? in 1099 be and Mutoscope produced Scenes from King John, based upon his stage pro­ fit duction<>

In addition to King John other early productions described as kinematographic were Ulvsses (1902) 3 Rip Van Winkle (1900 )3 and Ragged Robin ( 1898). ^ Treefs produc­ tion of The Musketeers ( 1898) was arran g ed much as a s i l e n t

film would have been* "not in the usual number of acts3" ^

but divided into ten "tableaux3" progressing from the brand­ ing of Milady as a felon to the final scene in the Hotel de V ille * **7 To some 3 this treatment was confusing* perceived

^ Times (London)* 21. September 1899* p. *+• ^ Program* Scenes from King John (Mutoscope 1899)* F olger* ^ Times (London)* b February 1902* p* 8 ; Ibid** 31 May 1900* p® 9 ; ibid.* 2H* June 1898* p. 10* ^ Ibid*, *+ November 1898* p* h . **7 Souvenir* The Musketeers (H.M.T. 1898)* Special Collections* Shields Library as a story presented in "slices between which there is very little dramatic cohesion." This statement is

indicative of the effect of many of the productions at His Majesty*s 5 which , with the cinematic style, were often

thought to be the absolute antithesis of the well made play,

or even of drama. Ragged Robin was described as being

"somewhat incoherent in structure, rather a loosely con­ nected series of stage pictures.than a drama." Both

Resurrection (1903) and Ulysses were described as "epic­ al" rather than dramatic, of a sprawling nature that was most unusual. Ulvsses was perceived as "not so much a play as a panorama of striking scenes—on Olympus among the Gods, in Ithaca among the suitors of Penelope; amidst the seductions of Calypso; in the infernal regions—with the accompaniment of poetry and music." ^ In describing Resur­ rection one critic stated that the story would be suspended for scenes of "atmosphere" or "local color" (for example a "shot" of a choir of peasants singing at their work in be­ tween scenes of action) throughout the production; there would be a "slice of story," then.a "dash" of atmosphere,

*+8 Times (London), November 1898, p . h . ^ I b i d ., 2b June 1898, p. 10. ^ Ibid., 18 February 1903, p. 10; Ibid., b Feb­ ru a ry 1902, p. 8 . 1-Iario Borsa, The English Stage Today (London? John Lane, the Bodley Head, 191b), p 0 2b$0 86 then a slice of story, etc„ '

Tree described Ms production of Macbeth (1911) stating that it "embodies the nerve shattering swiftness of the cinematograph," 53 in 1916 Treefs ideas essayed in this production were developed in his last film, an adaptation of Macbeth, made in Los Angeles. His Merchant of Venice was thought of as a "popular and successful cin­ ematic show," that "overflowed with delightful music," and which was "rich in local color." 5*+ perhaps the most cin­ ematic of all the productions at His Majesty*s was Henry

VIII. first produced in 1910. It was described as a ".ser­ ies of pageants," not a play; a loose episodic piece, well suited to Tree's magnifiscent display," in which"picture after picture is unrolled." 55 The action was perceived as the turning of a kaliedoscope, a production that was a

"kaliedoscopic, incoherent, boisterous, merry, kinemato- graphic, sensual pageante" The critic also points out that it, a chronicle play, was well suited by such treatment. 5& Tree was continually attracted to the episodic, chronicle type of play (and was continually turning plays

Times (London), 18 February 1903a P* 10. 53 interview clipping, NYPL Stead Scrapbook I (MWEZ 833). ^ Times (London), 21 May 1912, p. 6 . 55 Daily Telegraph (London), 2 September 1910, NYPL Stead Scrapbook I U-1V/2Z 833). Times (London), 2 September 1910, p. 6 . that were not so into such cinematic pieces), to give scope to his predilection for great, sweeping action, presented in a series of illusionistic, moving pictures. Such a view of Tree*s productions will increase our under standing of the nature of the theatrical event at His Majesty’s Theatre, particularly because that view comes from the way in which his productions were thought of in their own time. Such a view will perhaps help to alter the picture of Tree the old fashioned actor-manager, the kind of picture that caused Schmitt to write that the

Shakespeare productions of Granville Barker captured the swift, "cinematic" flow of actions of the Elizabethan theatre, while ignoring' the cinematic impressions that the productions at His Majesty*s created in Tree's aud­ ie n c e . 57

It is generally well known that the theatrical events at His Majesty's were characterized by the use of elaborately mounted spectacle. It was the spectacle of the events that created the illusion and the cinematic flow of action. It was the elaborate spectacle of his productions that earned Tree the epithet "the builder of theatrical skyscrapers," 58 productions that "were on a scale too minutely lavish to be commercial." 59 The

57 "The VJinter's Tale in Production," p«> 122. 58 Times (London), 9 July 1908, p. 11. 59 Desmond McCarthy, "Prom the Stalls," p. 218. spectacle at His Majesty's caused one critic, in comment­ ing on Tree's Richard II (1903), to write that Tree was

"always magnoperating (creating a magnum opus) away. If he produces something intrinsically small, he does it in a 60 big fashion • • . he has a foible for the polychromatic," It was also the spectacle at His Majesty's that earned

Tree his fiercest critics and enemies, notably Sir Sidney

Lee and the Elizabethan Stage Society (this criticism was, however, directed strictly at Tree's Shakespeare produc­ tions). Lee felt that the immortal words of the bard suffered greatly when "fortified by stimulants from the independent arts of painting and music ,11 and it is largely his criticism that has painted the picture of Tree and His Majesty's Theatre now familiar to most students of the theatre. Although the opinions about the relative merits of Tree's spectacle differed, there was no doubt that, in the words of the critic A. E. Baughan, "Spectac­ le was king at His Majesty's." ^ 2

On His Majsety's stage, spectacle generally took the form of splendor of scenery and costume, mass action (crowd scenes), and music. It was of a distinctly different genre than the mechanical wonders that characterized

Times (London), 11 September 1903, p. 3» ^ "Shakespeare and the Modern Stage," Nineteenth Century. January 1900, p« 1^7* Wilson, The Edwardian Theatre. p 0 7 7 . the productions at Drury Lane, for, as has been shown, the stage at His Majesty's, although equipped for the flying of large set pieces, was not a mass of hydraulic lifts.

The scenery at His Majesty's, painted by such artists as

Joseph Harker, Hawes Craven, Walter Harm, William Telbin, T. E. Mantle, Robert McCleery, Robert Edmen, and William

Hensley, 'and the costumes, usually designed by Percy Ander­ son or Percy Macquoid, provided the major spectacle, leading many reviewers to describe the productions as "feasts for the eye." The aesthetic governing the designs of the scenery and costumes was that of romantic realism, the style that had begun under Irving at the Lyceum. It was characterized by the Pre-Raphaelite illusion that Tree sought to maintains realistic, antiquarian detail, with fantastic and picturesque subjects. The spectacle of the Merchant of Venice was ap­ parent in the critic's mind when he wrote that it "need hardly be said that everything that can be done from the picturesque point of view is done for this revival—Paolo

Veronese halls, ^3 Titian and Tintoretto costumes, caper­ ing and whirling masquers, singing gondoliers, and the gen­ eral "Venitianism" of Venice." ^ Tree's stated objective

63 in the promptbook for the production (Folger) there is a note for the designer to look at Veronese paintings for inspiration.

^ Times (London), 6 April 1908, p. 8. 90 with the spectacle in this production was to provide a picture of the Venetian ghetto "in order to bring the story of Shylock into greater cohesion. It enables us to see much of.the life of the Jews and the customs of the d ay ." ^5

King John too was produced with the intent of presenting a spectacle of the life of the periods as was

Richard II. The stated objective for the former play was to give to the "stirring scenes" of King John "a setting that would place before the public a living picture of the times as designed by Shakespeare." 66 This was done through realistic costufnes 3 more "built up" scenery than one critic had ever seen 3 ^ and the introduction of sev­ eral tableauXj which shall be treated when we come to Tree's use.of mass action. A similar use of spectacle is explained in Tree's program booklet for Richard II. where he writes! "In this presentation of King Richard II an en­ deavor is made to give a faithful picture of the history of the time3 while it is hoped that the spirit in which Shakespeare conceived the work is preserved." 68 The "faithful picture" had the effect of a "curious medley of

65 Prograra 5 Merchant of Venice (H.M.T. 1908)a F o lg e r.

66 Souvenirs King John (H.M.T. l899 )3 F o lg e r. 6? Sketch.. (London). 20 September l899 3 p . 389. 68 F o lg e r. 91 of sensations, the stir of war, the clash of arras, the blare of trumpets, • . ^ The spectacle of Ulysses, creating the illusion of ancient Mycenae, was in its "wealth of picturesque ad­ venture, its atmosphere of courts and palaces, its stunning

situations, , • ^ The production was one in which "lit­ tle opportunity for acting was afforded" because it was es­

sentially a non-operatic opera, an "interesting, elaborate, and poetical spectacle" rather than a dramatic play, 7 1 Ulysses was one of many plays at His Majesty's that consis­

ted of nothing but spectacle in various forms.

One of the chief effects of Tree's Antony and Cleo­ p a tra (1906) was the great Sphinx, introduced at the begin- nig and end of the production. The piece fAntony and Cleopatra is made to open with an elaborately painted view of the Sphinx in all its solemnity. Nothing is done in the presence of this Sphinx, no performers appear, but the audience is in­ vited to gaze upon it for a few moments, when it pas­ ses away. At the close, when the tragic work is done, the Sphinx reappears, and the audience is again allowed to moralize in its presence. 72

Tree defended this use of spectacle: The major part of the drama is laid in Egypt, that wonderful civilization which has been for some

^ Times (London), 11 September 1903s p. 3* 7° Program booklet, Ulysses (H.M.T. 1902), Folger.

71 Atheneum (London), 8 February 1902, pp., 187- 8 8 .

72 Fitzgerald, Shakespearean Representation, p. 79. 92 centuries buried beneath the sands of time. There remains through the centuries the calm figure of the Sphinx, still gazing across the desert of today, as it did in the days of Egyptian greatnessf so I pro­ pose at the rise of the curtain that that this sym­ bol be the opening note of the play. At the close of our falling night we see looming once more through the darkness the calm, indifferent figure of the Sphinx in the desert. The play ends as it began, with this symbol of eternity. 73

According to McCarthy, the.Sphinx "called down louder ap­ plause than any other scene in the play." 7^

VIriting of his production of Shakespeare 1 s Henry

VII. Tree stated "It will be seen that the period of King

Henry VII was characterized by great sumpruousnessj indeed, the daily life of the court was compact of revels, masques, and displays of splendor." He continued ". • . it was hoped, that an impression would be conveyed to our own time of Henry in his habit as he lived, of his people, of the architecture, of their ceremonies, and of the manners and customs of that great age." 75 The spectacular effect gained in that production was one of a "chaos of sensa­ tions" that the "wise playgoer" was admonished not to ana­ lyze for "artistic wholeness" but to "take the thing as a polychromatic show, and let his mind drift along with the showman." 7^

73 Pit gerald, Shakespearean Representation, p. 79« 7^ "From the Stalls," p. 218.

75 "Henry VIII," Thoughts and Afterthoughts, p. 281.

^ Tiroes (London), 2 September 1910, p. 6. 93 The production of Faust (1908) was seen as a

series of "tremendous spectacular effects, yawning chasms,

reverberations of thunder, teeming multitudes of citizens

and soldiers, floods of spirits flying throughout the air, and hordes of -witches undulating in the darkness," 77

The following description of the scenery for Julius Caesar reveals a good impression of Treefs visual s p e c ta c le :

There was q u ite an "Oh" of su rp ris e and pleasu re in the house at the scene (I,i) which showed a lofty arch running across the proscenium. At the side were two temples, as a background the Forum of Julius Cae­ sar, and in front of it an open place planted with trees, with a statue of Caesar, in the center, and everywhere, roundabout, citizens in picturesque cos­ tumes that formed charming harmonies of color, Of the spectacle of Herod we read that

this marvellous abode of Herod the Great forms one scene throughout the whole four acts of the play. It is a "set" which has never been equalled on any stage. As the curtain rises the spectators see before them the courtyard and palace looking across the famous Valley of Jeruselem. In the immediate distance across the gorge one beholds the poorer part of the then crowded Judean city . . . the lighting effects of this scene are realistically arranged, showing first, the late afternoon, then early dawn, anon noonday, and finally night. The effect of these lights find shades tends to make this scene extremely vivid not only as regards the view of the city from the palace walls, but connexion with a peculiar bridge which spans the gorge toward the prompt side of the stage, and as regards a wonderfully arranged corridor from the OP side far away toward the mountain ranges. The beautiful pillars brought by Herod from foreign parts

^ Times (London), 7 September 1908, p.11. ^ Sketch (London), 26 January 1898, p . 2, 9h form a very picturesque part of the scene. 79

In addition to the visual spectacle that supported Tree's theatrical illusions., another characteristic of the

events at His Majesty*s was the heavy dependence upon music

and sound effects. Fitzgerald writes that at His Majesty*s l,The eye is recreated by scenes of beauty and the ear by the Wagnerian strains of Roze ^O and other accomplished

artists." x Although Tree always employed a full-time

music director to arrange, compose, and conduct, very often

the music would be specially composed by other well known

artists, including S. Taylor-Coleridge, Sir Arthur Sullivan,

Edward German, Paul Rubens, and Camille Saint-Saens.

The music at His Majesty*s was of several different

types. There were incidental pieces and curtain raisers,

interludes between the acts, overtures, and the music that formed an integral part of the production, the score. This latter use of music "has been described by Schmitt as "back­ ground m usic, much as many modern film makers use music in O p their soundtracks." MacQueen-Pope lauds Tree*s taste in music,^3 as does Pearson, who wrote that "the interludes

79 Sketch (London), 31 October 1900, p. 7^« Raymond Roze, for years Tree's music director. Shakespearean Representation, p. 72.

"Herbert Beerbohm Tree Produces The Winter * s Tale." Theatre Studies, no. 17 (1970), p. 30. 83 Carrlarces at Eleven, p. between the acts were so admirable that Edward Elgar ^

declared that he was never compelled to take refuge in a bar, a necessary move at other theatres." ^5 it has als

been noted, that "It must be placed to the credit of Mr.

Tree that he seldom looses the opportunity of adding int

erest to his dramatic productions with interesting

music'.11 ^

That Tree relied heavily upon music for part of his spectacle may be seen by consulting any of the pro­ grams. For The Temnest there are listed twenty-five sep arate pieces, ^ for Nero there are listed eight titled pieces in addition to specially composed incidental mu­ sic, ^ Faust was scored with a Prelude, ballets, dances incidental music, choruses and church music, ^9 uhile Re urrection employed an imported Russian choir. 9° A description of the use of music was generally provided in the program booklets, sometimes running, as that for Ulysses, for two pages with notations and

81* Sir Edward Elgar, the composer. Beerbohm Tree, p. 163.

Circes (London), *+ February 1902, p. 8 . Program, The Tempest (H.M.T. 190*fr), Folger.

Program, Nero (H.M.To 1906), Shields Library. 89 Program, Faust (H.M.T. 1908), Shields Library

90 Times (London),' 18 February 1903, p. 10. 96 interpretations. 91 Tree's intent for the music in that

play is stated! "The composer has endeavored to illustrate

the play rather than to write the music o:f any particular country^or style." 92 The music was an integral part of

the illusion. The music for Herod was used in the follow­

ing way! The prelude to Herod may be briefly divided into three parts! a. the somewhat strong principle sub­ ject* developed at some length* b. the love theme* closely followed by c. a suggestion of the dance which is used as a distraction to Herod's thoughts in Act I I I 0 This later section is interrupted to­ ward the end* and the Prelude ends with a short re­ capitulation of the first subject in a very slow tempo* thus corresponding with the drama itself. 93

The prelude* then* was taken from bits and pieces of all the various themes throughout the play* rather like an

operatic overture or a film theme.

In describing the way in which music functioned as a soundtrack in a modern film* in the His Majesty's production of The Winter's Tale. Schmitt writes: Musical selections were used to identify charac­ ters and to underscore or heighten dramatically tense moments 0 For example* a Perdita theme was played at the beginning of the prison scene* re­ peated when Paulina presented the baby to Leon- tes* repeated again when Antigonous left the baby on the Bohemian seacoast* and repeated again at the beginning of the pastoral scene. Dramatic moments* heightened by background music* included Leontes* growing Jealousy during the "Too hot* too hot"

9^ Program booklet, Ulysses (H.M.T. 1902), Folger.

9 2 I b i d o

93 program booklet* Herod (H.M.T. 1900), Folger. 97 speech (I,ii), Father Time's monologue (IV,i), and Perdita's flower speech (IV,iv )0 91*-

Tree's use of sound was not restricted to the orchestra and musicj His Majesty's was noted for the

quality of the sound effects as well. Tree was an early

user of recorded sound for special effects; Nero featured

gramophone recordings for bugle calls, off-stage cries, and the agonized martyrs in their death throes, 95 an^

the instrument was used to amplify the off-stage noise

of the crowd in Richard II (1903). ^ In both instances the newspapers touted the novelty of such a technique.

In Faust there was, continually during the scene on the

Brocken an "u n e a rth ly sound, h a l f w h isp er, h a lf humming

that chills the blood like the dull animal sounds made by the insane.” 97 Tree's combination of the orchestra's

music with sound effects is illustrated in his following

description of Much Ado About Nothing (1905)I Between Acts I and II, I have introduced an Inter­ mezzo th a t i l l u s t r a t e s th e p a ssin g of a summer n ig h t, and in which the sounds of nature are blended with those of the orchestra. At first the hoot of the night owl is heard, then the song of the nighting- gale. The clock strikes two and three and as the music progresses we see the first faint dawn, and with it nature begins to awake. Chanticleer is heard and then the hoarse croak of the raven. The clock

9^ "Tree Produces The Winter's Tale.” p. 30.

9^ clipping, April 1906, NYPL Scrapbook (MWEZ 6186).

9^ clipping, 1903, NYPL Scrapbook (MWEZ 6187).

^ Times (London), 7 September 1908, p. 11. 98 strikes four, the sun has risen, and the birds chat­ ter a thousand welcomes to the coming day 3 the cow­ bells tinkle, the dogs bark, and all of nature is astir. It Is morning 3 the sound of the hunter*s horn tells us that man is once more bent on killing. Ben­ edick returns fresh from hawking 3 and in turn becomes himself the sport of love. 98

Another major element of the spectacle at His

Majesty*s Theatre was the use of a great deal of physical action on stage, often manifest in crowd or mob scenes, dances, and pantomime sequences. The last catgeory often got Tree into trouble with his critics, for these sequen­ ces were generally embellishments upon the text, and Tree found Shakespeare's plays perfectly suited for such inter­ p o la tio n s . "The crowd is always a strong point at His Maj- e s t y 's .'1 99 Tree began the tradition of dynamic crowd action with the 1899 Julius Caesar, in which the crowd ad­ dressed by Antony (Tree) was regarded as the protagonist of the piece, and never missed a chance to employ his spec­ ialty. The crowd in Caesar was compared with that present­ ed by the Duke of Saxe-Meiningen's (1881) production (the most recent notable production of the play at the time of Tree*s revival), and it was found that although the Mein- ingers may have taught the English something about stage

98 Program booklet, Much Ado About Nothing. (H.M.T. 190J?), .Folger. 99 Times (London), 7 September 1908, p. 11. 99 management, “they may now themselves come to London for a lesson.“ 100 Of Tree's production, Pearson notes that

"It was generally agreed that no play of Shakespeare's w ith in liv in g memory had been mounted w ith such m ag n ifi­ cence or acted so well, and that no crowd like that in the

Forum scene had been so skillfully or realistically hand­ le d ." 101 The scene looked like this:

the man who stopped to tie his sandal at the begin­ ning of Antony's speech . . t he was not at all in­ terested in what Antony was going to say—Brutus had calmed him down, with the rest of his fellows, and his un-tied sandal wanted attention. Suddenly he seemed to waken to the passionate earnestness of the dead man's friend, he jerked his head back with a nice, free gesture, and grew rapt in the great speech. * . o the big crowd . • . each face in turn was strained to Antony, each was changed from quiesence, by his eloquence, to perilous rage. • . . At this point

. . . the excitement of the populous now became un­ controllable. Religious enthusiasm now fanned the flame of personal sympathy. They forbade the body to be carried to the Field of Mars for cremation. Chairs, benches, and tables from adjacent buildings . . . a heap of fuel was raised . . • and the body snatched by hands, was cast upon it in a frenzy of excitement. 102

The crowd also figured heavily in Tree's Richard XL* Merchant of Venice. Henry VIII. The Eternal City. Drake.

100 Times (London), 2h January 1898, p . 12. 101 Beerbohm Tree, p. 116. 102 Reconstructed from Cran, Herbert Beerbohm Tree. Po 53a and the Times (London), 2*+ January 1898, p. 12. This reconstructed scene is also used by Haas, “Kean, Irving, and Tree," pp. 172-73. 100 Q13y$XL-T\lXri±is .Jg.ggj?Jti.^nd..JUfi.ffr.e tfojr.ona and The Dancing ' G irl, -^3 Of both The Dane in?: Girl and The Eternal City the only thing that the Times, critic found worthy of His Majesty*s was the handling of the crowd. In Kichard II the crowd figured heavily in several of the interpolated sequences, one of which consisted of the King*s entry into

London as a captive of Bolingbroke. There were "of course, a squadron of horses engaged, who took some time to pass in vivid procession through the street. A most effective bus­ iness it was," The crowd (and more animals) also fig­ ured in the scene of the lists, and Tree found it effect­ ive to add a pantomimic procession, as a vision in the mind of the dying king, of Bolingbroke*s coronation, at the play*s end. Henry VIII was a pageant, full of crowds and processions, which gave the impression "that you had been to a fair, and had much fun amid the roundabouts and steam organs, with the added excitement of seeing one or two serious accidents to eminent persons in the neighbor­ hood ."

Times (London), 11 September 1903, p. 11; ibid. 21 May 1912, pTo, ibid., 2 September 1910, p. 6 ; i b i d . , 3 October 1902, p. 7 ; ibid., *+ September 1912, p. *+; ibid., 12 June 1912, p. 10; ibid., 3 September 1913 3 P* 6 ; i b i d . , 17 February 1909s p. 13• 10*+ Fitzgerald, Shakespearean Representation, p. 76.

10? Ibid., p. 78.

Times (London), 2 September 1910, p. 6. 101 Tree*s crowds and embellishments upon the text

did not always take the form of action and surging life.

He also used tableau scenes, often at the beginning and

end of an act, for a striking effect. King John provides

a good example. In the His Majesty*s production there

were two tableau scenes, the first between the fourth and

fifth scenes of Act I, and the second between Act II and Act III. The first depicted a fight between the Eng­ lish and the French, featuring both live and painted actors. Tree writes that the fourth scene was a short one

(presumably played as a carpenter scene) showing the begin­ ning of the fight and young Arthurfs capture. This was

then succeeded by the set tableau of the battle 11 in

a c tio n ," ^°8 displaying for a few minutes a battlefield with its combatants, both horse and foot, and its dead and wounded. None of the Char­ acters either speaks or moves. It is a genuine living picture, such as we see at our Italian country fairs; but the audience goes into raptures, clapping and demanding an encore. The encore is gen­ erally conceded; the curtain rises once more, those who fig u re d a moment ago as wounded a re now dead, _ those who were fighting on foot have fallen. . . . The second tableau was a scene of the "Signing of the 110 Magna C h a rts ." The ta b le a u was a ls o used in Tree*s

Souvenir, Kina ,Tohn (H.M.T. 1899 )» F o lg e r. 108 I b id . Borsa, The Enalish Staae Today. pp. 187-88.

Souvenir, Kina John. 102 productions of Nero (showing Nero*s entry into Rome behind

three white horses), The Tempest (at the play*s end,

showing Caliban watching the ship depart), 1-L2 and Henry VIII (showing the coronation of Anne).1^

There was also much use of dance at His Majesty*s

for spectacular effect* In School fpr Scandal (1909), Act

I ended with an elaborately detailed, fourteen couple min- 1 1 Lj. uet. Merry Wives of Windsor (revived many times) us­

ually featured several dance sequences featuring Madge Ken­ dal and Ellen Terry, and Tree wrote that the dances for

Much Ado About Nothing, “derived from old English, Spanish,

and Italian sources," included a “Kissing dance," an elab­ orate affair done in measure to the sonnet “Sigh Me No More

Leaves,'! accompanied by the fool, playing a lute and weav­ ing in and out of the dancers® I1? The second act of Faust

featured several dances, the “Will o* the Wisps," and the “Ballet of Sylphs," composed by Coleridge-Taylor• H® The dance of shepherds in the pastoral scene in Treefs Winter1s

111 souvenir, Nero (H.M.T. 1906), Shields Library.

112 promptbook, The Temnest (H.M.T. 190U-), Folger.

Times (London), 2 September 1910, p.. 6 . H 1* School for Scandal (LondonI Samuel French, 1909) Shields Library© 115 Program, Merry Wives of Windsor (H.M.T. 1902), F o lg er. i " 5 Souvenir, Nero. 117 Program, Much Ado About Nothing. Folger. 118 Program, Faust (H.M.T. 1908), Shields Library. 103 Tale requires ^00/words in the promptbook to describe i t s H 9 an<3 much of the notes in the promptbook for The

Temnest describe the many dance sequences in that pro­ d u ctio n . 1^0

Another characteristic of productions at His Maj­ esty^ was Tree's excellent casting# The actor manager

has often been accused of harming the.state of the theatre by surrounding himself with inferior actors to show off

his own talent* This criticism has been applied* unjust­ ifiably* to Tree* Haas notes that "acting standards were

incredibly low" at His Majesty's* citing two articles of

the contemporary press* by 17. Hughes Hallet and Sir Sidney Lee* as evidence. I 21 He fails to take into accounts how­

ever* the fact that both critics were violently opposed to Tree and his Shakespearean methods.

F itz g e ra ld 9 summing up Tree's accomplishments*

notes that "He has secured and trained a sound body of actors* whose efforts never fail to give pleasure." 122

Pearson points out Tree's superior casts* l2^ quoting

Bernard Shawl "Tree must stand a c q u itted of any

119 Schmitt* "Tree Produces Winter's Tale." p. 26.

120 Folger? as c ite d in Haas* passim* as the b a s is for his reconstructive study of the play. 121 i«Kean3 Irving* and Tree*" p. 218. 122 Shakespearean Representation. p. 72.

Beerbohm Tree. ppD 117-19° 1 0 ^ belittlement of the parts which compete so strongly with

his own • • o he surrounds himself with counter attrac­ tions and lets them play him off the stage to their hearts content, as long as he takes the money at the doors*" i 2lf

By 1905 it was said that "Mr* Tree has gradually surrounded himself with an excellent stock company, so that even the

small parts are played well." i25 Neither Julius Caesar nor Twelfth Night were produced with a star part, and fea­

tured "the best obtainable players." excellent casting of Merry Wives of V,Tindsor "not Merely" for Ellen

Terry and Madge Kendal, but for "general excellence*" -^7

Cran notes Tree's casting policy, and so does Brock- ett. 129 in 1912 Tree produced Drake, but did not take the star role because he thought that Lyn Harding could do it b e tte r .

Players often featured in the His Majesty's com­ pany included, besides Terry and KendalS Mrs* Patrick Cam- pbel, Marie Lohr, Constance Collier, Dorothea Baird,

Pearson, Beerbohm Tree, p. 118.

i 2^ Tatler (London), 29 April 1905, clipping, NYPL scrapbook (MWEZ 6187) Sketch (London), 30 January 1901, p. 95* 127 Grauhic (London), lU- June 1902, p. 803. i 2® Herbert Beerbohm Tree, u* h-6 .

129 History of the Theatre. p* *+7^.

130 Times (London), lb August 1912, p. 7* i o 5 Winifred Emery, Lena Ashwell, Irene and Violet Vanbrugh,

Lady Tree, Phyllis Nielson-Terry, Julia Nielson, Lily Bray-

ton, Oscar Asche, Nigel Playfair, Henry Ainley, Godfrey

Tearle, Matheson Lang, Leon Quartermaine, Arthur Bourchier,

John Fisher-White, Lyn Harding, James Hearn, V/. G. Fay,

Norman Page, Fred Terry, Lewis Waller, Basil G ill, Weedon Grossmoth, Owen Nares, Lionel Brough, and others, -^l

Tree was far more interested in creating an ensemble com­

pany than he was in star parts and stage hogging. Tree*s 1900 production of Midsummer N.ifth^s Dream

is perhaps his best known production to modern theatre stu­

dent. It has been called the high water mark of the nine­ teenth century Shakespearean production aestheticj ^-32 it has been praised by those who have eulogized His Majestyrs as the magical Edwardian never-never land of their child- hoodj ^3 and, with its attendant stories of the real rab­ bits that Tree used in the forest glades (although these creatures were actually a part of the 1911 revival, not the original production), it has become the most usual example

in theatre history texts when Tree is mentioned. Of the production, Borsa wrote 1 In his setting of this fantastic creation . . . he

131 Programs (H.M.T. 1897-191U-), Folger, NYPL 1-32 Speaight, Shakespeare on the Stare, p. 126.

133 Macv/ueen-Pone.- Carriages at Eleven, p. 33.

13^ Brockett, History of the Theatre, p. ^73 • 106

£TreeJ contrived to maintain all the hazy character of a dream? he succeeded in materializing a vision while, so to speak, preserving all of its unreality. I never remember experiencing such gratification of all the senses—the eye delighted by grace of line, form and color, the ear gently lulled by the soothing modulations of Mendellshon*s music; and the intellect stimulated by the gems of poetry scattered like jew­ els amid the grotesque elements of the composition. 135 His Majesty*s, under Tree's management, was a theatre of the senses. All the characteristics of his productions so far noted—the illusionary world on the stage, presented in series of dynamic and moving pictures, visually splendid, spectacular compositions of scenery, music, sound, and col­

orfully dressed, moving actors—created a kind of total t h e a t r e . ^36

All of the sensorial elements of the drama become prominent, and the words take a secondary place. Ferdinand must be a figure by Burne-Jones. 137 The Yellow Sands must be a picture purchasable by (reformed) Chancery Trustees. 13o The play has to be shot through with all the colors of the prismatic spectrum and illuminated by all the resources of electricity . . . the atmosphere of enchantment has no longer to be suggested, it has to be realized. No easy task this. How does Mr. Tree set about it? -*-39

In the above review of The Tempest the critic describes the theatre event at His Majesty*s and in so doing provides

^•■^The English Stame Today, pp. 180-81. ^36 For a full discussion of the idea of total theatre, in the sense that is taken above, see E. T. Kirby, ed* Total Theatre (New York: Dutton, 1969). 137 Sir Edward Burne-Jones, A.R.A., Pre-Raphaelite. 138 The Chancery Trust was set up to purchase pic­ tures for the National Gallery.

■^39 Times (London), 1!? September 190*+, p. b a vivid impression of Tree's total theatree He writes

that "the words take a secondary place*" and therein lies

one key to -understanding the event in question. Tree's productions* using "all the resources of the age in the

arts of plastic and music*" 11+0 were designed to sate

"the eye with splendid pictures and the ear with volup­ tuous music of both verse and orchestra."

One of the most common criticism s of the produc­ tions at His Majesty's* both by his contemporary enemies like Lee* and by latter day historians* ^*+3 is that

his Shakespearean scripts were heavily edited and rear­

ranged so the scenery and spectacle could hold sway* and this is true. For those who approach Shakespeare on a literary* rather than a theatrical* plane this is an act of vandalism indicative of poor taste* and from such prac­

tices Tree has earned his reputation for heavy-handedness. The heavy editing of the plays at His Majesty's clearly shows that* for Tree* the playtext* whether Shakespeare or Shaw* was not sacrosanct* was not the most important elem­

ent of the theatre. the scenic embellishments should be as costly and as

Times (London)* b February 1902* p. 12. -I-1*'-1- Ib id .* 26 January 1906* p. 6 . 1^2 "Shakespeare and the Modern- Stage*" pp. l li6-56.

■*■^3 Haas* "Kean,Irving*and Tree,"p. 215? Schmitt* "Tree Produces The Winter 1 s T a le .11 pp. 21-22. 108 beautiful as the subject of the drama being performed seems to demand; that it should not be subordinate to but rather harmonious with, the dramatic interest, just as every other art introduced into the represent­ ation should be—'whether those he of acting, painting, sculpture, music, or whatnot«

The words in a His Majesty*s Shakespeare production would not of course be entirely left out, or thrown away,

but they were often treated in a variety of fashions that were not’always pleasing to those used to simple, good re­ citation, Haas notes that actors at His Majesty*s were

often accused of speaking verse poorly, and the Times supports such a statement, saying the productions at His

Majesty's were often so fiercely attacked on "other scores"

that it would have been "particularly worthwhile to be . i ) i g without offence in this," The "poor" verse speaking at

His Majesty's may not, however, have been due to lack of skill on the actors' parts. For Tree the words were not just poems to be recited, or even lines to be realistically read, but were more like sounds to be used in creating his total production. A description of his production of The Tempest relates the following impressionl In the first place mere words give way to pictures Tree staged the shipwreck at the play's beginning . , o nobody talks • • • but by and by words must be heard; and they must give the effect of strangeness

Tree, "Living Shakespeare,“ Thoughts and After­ thoughts . pp. 56-57* ^*5 "Kean, Irving, and Tree," p. 219. Tines (London), 18 April 1911, p« 9* 109

with beauty, they must create the atmosphere of en­ chantment. Merely to "spout" them in the old style, close up to the footlights, straight at the audience, ■would never do. They must be chanted (by Ferdinand and Miranda) or rolled out as majestic organ notes (by Prospero), or grunted (by Caliban), delicately fluted (by Ariel); the general effect must be symphonic, the voice of each actor taking its alotted part in the vocal "score." 1^*7 The words were not given without regard to sense, however, f o r in a prompt copy of th e p la y , many p assag es a re marked •} LQ and carefully paraphrased for sense readings. The words were an integral part of the whole composition, but they were not the major part.

To Shaw, Tree was "the despair of authors," be­ cause he considered himself a co-author, one who

felt that he needed nothing from an author but a lit­ erary scaffold on which to exhibit his own creations. He, too, turned to Shakespear as to a forest out of which such scaffolding could be hewn without remon­ strance from the landlord, and to foreign who could not interfere with him, their interests being in the hands of adapters who could not stand up to his sup- remecy in his own theatre. . . . The author, whether Shakespear or Shaw, was but a lame dog to be helped over the stile by the ingenuity and inventiveness of the actor-producer. How to add and subtract, inter­ polate and prune, until an effective result was ar- . rived at was the problem of production as he saw it. Tree would not have argued with such a characterization of him and his methods, which from time to time he felt compelled to defend. He wrote that "I am not ashamed to

^'7 Times (London), 15 September 190*+), p. *+. llf8 Folger,* OSUTRI, McDowell P. l 6l£ . 1^9 nproni th e P o in t of View of a P la y w rig h t," Her­ bert Beerbohm Tree, ed. Max., pp. 2 1+0-1f l . 11Q say that for these productions (Julius Caesar. Mid summer

Nightfs Dream. King John) I have tried to borrow from the arts and sciences all that the arts and sciences had to le n d *11 Tree was an admirer of another advocate of total theatre, Richard Wagner® Tree described him as the man who came nearest to Shakespeare in genius, and asked

"Did Wagner regard his work as independent of the aids which his time gave him to complete the illusion for the spectators? No." The attitude towards authors that Shaw described is easily seen in Tree comments on Wagner: "Wag-' nerfs works are primarily dramas heightened by the aid of music, of scenery, of atmosphere, of costume, all gorgeous or simple as the situation requires."

The events on the stage of His Majesty*s, that

"central British conception of the drama when it is taken seriously," were elaborately mounted spectacles, cinemat­ ic, illusionisticj full of color, music, dynamic crowds, fine actors and gorgeous scenery, Tree*s idea of the theatrical event was a kind of total theatre, Wagnerian, non-literary® It was, in Tree*s own words, "that compound of all the arts that is the modern theatre." In the comfort of His Majesty*s Theatre, the patron could sit back

150 Halving Shakespeare," Thoughts and After­ thoughts. p. *+6 .

1?1 Ibid., p. 56.

1^2 Ibid., p. 57. and relax* among his peers* to enjoy "an entertainment that has all the ease and felicity commonly attributed to a dream*" a "placid and comprehensive gratifica­ tion of all the senses."

j*, Corbin* "Playgoing in London*" Scribners, A p r il 19 0h3 p 0 1+02. CHAPTER XV

THE THEATRICAL EXPERIENCE AT HIS MAJESTY'S THEATRE

Every production was a cause of discussion and an event of theatrical excitement. A Tree first night— we have had nothing like it since his day, nor a personality capable of inspiring a theatrical event with such intensity of interest. 1

There is an air of great dignity at His Majesty's Theatre. The porter, a resplendent personage whom you first mistake for a Royal Fusilier at least 3 advises at your departure a taxi rather than a han­ som with a manner that would grace a Court function. English women who shop in the forenoon with trains . to their gowns drop them on approaching the bit of pavement that fronts the establishment so as to get into the picture properly. Messenger boys going by tilt their foolish caps a little more rakishly, and chaffeurs toot triumphantly. 2

The "air of dignity" mentioned above lies at the heart of the theatrical experience that I am, in this study, attempting to document. There was an atmosphere about His M ajesty's, a specialness about going there, that was as Integral a part of the theatrical experience as the event on the stage. We have already mentioned the symbolic nature of the theatre, the identification of the theatre by the public with a particular sort of experience, called the

1 Wilson, The Edwardian Theatre, p. 69 •

2 G. Lynch. Boston Herald 1903, clipping, NYPL scrapbook (MWEZ 61867. 1 1 2 113 house style. It has been noted that for the Edwardian,

unlike the modern theatregoer, the playhouse at which the

play was performed was at least as important a factor in.

deciding what to see as the name of the play and the cast. Each of the major actor-managers sought to create his own

particular brand of'theatre experience, catering to a par­ ticular audience, or following. It was the manager*s task and function to bring together the art object (the theatri­ cal event) with the audience, and in so doing to create an experience.

In the preceding chapter the theatrical event as such was discussed. To completely reveal the nature of the performance, however, that discussion must be carried fur­ ther. To recall Donohue*s definition of the performanceJ there is implicit in it "some essential part of the culture of its age." In Chapter II It was shown how the physical building of the theatre was an integral part of the total theatrical experience. Therefore one of the relationships between the performance and Its culture has been documented. The present chapter is an attempt to explore the relation­ ships between the performance and culture in other terms.

Shandler points out the idea of recognized "mo­ ments1* in theatre history wherein a particular relationship between the artist and his society existed that created.a particular "Idea of theatre" (in the sense that Fergusson l l l f has presented). 3 Shandler writes that "At other moments

in theatre history—Athenian Greece and Elizabethan Eng­

land—stability and quality of production! the presence

of a universal audience, representative of the entire

community, and an immediacy of relationship between the

audience and the artist were characteristic." **

The Edwardian era theatre in London was another

such moment. In the preceding chapter I have attempted

to demonstrate the stability and quality of production at

His Majesty*s. In the present chapter the remaining ten­

ets of the above hypothesis, those of a wide based audience and an immediacy of relationship between the audience and the artist, shall be investigated. The present chapter is an extension of the investigation begun in Chapters I and II, and the nature of the heterogeneous audience and the

nature of the theatrical event that appealed to all of them

should be born in mind. The terra for the relationship of culture and perfor­

mance is the theatrical experience. If we see the on-stage

production of a play as the essential theatre event, the dynamic occurance of that event is the performance. It Is the experience of the performance, the point of contact

3 Francis Fergusson, The Idea of a Theatre (Prince, ton: Princeton University Press,-19V9J. **■ Donald Shandler, "American Shakespeare Festival Theatre,A Sense of Occasion," (Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1972), p. 1. between it and the audience, that most clearly reveals the above relationship of culture and performance. At

His Majesty's Theatre, over a twenty year period, there grew up a variety of conditions which directly affected the theatrical experience* Those particular conditions

* shall be explored in terms of: 1) Tree's idea of a theatre, encompassing his view of His Majesty's as the national theatre, his sense of occasion, and the methods whereby he used his sense of occasion in the creation of the theatre experience? 2) His Majesty's Theatre as a social institu­ tion. By social institution I mean to suggest that His

M ajesty's was more than a place where plays were produced.

It was a culture center for London, a focal point for the public artistic conscience.- As such it was an integral part of the cultural life of its society, a place for the community to gather in celebration, and it became a symbol of British taste in the Edwardian era* Beerbohm Tree bad a very strong sense of the place the theatre held in society, and it shaped his idea of a theatre. "He was full of the idea of the importance of theatrical art as a main Instrument of culture and as a most necessary element in civic and social life." $ He was no mere businessman nor an ordinary artist. He was recog­ nized as the head and leader of his profession, and always

5 W. L. Courtney, "An Open Letter to an American Friend," Herbert Beerbohm Tree, ed* Max Beerbohm, p. 262. 1 1 6 thought of himself more of a public servant than anything

else. "He presided at meetings, gave speeches, inaugurat­ ed movements, pushed and encouraged various policies, in order to prove that actors were important elements in the community, and had their proper functions in the body pol­ i t i c . " 6 Tree was, variously, the founder of the Academy

(later Royal) of Dramatic Art, vice president of the Act­ or's Association, vice president of the Actor's Benevolent

Fund, a governor of Charing Cross Hospital, a Trustee of the Royal Dramatic College, Councilman of the London Shakes­ peare league, and president of the Dickens Fellowship Dram­ atic Club, the Shakespeare Reading Society, and the power­ ful Theatrical Managers Association. 7 He took his profes­ sion and his position in it very seriously. He was the : manager of events that were " on a scale far too minutely Q lavish to be considered commercial," and it is in the role of manager, not primarily as an actor or director, that he may be studied to best reveal the relationship between the performance and its culture. "It is as a manager, shrewd in his business intentions, keen in discernment, and thor­ oughly artistic in his instincts that he has won for him­ self the place that he has." 9

6 Courtney, "An Open letter," p. 262. 7 Cran, Herbert Beerbohm Tree, p. 5.

® McCarthy, "From the S talls," p. 218.

9 Chicago Tribune, clipping, NYPL scrapbook ( 6l 86) 117 During the years of Tree's management there was a

good deal of discussion in the theatrical world of the

question of a national theatre. 1® Tree was in favor of

such an idea, providing it was run properly:

It is obvious that a manager should be freed from these sordid considerations {[commercial onesQ and I believe that in almost every country but England the theatres are State-subventioned. It is an open question, however, in a country in which individual­ ism has taken strong root, and where state encourage­ ment or interference is looked upon askance—whether a national or subsidised theatre would be for the ul­ timate benefit of the community. Personally, I am inclined to believe that any drawbacks to the subsi­ dised system would be greatly outweighed by its ben­ efits. It must be confessed, on the other hand, that experiences in France and other countries do not tend to show that the State subsidised theatres are in touch with the age; indeed the State machinery is liar ble to have grown somewhat rusty. H

He thought that, ideally, the State theatre ought not to be run by a committee, but by an Individual, say­ ing "Causes do not find salvation in systems, but in

Men." 12 As Rosenfeld ^ and others ^ have pointed out,

see H. Granville Barker, A National Theatre (London: Sidgewick & Jackson, 1930J. ^ Tree, "Some Fallacies of the Modern Stage," Thoughts and Afterthoughts. pp. 185-86.

12 Tree, Times (London), 23 September 1907*

18 i'Some E xperiem nts o f Beerbohm T re e ," p . 8 2 . 1** That Tree and His M ajesty's were doing the work of a national theatre was a common sentiment in his life­ time. George Edwardes toasted him on that score at a public dinner in 19115 .reported in D. Forbes-Winslow, Dalv's (Lon­ don: W.H. Allan, 19^3), P* 101. In a number of reviews the idea is mentioned, and he was occasionally criticised for doing plays unworthy of an unofficial national theatre. .1 1 8 Tree aspired to become the director of the national the- tre should such an institution have come to pass in his day. This never happened, but Tree made up for it by run­ ning His Majesty's as if it had been the national theatre, and in so doing created the symbol of His Majesty's as the first theatre in the land.

Tree ran his theatre as a national theatre accord­ ing to policies ruled by five beliefs basic to his idea of a theatre. These were: his views on the nature and func­ tion of theatrical art and art in general| his belief in the "intellectual enfranchisement" of the population: his view of His Majesty's as the official theatrical represen­ tative of his country; his belief in the theatre as an edu­ cational tool; and his sponsoring of various experiment­ al plays and untried authors in the West End. These ideas, in combination and coupled with a sense of dignity, decorum, and occasion made His Majesty's a social institution of far greater importance and influence than a mere theatre. Tree felt the theatre ought to be the celebration of mankind, to which men and women would look to "hold up to them that flattering mirror in which they see themselves idealized." ^ For Tree it was the function of art to give us light rather than dark­ ness. Its teaching should not be to taunt us with our decent from the monkeys, but rather remind us of our affinity with the angels. Its mission is not to lead

3-2 Tree, "Fallacies of Modern Stage," p. 188. 1 1 9 through the fogs of doubt into the bogs of despair, but rather to point, even in the twilight of a wan­ ing century, to a greater light beyond. i 6

Tree also believed the theatre of his time was ex­

periencing a moment, in the sense that Shandler defines the

concept. He was "so bold as to contend there never was a time when our art excercised greater sway over the publicJ .there never was a time when literature devoted itself with greater zeal to its discussion; there never was a time of greater artistic striving than the present." 17 T h is b e ­

lief gave Tree, as the leader of the profession, a tre­ mendous sense of power and importance which was reflected

in the policies by which he ran His Majesty*s. It was this

belief in art as a celebration that gave to the theatrical

events at His Majesty*s their special and particular fla­ v o r . As Shandler points out in his survey of the neces­

sary requirements for a successful theatre institution, "local support of a wide base community audience is indes- pensible to the support of a theatre." Tree and His Majesty*s had such support. Its audience was not, like

the following of William Poel or Granville Barker, a cot­ erie, but was a mass audience.

16 Tree, ‘•Fallacies of Modern Stage," p. 188.

17 Ibid., p. 187. 18 ‘'Festival Theatre, A Sense of Occasion," p. 38* 1 2 0 His M ajesty's, under Herbert Tree's management frankly forewent the claim to being the last word in dramatic art. It stood instead for the grandlys lavishly popular in that line.! For years it represented the central British conception of the drama when it is taken seriously. 3.9

Tree saidj "I have to find something that w ill be agree­

able to the stalls, upper circle, pit, and gallery all at once." 2^ It has already been shown how this demand was reflected in the plan of the physical playhouse, the style of production, and it has become a matter of legend how Tree, like Henry Higgins, treated dukes and dustmen in exactly the same way. p i

Tree was not, however, lowering his standard for the finalcial gain of mass consumption. 22 He believed strongly in the intellectual enfranchisement of mankind I The world is undergoing a sea-change; the old land­ marks are being swept away, the barbed wire fences which separated classes are being relegated to the scrap-heap. As in our time Science has progressed with giant strides—I mean the science pertaining to tangible things, the science of bodies—so I believe we are on the threshhold of a spiritual science, the science of a higher sociology. Its premonitory vib­ rations are felt all over the world. Wherever we put our ears to the ground we hear a tiny tapping at the earth*s crust: it is the upspringing of a new social creed, it is the intellectual enfranchisement of mankind. 23

3-9 McCarthy, "From the S talls," p. 217 • 2^ Courtney, "An Open L etter," p. 26b» 21 Pearson, Beerbohm Tree, pp. 201-220. 22 Borsa, The English Stage, pp. ^0-^5* 23 Tree,"Our B etters," Thoughts and Afterthoughts. p. b. 1 2 1 Tree, like the Pre-Raphaelite artists, believed in a pride of craftsmanship, which he thought was available to every person, and which could make art of a personas work* ^ Like William Morris* Tree believed that "every man today can participate in the beauty of art, he has his place in the sun of the intellectual world, A shilling w ill buy him a Shakespeare• " 2J> a shilling would also buy him a place in the gallery at His Majesty*s, and a half a Guinea would buy him a seat in the stalls# Tree always felt that it was one of his major ac­ complishments that he brought Shakespeare to the masses! "I have done my best to present the works of Shakespeare in the manner which I considered most worthy and « • • we have brought the poet's creations before hundreds of thou- sands•" * One of the major functions of a national thea­ tre is, of course, to serve the public at large, and Tree dedicated himself and his theatre to that task# 27 With his production style, and the house style of His M ajesty's, he was enabled to give Shakespeare "a wider appeal and a larger franchise—surely no mean achievement # • . for his works are not only, or primarily, for the literary student,

2^ Tree, "Our Betters," p. 21#

25 Ibid#, p. 22 . - 26 i reej »The Tempest," Thoughts & Afterthoughts, p# 2 2 3 .

27 Fitzgerald, Shakespearean Representation# p. 71* they are for the world at large,"

On these principles, in 1913* Tree founded a

"Shakespearean Repertory Company*" to tour the provinces and provide both a repertory of Shakespeare to the country­

side and a training ground for Academy acting students (who

would then come into the His Majesty’s company), Also,

based upon his interest in enlarging the intellectual fran­ c h i s e , in 19lb Tree instituted the People’s Theatre, a series of performances at lower than usual prices for a strictly working class audience. To support the activity

the People’s Theatre Society was formed, at one shilling per subscription, 3° The first performance in the series was Shaw’s Pygmalion, on the first of June, The prices were: sixpence for the pit, one shilling for the upper cir­

cle, one and a half shillings for the dress circle, two and

a half shillings for the stalls, and three pence for the gallery, 31 Shaw, Tree, and all of the company donated their services for the performance, 32 ^hich was completely

28 Tree, "Living Shakespeare,” p, ^ 9 .

program, "Tree’s Shakespearean Repertory Company, Prom His Majesty's Theatre," (1913)* Folger. 30 Times (London), 25 April 191^, p. 6 . 31 Ibid., 2 June 191^* p© 11, Regular prices were: two and a half shillings for the pit, four, three, and two shillings for the upper circle, seven and a half for the dress circle, ten and a half for the stalls, and one shil­ ling for the gallery, 32 ibid., p. 11, 1 2 3 sold out, 33

Implicit in Tree's belief in the intellectual en­ franchisement was his strong feeling for the educational potential for the theatre® Like Henry Irving befor him* 31* Tree saw his role partly as a reformer of public taste.

Rather than pandering to a base popular aesthetic, Tree was consciously engaged in the business of creating what he thought was a worthy and healthy aesthetic sense inthe public: "Do not give the public what they want.Give them what you want them to want and in time they'll want it." 35

He, like Irving, felt that if a manager gave the public his best, they would come to demand such at all times: "by giving a supply of what is best he often creates a demand for what is good." 36 Tree- was also highly conscious of the need for children to attend the theatre, often giving special performances for young people, and in 1912 i n s t i ­ tuting a series of "Student's Matinees" of Shakespeare at reduced rates. 37 His formal statement of objectives, al­ though specifically in regard to Shakespeare, served as his

33 Times (London), 30 May 191^s P* 6 . All reserved seats had been sold by this date. ”3** See Byron Schaffer, "Henry Irving's Theories of the Drama," OSUTC B ulletin. 15 (1968) : 2 5 -3 0 . 35 Cran, Herbert Beerbohm Tree, p. 7 . 36 Tree, "Living Shakespeare," p. 6 7 .

37 Tim es (London), 19 August 1912, p. 7* 12k- modus onerendi for all occasions:

It Is the best accomplishment of the manager to give vitality to, and to illuminate the works of the master, and by appropriate treatment so hei­ ghten the effect of the acting so as to compel the attention of the great public, to appeal to even the little children that are taken to the playhouse, to touch their imagination, and stimulate their fan­ cy so as to send them back to the study of Shakespeare ■with a new understanding, and a new pleasure, 38

In keeping with his vision of His M ajesty^ as ,a national theatre, Tree believed that "All forms of art should be respected," 39 and he went as far as he could, and indeed farther than any of his rival managers with the exception of Granville Barker, to uphold that dictum.

By 1902 he was characterized as the "most eclectic" of the managers, often risking "dangerous aesthetic productions," on the West End, ^ This view Is also held by Wilson. ^

Rosenfeld has recently pointed out the experimental nature [1 o of several of Tree*s productions, ^ and has asked whether or not it was Tree*s aspiration to the national theatre which prompted them. This seems very likely, for each of these productions, Ibsen*s Enemy of the People. Brieux*s False Gods, and Maeterlink*s The Intruder, were exactly the

38 Souvenir, King John (H.M.T. 1899)* Folger. 39 Times (London), 2k- February 1910, p« 10o ^0 Monocle, "The Coronation and the Actor Managers." Sketch (London), 13 August 1902, p 1^-2 ^ Edwardian Theatre, p. 71. k-2 "Some Experiments of Beerbohm Tree," pp. 13^-37• 1 2 ?

sort of pieces a national theatre could produce in the

interest of furthering the public taste in drama without being really outrageous. There were, however, also a wide range of experiemnts and policies that Eosenfeld does not

mention which tend to support the idea of His Majesty*s as a national theatre.

Tree was interested in* finding new modern verse plays, and was instrumental in developing the work of one such w riter, the poet Stephen Phillips, Tree produced

Phillips* Herod. Nero. Ulvsses. and Faust (Phillips* ad­ aptation of Goethe). Tree saw Phillips's talent before his rival George Alexander did (Alexander kept Paolo and

Francesca "in a drawer" until 1902 while Tree did Herod in 1900 **3), and worked quite closely with the dissolute poet until the latter*s mental collapse. **** Tree*s initial faith in Phillips was seen as a "bold experiment" at the tim e • Tree was criticized, however, for not being as great a service to the development of the modern British drama as a national theatre should have been, ^ and this criticism was in many ways quite justified. His Majesty*s

^ The King (London), 9 July 190^-, clipping, NYPL sc ra p b o o k (MWEZ 0I 09). ^ Pearson, Beerbohm Tree, pp. 13^-37• J. Todhunter, "Blank Verse on Stage," Fort­ nightly Review. February 1902, p. 3^* 1 2 6 saw the production of only one Shaw play in the regular season (although Tree wanted Shaw to write him a Don Quix­ ote play, and The Shewing Up of Blanco Posnet was written for him) and largely ignored the "social dramas" of Gals­ worthy, Granville Barker and others. He was also criti­ cized for depending heavily upon foreign authors whose works were adapted for him by a number of London literary figures, and this was quite true, as a look at the perfor­ mance calendar in Appendix A w ill show. Tree was more con­ cerned with presenting plays that he thought worthwhile because they worked in the theatre than he was in fostering social drama. He also had a number of plans that never materialized but which diow his catholicity in taste, in­ cluding productions of Sophocles* Oedipus Hex, Ibsen*s Peer Gvnt. Tolstoy*s Crime and Punishment. and sets de­ signed by Craig and the painter W histler. Tree instituted a more adventuresome experimental theatre, beginning in November 1908, called the Afternoon

Theatre. Wilson states the idea may have been inspired by Granville Barker*s work at the Court, **9 and this is quite possible, for Tree was an admirer of the Vedrenne-Barker productions. The Afternoon Theatre, it was announced, ^

^7 Pearson, Beerbohm Tree, p. 172.

Ibid,, p. 136. Edwardian Theatre, p. 1760

^ Times (London), 5 December 1908, p. 11. was to be devoted ,to the production of plays by modern

B ritish and foreign authors which might not have been

acceptable for commercial runs. Performances were on Tues­ days j Thursdays 3 and Fridays* so as not to interfere with

the regular Wednesday and Saturday matinees of the major productions. Prices were kept at the usual rate. 51 The

announcement of the Afternoon Theatre caused such a great

deal of interest in the theatrical world that Tree was com­

pelled to write the Times in recognition of the letters re­ c e iv e d . 52 jn hiS letter he said he hoped that the venture would "stimulate taste for distinguished dramatic works*" that the program would be "wide in scope*" and that it would- "render some useful service alike to authors* actors and audience." Although he would supervise the program himself

and occasionally direct a production* the Afternoon Theatre was to be put into the hands of Frederick Whelan* the His

Majesty*s literary agent* and Henry Dana* the business man­

a g e r . The first production of the program was Gerhart

Hauptman's Hannele. which opened on 8 December 1908* and was directed by Tree. ^ This was succeeded by Shaw's farce* The Admirable Basheville. in February 1909* which was

51 Times (London)* 5 December 1908* p. 11. 52 ibid.* 7 December 1908* p. 13. 53 I b id .* 5 December 1908* p. 11. 128 veil received. ^ . The Times said of the Afternoon Theatre,

in its third production with Henry James*s High Bid, that a

theatre program which vent from Hauptman to Shav to James was "no tea party enterprise ,11 55 an idea of the program that might have been construed from its name. The program

was to continue throughout the rest of 1909, producing a

divorce play by Sidney Obermer, House ■of_B.ond.ag.e- (March), An Enemv of the People (revival, May), Schnitzlerfs Light

o*__Xove. (May), Henley and R. L. Stevenson*s Admirable Gui­ nea (June), Dora Bright*s fantasy Dryad, Shaw's Shewing Un of Blanco Posnet (June), and the major discovery of the program Ethel Smyth's opera The Wreckers (July). 56 following season the Afternoon Theatre opened with Joseph

Holbrook*s new opera Pierot' and P ierette, which as the Times pointed out, showed that the success of The Wreckers

the "praiseworthy institution" of His Majesty's Theatre was quite interested in fostering native operatic talents. 57 Also on the b ill was a very naturalistic 58 production of J. M. Synge's The Tinker's Wedding. This program was fol­ lowed, in November and December, with the introduction of

51* Times (London), 27 January 1909* p* 8 . 55 ibid., p. 8. 56 Program. School for Scandal (H.M.T. 1909)a NYPL Scrapbook (MWEZ 10

57 Times (London), 12 November 1909a p. 13.

58 ibid., 10 December 1909a P® 1 2 . 1 2 9

Mm. Yavoraskia's Nouveau Theatre of St. Petersburg to Lon­

don. The Russian company played in their own language,

Ira Pa mg AMK_PaifleLlgLS,, O strovsky *s Iv a n .the T e r r i b l e , and Ibsen*s He dda_Gabbler.. The last production by that com­

pany was S trin d b e rg * s yjag-SJaipilgLQj:. Italian (The S tro n g e r) which was done in English with Maud Tree in the speaking

role, and had the honor of being only the second' production of Strindberg in London at that date, 59

The program of the Afternoon Theatre was a success while it lasted. It was praised in the press, well attended and supported by a small audience (a “rabble of connois­

s e u r s 11) ^0 on a regular paying basis (as opposed to being

a private theatre society paid for by subscription ^1), and served to present new works- of interest to the West End public. The Afternoon Theatre may have been an extension

of an idea that produced a series of Monday night perform­ ances of plays at His Majesty's not in the regular reper­

tory and not suitable for commercial runs, dubbed by Tree and the press as "Unpopular Mondays." 62 Although this venture, in 1905, ^ vas short lived, both it and the

59 Times (London), 10 December 1909s p. 12. 60 Ibid., 19 February 1909, p. 12. 61 I b i d . , 1 7 March 1909, p. 13. 62 Rosenfeld, "Some Experiments of Tree," p. 751 Tree, "Fallacies of the Modern Stage," pp.

^3 Program, Much Ado About Nothing (u.M.i. 1905), F o lg e r . Afternoon Theatre .attest to Tree’s desire for His Majesty’s to serve the needs of the theatrical world and public in a wider range of ways than could a strictly commercial West

End theatre. In addition to these programs devoted to showing new works to the Vlest End, Tree also used His Ma­ jesty’s to introduce the work of distinguished foreign com­ panies to London. These included Bernhardt and Coquelin in 1901, the Moscow .art Theatre in 1912, and Copeau’s Vieux 6U- Colombier Company in 1913* The stage of His Majesty’s was also lent to the students of the Academy of Dramatic Ar.t and the Royal College of Music, 6 $ and irregularly, to various opera companies for a season. 66 ^ 1 of these pol­ icies reveal Tree’s aspiration for his theatre to be recog­ nized as a national theatre and contributed to the develop­ ment of the institution that His Majesty’s was to become. Although Tree’s theatre never became the English equivalent of the Comedie Fran^aise, the policies described above re­ veal it to have been a cultural center. The house style at

His Majesty's was of a far wider scope than those of the other theatres of the period, and was developed not to meet the particular talents of the actor manager (as were most)

6** Times (London), 31 May 1901, p. Ibid., 17 July 1911, p. 10; Ibid., 6 March 191^, p. 8 . Ibid., 1 March 1905, p. 9. 66 Ibid., 16 May 1910, p. 11; Pearson, Beerbohm Tree, p. 162} Poster, "Hedgemont Opera Company," (lI.M.T. lH97), Folger. 131 but to meet a larger plan, supplying the cultural needs of society. Since the theatre is by its nature a social art. Tree and His Majesty*s also satisfied needs that can best be termed social. What those needs were and how they were satisfied at His Majesty1s Theatre shall now be investigated. As manager of the unofficial national theatre,

Tree held a unique position in the theatrical world and London society of his day. He was a sort of a Manager

Laureate who, like the Poet Laureate charged with compos­ ing poetry for a variety of State occasions, composed theatrical events for a variety of occasions. Many writers have mentioned the special quality that His Majesty*s had for the public, ^7 a quality that evoked such critical re­ porting as the following: A new play at His Majesty*s Theatre is always an ev­ ent in the London art world • . • the recent long ab- scence' of Mr. Tree while in the English provinces made his reappearance at his London home a doubly interesting event and a distinguished audience as- sembled somewhat earlier than usual to welcome him.

The reporter said that the "roomy" pit was filled long before the stalls patrons began to arrive. All of the cheaper seats were filled early, and these sections gave a hearty hand of applause to the celebrities as they

67 See MacQueen-Pope, Carriages at Eleven, pp. 31- M+J Pearson, Beerbohm Tree, pp. 101-102. ^ Toledo Courier. 25 January 1908, clipping, HYPL scrapbook (1-IWEZ 6186) 1 3 2 approached their places in the stalls. Impressions like

that quoted above reveal what may be called a sense of oc­

casion. A sense of occasion attended performances at His Majesty*s and was a direct result of Tree's policies and

style as a manager. How he composed events and created oc­ casions may be illustrated by an examination of the opening .night of .his theatre, the "Inaugural Performance" and cer­ emony that took place on 28 April 1897. The opening cer­

emonial described the character that events were to take at His Majesty's for the rest of Tree*s life and career. On that April night there was a "brilliant aud­

ience to welcome the manager and his company in their splen­ did new home," an audience attendant on "an event in our theatrical annals of far more than ordinary interest." ^ A feeling of tradition hung on the air, for the event took place on ground that had been the site of an important

theatre for over two hundred years, 70 an^ "everyone pre­

sent felt they were in on something more than an ordinary first night function." 71 "Everything conceivable was done

to make a worthwhile ceremony that would remain impres­ sive." 72 Tree counted on the commercial value of the

69 Graphic (London), 1 May 1897, p . 5^3° 70 Review, April 1897* In James Agate, Those Mere the Nights (London* Hutchinson and Co., n.d.), p. 6 2 .

71 Illustrated London Hews. 1 May 1897* p. 593* 72 Agate, Those We re the ITights. p. 62. 1 3 3 Diamond Jubilee and the fervor of patriotism to help create the occasion; 73 that such "would raise the spirits of the spectators to a pitch of loyal enthusiasm were results not merely to be expected* but to be relied upon." 71*-

Parting the red velvet curtains and entering upon an audience that contained the Prince of Wales and "a good sprinkling of the aristocracy*" 75 as well as a full pit and gallery* Maud Tree approached the footlights uttering the greeting "Very well met and welcome," 76 she then de­ livered a patriotic ode composed for the occasion by the Poet laureate* Alfred Austin* of which the following is an e x c e r p t:

leaving life's load of dullness at the door* You come to dwell in fairyland once more. Puck* Ariel, Pegasus* imp* fairy, sprite* All that can lend illusion and delight* Quick to come forth and frolic as you bid, Behind that curtain cunningly are hid. We have the muses nine* the Graces three, And all the passions--under lock and key, YJhich would you summon? Laughter, terror* tears? Call each in turn* and promptly it appears. For this we put on motley to the view, And travesty ourselves for you. Yet there is one whose celebrated name We humbly borrow and w ill never shame* Who needs no tinsel trappings or disguise To shine a monarch in the whole world's eyes, Waits for no prompter for the timely word

73 Shaw* Ouf Theatres in the N ineties. 32 120.

7^ Graphic (London), 1 May 1897a P* 5^3. 75 Pearson* Beerbohm Tree, p. 103.

76 Maud Tree* "Herbert and I," p. 10*+. 1 3 ^ And, when tis uttered, everywhere is heard; Plays, through sheer goodness, a commanding part, Speaks from the soula and acts from the heart. Long may she linger, loved, upon the scene, And long resound our prayer, "God Save our Gracious Queen." 77

When she had finished the curtain opened upon the artists of the house and the Queen*s Hall Choir with Mrs.

Clara Butt; the National Anthem, God Save the Queenwas sung, with an additional verse at the end in the form of a prayer for-peace. 78 After the Anthem, an announcement was made that all proceeds were to go to the Prince of Walesr Ratepayer*s Relief Fund. ^9 The play of the eve­ ning, Gilbert Parker*s Seats of the Mighty, was presented, although it would seem that formed’ the least impressive, least memorable part of the whole event. It was said that "The picture was hardly worth the setting," 80 and that the play, described as "a poor piece, stuffed with conventional tricks and crude melodramatic devices," 81 seemed "almost an afterthought" to the "imposing ceremony." 82 The choice of Seats of the Mighty was, in a way, an afterthought, for

"it had been expected" that Tree would open the theatre

77 Times (London), 29 April 1897, p. 9.

7 8 Ibid., p. 9. 79 Pearson, Beerbohm Tree, p. 103. 80 Times (London), 29 April 1897, p . 9 . 81 "At the Play," Theatre (London), 1 June 1897* p . 3 3 2 . n y2 Illustrated. Lm&on. News. 8 May 1897, pp. 6^-56. 1 3 ? with Julius Caesar! Seats of the Mighty had premiered

earlier that year in New York City, and was not at all

successful there* 88 Tree had planned the Shakespeare piece for the opening, but apparently was not sure enough

of either the cast or the cash necessary, and postponed the venture, 8^ Seats of the. Mighty, was prepared and ready, even though, years later Parker wrote, he .had no faith in the play and did not wish Tree to open His Majesty*s with i t . 8? When the play was finished, Tree stepped before the curtain and made a brief speech, a practice he was to continue upon many occasions during his management. He addressed the audience, as always, in fam iliar terms: This is a great moment in my little life. I feel very proud as I stand here facing this theatre and this audience tonight. There is so much I should like to say, so little that X can, yet I must express ray thanks to those to whom I owe this beautiful theatre. I hope you are as satisfied with as I am. Fate is blind, but X have one power be­ hind me in that I have your goodwill and that of the public. And this at least I can promise, in the words ray wife spoke tonight, we w ill do nothing to shame the name we are honored with being allowed to use. I hope you are pleased with the play, and that it may be given to me to cater for you for many years to come, as I have been proud and happy to do in the ■ p a s t . 86

83 "At the Play," Theatre (London), 1 June 1897* p . 3 3 2 . 81* Maud Tree, "Herbert and I," p. 106. 8? "To the Memory of a Friend," Herbert Beerbohm 2£©£* ed. Max Beerbohm, p .-106. 86 Ibid., p. 10*+. 1 3 6 Cheering and applause followed for several minutes, ^7 f o r

the public who crowded Her Majesty*s last night were able to offer their congratulations to Mr* Tree* He has placed a superb theatre at the disposal of the West End theatregoer* Nowhere can the comfort, the convenience, and the artistic sense of the public be said to have.been more scrupulously consulted; it was probably the recognition of this fact that in- sured a first night of as harmonious a character as that which we have to record* 60

The feeling the ceremony evoked in the audience was that of a special occasion, an "event of more than or­ dinary interest." 89 This sense of occasion was a major element of the house style at His Majesty*s throughout the period# Tree ingratiated himself with the public, and,

"like G alileofs earth," was always moving, having ideas, and "doing things*" 90

Tree created interest in his regular run prod­ uctions by striving to make them something special, when­ ever that was possible* Sometimes this was done by coordi­ nating a production with some extra-theatrical event, thus creating an occasion* Sometimes it was the cast employed* Sometimes it was a special audience, or the season of the year. Opening nights in all of the actor-managers* theatres

87 Review in James Agate, Those Were the Nights. p . 63 *

Times (London), 29 April 1897, p# 9#

89 Grauhlc (London), 1 May 1897, P« 5^3* 90 Times (London),'1* February 1902, p. 8 . 137 were special events and His M ajesty's openings always at­

tracted large crowds of distinguished persons• It has al­ ready been pointed out that the opening of Tree's theatre

took place at the height of Queen V ictoria's Diamond Jubi­

lee Celebration* and traded on the Queen's name. Tree also costumed all of the attendants in the livery of the

Royal Household* but had to scrap his plan after the Prince of Wales* known for his sense of propriety and protocol* let it be known that he did not think highly of the idea .^1 In 1901 Twelfth Night opened on February 6 * exactly three hundred years to the day of the original production by the

Lord Chamberlain's Men* celebrating a Shakespearean an­ niversary. It was also reported that this production was opportunely timed during the national grieving for Queen Victoria (the first night audience was all dressed in . mourning)*.and that it provided London with a much needed bit of comic relief. 93 (Pearson claims that it was chos­ en because the Queen's death "necessitated" a romantic com­ edy •) In 1902* Coronation Year for the new King* Tree created a celebration at His Majesty's with his production

91 Pearson* Beerbohm Tree, p. 102. 9 2 Cran* Herbert Beerbohm Tree, p. 57*

93 Times (London)* 6 February 1901* p. 7. 91* Beerbohm_Tree. p. 129. of Shakespeare's Merry Wives of Windsor, with a very spe­ cial cast: himself as Falstaff, Madge Kendal as Mrs, Ford,

and Ellen Terry as MTs. Page, "It -was a stroke of genius,

the genius of a seer* to invite the two leading actresses of London to perform at his theatre during Coronation se a s o n ." 95 The advance notices in the papers probably raised a good deal of anticipation in the public, as well as some doubt about the outcome of combining such strong

personalities in the same cast, but the production 3 w ith

its "Rabelasian humor," was a triumph, creating a great

feeling of well being that was most appropriate for a Cor­ onation season* ^ It was a truly festive occasion, with

a packed house (pit and gallery lines began to form at five

o'clock in the morning), ending with five curtain calls,

and much improvisatory dancing by the great cast. The

production, always with himself, Kendal and Terry in the cast, was an event that Tree revived many times during his managementi its great popularity was .attributed to its

being a "fantasia con varioni on a simple Shakespearean

theme," with much improvisation and "ragging" by the two eminent ladies. 97 The production opened the 1908 Shakes­

peare Festival with a note of appropriate festivity and

95 Mrs. E. Alec-Tweedie, Behind the Footlights (Londons Hutchinson & Co., 190^), p. 175* 96 Times (London), 11 June 1902, p. 12,

97 ibid., 13 January 1903, p. 7 . 1 39 and occasion. ^8 By 1910 it was "too well known now to

need description," although it still packed the house, ^9

and by 1911 its "superb performance" provided a "gay point in a gay year," ***00 (the coronation year of George

V), although by that time Madge Kendal had been replaced by Violet Vanbrugh.

In 1903 His M ajesty's saw a theatrical and social event when two new plays opened? Flodden Field by Alfred

Austin, the Poet Laureate, and an adaptation of Rudyard Kipling's story, The Man Who Was. ^02 Kipling was then

at the height of his fame, and the novelty of a play by the Poet Laureate lent a certain "dignity" to the pro­

ceedings, which were attended by the King and a repre­ sentative sampling of the aristocracy. On such oc­

casions the audience was as much a part of the event and

the experience as the play, especially for the holders

of the cheaper seats who desired to gaze on their country's leaders in full dress regalia. The last night of the 1905

season featured the premier of a new play, an adaptation of

98 Times (London), 21 April 1908, p. 8 . 99 Ibid., 21 March 1910, p. 9. 1°° Ibid., h July 1911, p. 10. 101 Program, The Merry Wives of Windsor (H.M.T. Festival 1911), Folger, 102 Times (London), 9 July 1903, p. 9* 103 ibid., p. 9 . l^fO of Dickens* Oliver Twist. thus providing a special oc­ casion (a first night) for the end of the season. He also announced that the next season would open with the

Dickens play. During the 1906/07 season, Tree once again relied upon public adulation of Ellen Terry to help provide a sense of'occasion for several productions. 1906 was the year of Miss Terry*s Jubilee, celebrating her fifty years on the stage. On the night of 27 April, Tree changed his planned production of Much Ado About Nothing to bring out the famous actress in the Merry Wives of Windsor once again. The 27 was fifty years to the day from Terry's ap­ pearance as Mamilus in Kean's production of the Ifinter's Tale. Also that year, as Schmitt points out, Tree staged his own production of The W inter's Tale, opening September 1, with Ellen Terry, this time as Hermione. 106

The inside cover of the program was a facsimile of the program of Kean's production in which Terry made her d e b u t. 107

The care with which Tree structured his theatrical events for the public may be seen in the answer that he

1<* Times (London), 11 July 1905, p. 5* 10? Ibid., 21 March 1906, p. 9* 106 «Beerbohm Tree Produces The W inter's Tqlet" p 0 21 107 Program, The W inter's Tale (H.M.T. 1906), HYPL Stead Scrapbook I (MWEZ 833). HM gave when asked why he revived Richard I I * on which he

lost a hundred pounds a night, for a short time between his new productions of Colonel Hewcome and Antony and

Cleopatra (1906), instead of a "sure winner" like Oliver Twist. He replied that "Antony is a fine play, and the way

to it must be fine* If the public have Just seen Fagin,

they will not take off their hats coming to see Antony*"

Tree saw His Majesty's as a continuing institution that was greater than a place where individual plays were pro­ d u ced . It has already been pointed out that Tree char­ acteristically employed fine casts at His M ajesty's, as with Ellen Terry, and he would sometimes produce plays with very special casts. In 1909 His Majesty's saw .a star- studded, spectacular production of School for Scandal. T09

The occasion caused a great deal of excitement in the pap­ ers, with a cast that included Tree, Henry Neville, i Basil G ill, Herman Vezin, James Hearn, Lai Brough, Edward Terry, Leon Quarterraaine, Godfrey Tearle, and Marie Lohr. It was reported that a special occasion

108 Cran. Herbert Beerbohm Tree, p. 97*

109 Times (London), 8 April 1909* Po 11.

110 nypl clippings, scrapbook (MWJ3Z 6187)*

111 pr0gram, School for Scandal (H.M.T* 19093* F o lg e r . 1^2 was created with the attempt of the company to recreate an eighteenth century acting style, "breaking the fourth wall*11 and saluting the audience, 112 The production proved so popular the Shakespeare Festival was postponed until June of that year.

Tree customarily closed his theatre during at least part of Holy Week, as did most of the other managers. He then reopened His Majesty's* in 1911* on Easter Monday with his Festival production of Midsummer Night's Dream, thus imbuing both the production and the Festival with Easter spirit. H3 Later in that Festival the production of H. B.

Irving's company in Hamlet was given as a farewell perfor­ mance for that company's impending tour of Australia* and the occasion was marked by Irving's speech at the play's finish. He remarked that he was pleased at the turnout for the event and that he was glad the "Public is always ready to gather by the milestone to give the passing hero a cheer on his way," The Festival production of Twelfth Night opened on Whit Monday and the newspapers noted the occasion as a pleasant holiday. Earlier in the year Tree had said that "everything is to be done to make Coronation Year

112 Times (London), 8 April 1909* P* 11 • ^ ibid.* 7 April 1911* p. 9. lllf Ibid., 10 May 1911* p. 12.

13-? I b id .* 8 May 1911* p . 1 0 . 3>3 at His Majesty's a memorable and brilliant event*" and the whole spirit of the Festival* called by Rowell the "high point of Tree's career*" H ? was geared to that task. The culmination came on 27 June with the spectacular Coronation Gala Performance* a salute by Tree and the that- rical profession to the new monarch and the empire. The coronation of George V also figured in the

His Majesty's version of Shakespeare's Henry VIII. in

1910. The impending State occasion was alluded to in the elaborate coronation spectacle sequence interpolated into the production* 13.8 a tradition Tree siezed upon from many previous managers. H9 Patriotism fired Tree's productions of L. N. Parker's pageant play Drake in 1912 (this was stressed even more in the 191^ revival* which opened on 19 August* shortly after World War I was triggered)* and the 191^ revival of Shakespeare's Henrv IV. On the cover of the souvenir booklet for Drake stood a motto calling upon Englishmen to look to the sea for her defense in the future. The didactic nature of the presentation was not lost* for it was reported that "over and over the audience

Clipping* 19 February 1911* IJYPL scrapbook (MWEZ 6 1 8 6 ). 117 "Tree's Shakespeare Festivals*" p. 21.

Times (London)* 2 September 1910* p. 6. 13-9 Gordon Crosse* Shakespearean Plavrroing 1890- 1952 (London: Mowbray & Co., 1953)7 P - 114*» Ihb seized upon allusion that the force of current events

made topical and underlined them with their applause.” 120

Prominent on the playbill for Henrv IV (figure 12) \*as

the motto ”Tis simple mirth keepeth high courage alive,

and God he knoweth that England hath need enough of that— ay and of brave defenders." 121

In addition to his policy of making occasions of his productions whenever possible, the house style of

His Majesty's Theatre was directly affected by Tree's use of advertising techniques, which although subtle, were very important in creating the image that Tree desired.

In the theatre columns of the Times and other papers, His

Majesty's is usually first on the list, and this was a strong wish on Tree's part- -*-22 newspaper copy is not brazen, or glaring, which would not have been in keep­ ing with the major actor-managers' image of the genteel

host. It simply states the name of the theatre, Tree's name in smaller type, the play, times, prices, telephone

and ticket information, as do most of the other theatre's notices. The distinctive note comes from the fact that the His Majesty's notices are first in the columns. Oc­ casionally a paper refused to comply with Tree's wishj when

120 Times (London), ** September 1912, p. b, 121 p l a y b i l l , Henrv IV (H.M.T. 191*0, N2PL.

122 Interview clipping, NYPL scrapbook (14WEZ 6l86). Figure 12. Playbill, His Majesty*s Theatre, 191*+. (NYPL sc ra p b o o k MWEZ 2 1 0 2 ), ! J IS AJESTrS T h e a t r e

«r Hf Rxmr BtrRBoiiM irei

Thai Wist- Rulor Q uitm Elizabeth of England said :

: ■ ■ ■ 1 G„.w/-*L.

MATINEE EVERY AFTERNOON at 2 'I M'rpi MONDAYS* i warn-’ IY rfoi in;iikL> I Imrstla>: tS: Saturdays Only, at 8

-II A kl.M'l ARE'-

Vr Y (Hurt /) Kmv: Henry IV HASH. GILL Henrv. lJi it.* i- i \K, O W E N N A R E 5 J’i iih i John o' UIGBY ENGLISH E-irl of \\ i*>*tnori I ir,i* HENRY MORRELL -it \\ .liter Hlunl H. C. HEWITT I h.-niat I1!*;* v iN . riir» H. A SA1NTSBURY Hr.fi/-y P e r c y '!• t ■“*% •• JULIAN CROSS

Hi-nr. P ercy * H *1[. i MATHESON LANG

Edmund Mortimer • * Mini. ARTHUR CRANE ( )v ,’-n Gleridov»e r STEPHEN ROBERT Hif.lntnl Yi-r fieri FREDERICK ROSS Sir John I'ahtnff HERBERT TREE H iiini CHARLES QUARTERMAINE Gacdshtll ERNEST GRIFFIN Pete J. W. MOLLISON Kardoljjh ARTHUR CURTIS OllUI'lill CHARLES DORAN I rm it il DEERING WELLS Sheriff HENRY BYATT lit M«ii*-inf*-r W. J. KEMP Uiitl M e i» e it|;.-r ALEXANDER SARNER l. IV n y 'Mil* li« Uni Stil** Itt Mull VIOLA TREE I .irfy M o rtim e r lf««il>itt I*. (.Iireli»a»< tk J VS.I* t* M«< DILYS JONES Mr. Omr lily « • r||«tia«* •»! II'm Bwf'i M**«l • MARY BROUGH

ItY KhfjUKST. SPECIAL PEKFORMANCES: v; I.VERY MONDAY

m i . ein iiliif M.xi.tl i « i i I' IJ J* * II li U n^iin tiilb. li, lilnii M b. li'IA afiti'K ' .. . i i, i f..!., p.i, j. fiiUHf.t. ioi on 111 Oft*m m , i Cfim < IIAVIII A 1 1 1 * • K U tl. i t , l i i m n t m * . * « .

F ig u re 12. Ib6 the Daily Mail (London) did so, Tree withdrew his ad entirely. 123

Perhaps more important than the actual advertlse.- ments was Tree*s relationship with the press. Everything *1 oil. done at His Majesty*s received a review, in the Times and other important papers. Major productions generally rated opening and cover articles in The Sketch, .containing information designed to whet the public's appetite, 125 and Tree continually made announcements in the Times about the coming events at His Majesty*s. He recognized the val­ ue of the interview, and through coverage of his numerous speaking engagements and appearances, kept the papers fu ll of his and his theatre*s names. The Times especially seems to have been a link of communication with his public, keep­ ing them informed of everything that happened at the thea­ tre that was of interest. The communiques ranged through advance production notices, changes in dates or schedules, casts, theatre staff changes, tours, building repairs and improvements, policy changes and innovations (Afternoon Theatre, etc.), and official announcements like that in

123 Interview clipping, NYPL scrapbook (MWEZ 6186). The Times is a veritable catalog of events at His Majesty*s, during the entire period under consideration. Even, for example, when Beethoven reopened after its run had been interrupted for a month by a Christmas special, it received a new review.

125 The Sketch seems to have been the paper closest to His Majesty's, after the Times. 1^-7 -which Tree told the public that the new King had gra­ ciously complied with the tradition* and let Tree change the name of his theatre from Her to His Majesty*s. ^6

The successful relationship with the press is also indicative of the close rapport that existed between Tree and his public* The press was a link of communication be­ tween the two sides of the proscenium* and in the style* or tone* of.many of the reviews may be found a concrete record of that artist/audience relationship. Many reviews* in their tone* present a viewpoint that is highly familiar and personal* to both the management and the public* as if the critic were talking among mutual friends. The following is an example. The present season has been a disappointing one for Mr. Tree. Let us hope that in the next season* he w ill offer us something more interesting* whether old or new* and worthy of the finest playhouse in London* and of his reputation as one of our leading managers. 127

Tree was well known for his lack of preparedness in his part on first nights and the press treatment of this habit* too* smacks of a personal and intimate relationship between the theatre and the public. He would be described as not yet being quite up to snuff* but* the critic would caution* we all know what Tree is like early in a run* and after a few performances the show ought to be quite good. Or* when

126 Times (London)* 2? August 1902* p. 7«

127 Ibid., 19 M e 1899, p« 10. Tree was essaying.a new part, the critic might wonder if his Macaire would become as popular as his Gringoure, ad­ ding that uWe hope that Mr. Tree, now that he has introduc­ ed to us his conception of Macaire, w ill give us plenty of opportunity to renew the acquaintance.n Or, before the opening of Colonel Newcotne. a 1906 adaptation of Thakeray,

Cran writes that there was published a journal article in which the writer raised doubts about Tree!s ability to act the role. This caused more articles to be published, of the opinion that such a speculation as the first article provided was unfair, for the play had not opened yet. The public, she reports, on opening night "came prepared to show their loyalty to Tree." -*-29 Such an anecdote demon­ strates the relationship of the public, the theatre, and the press to be of importance whrn considering the nature of the theatrical experience at His Majesty*s. It was a personal theatre. The quality of Tree*s advertising also had its ef­ fect on the theatrical experience, and on the relationship between the artist and the public. In keeping with the dig­ nity and decorum of the institution* Tree never made use of the lurid and gharish kinds of posters often associated

12® Times (London), 25 August 1902, p. 7* 129 Cran, Herbert Beerbohm Tree, p. 9 6. Xb9 with the period* ^*30 His posters were often designed by

the same artist who usually did the illustrations and paintings for the souvenirs, Charles Buchel, and were con­ sidered at the time to be works of art, -**31 Qf jj-£S esty*s playbills, Cran writes that "they continued the

tradition of the simplicity of the inaugural ceremony, car­ rying only the name of the forthcoming production, and

standing eloquently mute among the mlnstrelry of the London hoardings," -*-32 They were printed in red and black ink, with the official house symbol, a Royal crown insignia, at

the top with the legend His M ajesty's Theatre.

The relationship between Tree and the institution that was his theatre and his public is also illustrated by Tree's policy of making curtain speeches, usually upon opening and closing the season at His M ajesty's, and, on occasion, upon opening nights of specific plays* His

speech during the opening of the theatre, in 1897j has al­ ready been quoted, and it shares with his other curtain speeches a style of communication that was at once immed­

iate and personal. These speeches were addressed directly to his audience, to whet their appetite for upcoming shows

130 See St. John Ervine, The Theatre in My Time (Londons Rich and Crown, 1933) for a good discussion of Ed­ wardian theatrical advertising. 131 in 1906, for example, there was a Poster Art Show in London, at which Euchel's work for His Majesty's received much recognition. ^■32 Cran, Herbert Beerbohm Tree, p. 98 * 1 ? 0 and events, to make practical announcements about the

theatre and its running, and to thank his patrons for their support* ^33 Such a policy, which had Tree announcing

an upcoming Shakespeare revival saying, ‘Hr/ill it be The Temuest? W ill it be Midsummer N ights Dream. I -wonder," ^3^

makes the analogy of the genial host and his home all the

more accurate* Tree also had an excellent sense of public re- ations , evident in his close relation with the press, and

particularly well illustrated in an article -written by an American journalist who described the "Royal treatment"

accorded to him upon his application for complimentary tickets. He tells how he was met at the door by the giant

Major Domo, in full uniform, and was led through the thea­

tre, introduced to everyone behind the scenes, and finally ushered into the presence of Tree himself. He contrasted this treatment with the "bum's rush" that accompanied such requests in the United States* **-35

133 MacQueen-Pope describes Tree's style of deliv­ ery: "And at the end, after all the calls had been taken, the figure of Sir Herbert would come before the curtain* He would grasp the folds of the curtain in his right hand, and he would stand to receive your applause. Then he would make a 'curtain speech* which would be a model of what such things should be, make his final bow, and you would go home. * * ." Carriages at Eleven, p* 37* See also the Times (London), 10 July 1911* P* 6„ 13^ Times (London), 8 July 1899a P* 3- !3$ "The Belasco of the English Stage," Greenbook Magazine, clipping, NYPL scrapbook (MWEZ 13,637)* 1 * 1 Of all Tree's policies and practices in the area of public relations, probably the most brilliant and char­ acteristic was his use of programs and souvenirs, MacC^ueen-

Pope nostalgically recalls them as the wonderful symbols of a bygone age, telling how people saved them in albums and avidly collected them because of their artistic quality,

They served, however, to enhance and make more concrete and complete the theatrical expereince for the audience. They served to remind them of the occasion of the performance, and to perhaps bring them back too see the illustrations come to life on the stage. The souvenirs spread interest in productions by word-of-mouth advertising, particularly if placed prominently in the homes of His M ajesty's pat­ rons. The programs, and in particular the various types of souvenirs, also functioned as an expression of good will toward the public on the part of the manager; they were given away or sold at a nominal fee (depending upon the oc­ casion), usually one shilling. This practice illustrates the friendly relationship that existed between Tree his theatre, and the public. The programs also served, of course, to convey production information both of a prac­ tical character, such as casts, dates, and the usual infor­ mation necessary to the patron of any theatre; and of a special nature, as part of the theatrical experience itself, through the inclusion of information on the costuming,

136 Carriages at Eleven, p. 152 the historical period, furnishings, and even character motivations.

There were five specific types of publications

that fall under the general heading of programs and sou­ venirs, and each served its particular function toward en­ hancing the theatrical experience. The five types were programs, pamphlets or booklets, advertising cards, and souvenir programs and books. The programs were of two distinct styles, for dif­ ferent occasions. There were those printed in red and black ink, like the posters and playbills, bearing the crown insignia and the theatre*s name on the front cover, and which were made of a heavy paper of a dull finish, designed to resemble parchment (figure 13)1 and there were those that were printed somewhat more cheaply, although

still handsome, on a glossier paper, in one color, usually with a cover illustration, and lacking the crown insig­ nia (figure I1*). Those of the former style were for open­

ing nights and other special or formal occasions (Festivals

or fiftieth/hundredth performances, etc.), while the other styles were for the regular run. Both styles contained the same information! cast, scenery synopsis and credits, mus­ ical program and credits, announcements of coming produc­ tions, patron service information, His Majesty*s personnel, and prices. The programs, of both types were, and are, ele­ gant. The red and black ones especially, with the simple 1 5 3

H is Majesty’s Theatre FropHelot ud Ifoniger • • SIR HERBERT BEERBOHM TREE

SHAKESPEARE'S THE MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR.

EVERY EVENING a t 830.

Figure 13* Program, His Majesty's Theatre. (NYPL scrap­ book MWEZ 10,507). 151*-

1,. \ f 4 j g a a f n a a u

nil*. Ml KKV w iv ts Oh WINDSOR

Her Majesty's T h e a t r e

Mr. HERBERT HEKWIjOHM TREE

Figure l*f. Programs His Majesty's Theatre. (NYPL scrap­ book MWEZ 10a507). 155 layout and clean design, gave the Impression of formality and occasion that characterized the experience of attending His Majesty*s Theatre. The policy regarding advertisements on programs underwent a change around 190**-; although Cran recalls Tree*s programs as "innocent of advertisements," ^37 after

1 9 0^ many programs did include a back page of advertise­ ments. The programs at His Majesty's never became, how­ ever, the "meadow of advertisements" with a "rivulet of es­ sential information" that were commonplace during the per­ iod. **-38 The ads on Tree's programs were of a special char­ acter, for the back page reads almost as a menu for the bars at the theatre. Each ad touts a product that is av­ ailable from either the bars or the refreshment sellers. Thus, although there were frequently advertisements on the programs they too formed a part of the theatre experienceJ one found one could order Tennent's lager or Appollinaris Table Water at the bar, or that the attendant could serve one Puller's American Chocolates while seeing the play. The programs also give us another clue to the particular relationship that existed between manager and public that characterized the Edwardian theatre. Each program serves to inform the patron what is happening at the theatre,

^37 Herbert Beerbohm Tree, p. H6. 3*38 Clayton Hamilton, "Going to the Theatre in Lon­ don," Bookman 31 (August 1910)? 602. 1 ? 6 and the conveniences available to him in terms that are club-like, and seem to create the Impression that the theatre is being run specifically for him* It was an in­ timate theatre. There were small cards printed for His Majesty*s on heavy paper in red and black ink, which contained per­ tinent production information (times, prices, etc.). These were given away at the box office, libraries, and restau­ rants, and served as customer reminders of upcoming events, keeping the theatre in their minds and providing a conven­ ience* 139 The third type of program m aterial under consider­ ation are the pamphlets or booklets about the productions. These were not souvenirs, although the text of the booklets was often reprinted in the souvenirs, but were special pro­ grams designed to enhance the theatrical experience by pro­ viding interesting, and often necessary production informa­ tion to the patron* These were given away free of charge on first nights (sold thereafter for sixpence) and were very handsomely done (figure 15). The best looking one that I have examined is that for RichardI I (1903). The cover illustration of Tree as Richard is in red, blue, and gold, and the caligraphy I s in red and black. The booklet contains; a brief chronicle of the historical Richard, date

139 Examples are at NYPIi,scrapbook (MWEZ 6l87). Figure 15. Production booklets* His Majesty1 Theatre* (NYPL scrapbook MUEZ 5007). 157

FlISl 1 5 1 1 U LYS S ES®ll5 lUil!?,;] SI Y r I •— is B /• I » B

Ak. ■«.M>V* ri'l

Hwwaaif.-

OT& 7

F ig u re 15• 1 5 8 and sources of the play, a section entitled "Heraldry in the Time of Richard," an article entitled "The Appeal of

Battle," notes on the characters in the play, the stage history of the piece, and a geneological table of the Roy­ al family up through the time of Richard, The Richard II booklet is fairly representative of the style of these publications, but is not as detailed in specific production information as are some of the others. Numerous booklets begin with a brief forward by

Tree in which he presents his interpretation of the play and his motives and objectives in producing it (often pro­ viding copy for first night newspaper critics), .Quite often there is a section entitled "The Story of the Play," presenting a literate synopsis of the action, aimed at perhaps . the less sophisticated members of the audience, or at the children (the section in the Midsummer Night's Dream booklet was prefaced with the statement "For the Children Only" :Ll+1). The character notes in many of the booklets are quite extensive and would underscore the actor's pres­ entation of the role on stage, proving almost a subtext*

For example, for Herod the character notes explore the whole range of madness possible for the character and provide a substantial biographical analysis of his motivations. -^2

llf0 Pamphlet, Richard II (H.M.T. 1903), Folger. Pamphlet, Midsummer Night's Dream (H.M.T, 1900), F o lg e r , 1^2 Pamphlet, Herod (H.M.T. 1900), Folger. The notes also provide a person with points of departure

for discussion in society after he has seen the play, and

that in turn would help to stimulate interest in the pro­

duction. The historical accuracy of the sets, costumes, and

properties, too, is of course verified in these booklets.

The Richard XI booklet provides a discussion of heraldry

and battle customs followed in the production, and that for Hero provides articles on f,The Art," "Furniture," and "Cos­

tume" of the period, reproduced in the production. That

for Much Ado About Nothing, under "Archeologia," explains

the research that went into verifying certain designs used

in the production, naming sources and scholars consulted to ensure accuracy.

The idea of such printed matter, provided as accom­ paniment to the live theatrical event, was not an invention

of Tree*s. That credit probably belongs to Charles Kean, whose publications on the historical accuracy of his pro­

ductions won him a reputation as a pedant. The particu­ larly attractive style of the booklets (Art Nouveau) is a

product of Tree*s imagination, however, and the fact that they were given away free on special occasions to all

patrons is a mark of the house style at His Majesty*s.

Pamphlet, Much Ado About Nothing (H.M.T. 190^), F o lg e r . MacQueen-Pope, Carriages at Eleven, p. Mf, McCarthy, !*Frora the S talls," p." 218. 1 6 0 The point of describing the programs in such de­ tail lies in their importance to the Edwardian theatrical experience3 a function much more important than theatre programs of the modern era serve. The booklets functioned as a subtext to the theatrical event in precisely the same way that the Pre-Raphaelite's descriptions of their paint­ ing functioned, and the public was thoroughly used to such literary explanation of their art* The booklets were one way of making the dream illusions on the stage more real. The sections on the stage history of the plays provide us with yet another key to the theatrical experience at His

Majesty*s. These sections served to place the playgoer and the theatre in the historical continuum, evoking a sense of tradition in which the artists and the public were united. This sense of tradition specifically char­ acterizes the Edwardian era theatre* It served to remind the playgoer of the lineage of the institution he was at­ tending, presenting him with the sort of knowledge that today only scholars are fam iliar with. Our modern theatre is essentially cut off from the past; we continually start over. The Edwardian theatre was the culmination of a tra­ dition that had been two centuries building* His Majesty*s Theatre continued the Victorian tra­ dition of issuing souvenir books, commemorating plays that ran at least fifty performances* These were given away at the fiftieth and hundredth performances, and sold at other 1 6 1 times for one shilling, at the box office or by post, ^ 5

The fiftieth performance of Twelfth Night at His Majesty’s,

21 1-larch 1901, was marked "by more than one pleasant fea­ ture." It was the first time the play had ever reached that many consecutive performances, the actors were in a gay and festive mood, and "Nothing quite so fine in the way

of souvenir volumes has been published as this little por­ trait gallery of characters," ll*7 which was given to each member of the audience to mark the occasion. The book is a collection of color plates by Charles Buchell, of the characters and scenery in the production, with a text re­ printed from the production booklet. The cover is of heavy paper, in green and gold, embossed with the sil­ houettes of Tree’s Malvolio and his train of attendants, and bound with a green silk cord. It is the size and character of the souvenir books for Nero (figure 1 6 ) . The

style of the books is heavily influenced by Art Nouveau and is characteristic of many of His Majesty’s souvenirs. There are no advertisements of any sort in the souvenirs, nor are they filled with biographies and little photographs

1^5 MacOueen-Pope, Carriages at Eleven, p. hhl Souvenir, Nero (H.M.T. 1906), IJYPL scrapbook (MWEZ 5007)j Souvenir, Julius Caesar (H.M.T. 1898) , F o lg e r .

Times (London), 21 March 1901, p. 9° 1^7 ibid., p. 9 *

Souvenir, Twelfth Night (H.M.T. 1901), Folger. Figure 16. Souvenir Prograjn3 His Majesty* Theatre. (HYPL scrapbook MWEZ 5007). 1 6 2

§5*1 J

f i i 0 f 0 s p H 3* s-

j p i p f s

W M n ^ m l w m % M m

F ig u re 1 6 . 1 6 3 o f the actors, two features of most modern souvenir prog­ rams. His Majesty*s* souvenirs were printed and regarded as works of art in their own right (Art Nouveau was ba­

sically a glorification of design as fine art), to accompany

the work of art on the stage. History too is stressed in many of the souvenirs. Much of the text of the King John souvenir is devoted to that subject, as is the souvenir for Nero. The Julius

Caesar souvenir is chiefly devoted to the history of an­ cient RomeJ most of the illustrations, line drawings by

several artists, are not of the production*s scenes or

characters, but are depictions of Roman life (although there are reproductions of the scenery and a key to the

various monuments in Rome that had been represented on the stage).

Some of the souvenirs were books of photographs * instead of color plates, and these too were works of the printers' and bibliopegists* art. The Pre-Raphaelite

quality of the photograph of Julia Neilson as Constance in the King John souvenir (figure 9 ) has already been pointed out, and this style infuses the entire book. The cover is

a heavy, dark brown paper, printed with gold and black ink, .in very elaborate gothic type. The inside cover is in red

and brown ink with a photograph of Tree as John, mounted

1^9 Souvenir, Julius Caesar (H.MoT. 1899), Folger. 16b in an elaborately "engraved” design, reminiscent of a medi­

eval manuscripto The photographs, of course, are in sepia

tones. The caligraphy is in brown ink on heavy, off-white paper, presenting speeches from the play opposite photo­ graphs. The text includes Tree's remarks on the produc­

tion, the production history, geneologlcal tree, dates and sources of the play, and several historical articles on

King John. ^ There were also presented at His M ajesty's, on cer­ tain occasions, small bound volumes of the play, or the novel from which the play was taken, as a souvenir. On the first night of David CopperfieId. 2 b December 191*+, T re e gave away such a volume, bound in white and gold leather, inscribed "A Christmas Gift, from Sir Herbert Tree to each member of the audience at the first performance of David

Copperfield at His M ajesty's Theatre, on Christmas Eve,

191^.“ -^l It was reported that such a souvenir gift was both unusual and appreciated. Similarly printed and bound volumes were presented to commemorate The Tempest. Antony and Cleopatra, and the one hundredth consecutive performance of Julius Caesar. *^3 ‘ Each of these books was

•^O Souvenir, King John (H.M.To 1899 )3 F o l g e r . MacQueen-Pope, Carriages at Eleven, p.

Times (London), 26 December 1 9 1 ^ , p . 9* The Tempest. "As arranged for the stage by Herbert Beerbohm Tree" (Londons J. Miles, 1 9 0 1*-); A ntony 165 Treefs acting editions and in the case of The Tempest all the stage directions -were printed, those "embodied in the generally accepted versions of Shakespeare" in black ink* and those of Treefs invention in red. All are inscribed as gifts from Tree and His Majesty's Theatre. Tree used the souvenirs to underline the fact that the patron was attending an institution of. importance, and flattered him with the presentation of such artistic and well made gifts. They were also, of course, good adver­ t i s i n g . The souvenirs were produced under the auspices of

Tree himself, as is shown in a "special interest" article which reveals the world behind the scenes at His M ajesty's.

It was reported that part of Tree's activity that day was consulting with a Japanese artist about the souvenir of the upcoming one hundredth performance of Darling of the

Gods. discussing paintings, approving symbols to appear on all printed matter, and viewing samples of Japanese paper and bindings for possible use. Tree's theatre was a very personal operation, with a close rapport with the public. Part of that rapport, at least, was created th through the use of programs and souvenir programs. and Cleonntra. "As arranged" (London? Warrington, 1 9 0 7 ) t Julius Caesar. "As arranged" (London* Nassau Press, 1898) , all at the Folger. Ufa "Day's Work," clipping, NYPL scrapbook (MWEZ 6 1 8 7 ). 1 6 6 We have so far documented the sense of occasion that characterized His Majesty*s house style, noting the

characteristic event created for the theatre*s opening.

Tree's use of extra-theatrical events to enhance his pro­ ductions, his relationship with the press, his advertising

techniques, and his use of programs and souvenirs. We

have noted that some of these practices reveal a.close re­ lationship, or rapport, that Tree had (and conciously court­

ed) with his public. One of the characteristic features of

the Edwardian theatre is this rapport of the artist and public^ it is behind the concept of the house style, as discussed in Chapter II, and greatly removes the theatre of that period from the modern theatre. That is why I have labelled His Majesty*s as a social institution, for the house style and close artist/audience rapport made theatre going more like a club function than like our idea of going to a public theatre. It has been pointed out that His Majesty*s appeal was mass, that it was the symbol of culture for the average

Englishman of all classes. His Majesty's was also, how­ ever, a very special part of a community that was, despite the disparity between the classes, a tightly knit world. ^ 5 His Majesty's was a social institution because it permitted the members of that society, across the classes, to come

1^5 An opinion garnered from the consensus of works on the Edwardian period, the majority of which are cited in the bibliography© 167 together In a communal celebration of mankind* It was a

celebration of which every member of the audience vjas made

to feel a part, through the sense of occasion that charac­

terized the theatre event, and the close rapport that each

member of the audience had with the manager, and through

him, the theatre*

The Edwardian actor-raanager has been characterized as a genial host, whose theatre was his home, and who wel­ comed the public as his (albeit paying) guests* 3-56 T h is

is an accurate analogy, especially w h en applied to Tree and

His Majesty*s. Tree actually did live at his theatre most

of the time, occupying a suite of rooms under the great cupola, referred to as "The Dome." 3-57 He truly would wel­

come his guests to his home-* Cran describes the experience • • There are no fees to pay in his house, for cloak­ rooms, programmes, costly souvenir, or any other service. Once you enter you feel as if you are a guest at the discretion of a liberal host. He has no notice up to request the members of his company not to know him outside the theatre, 3.58 Other managers too sought to create this or a similar

156 MacQueen-Pope, Carriages at Eleven, passim; Pearson, Beerbohm Tree. ~pp. 1 0 1 - 1 W f idem.V The Last of the Actor managers (New York: Harper Bro., 1950); Joseph Dono­ hue, "The First Production of the Importance of Being Earn­ est: A Proposal for a Reconstructive Study," Essays on the Nineteenth Century B ritish Theatre. Kenneth Richards and Peter Thompson eds. (London: Methuen, 1971)i PP- 125-^3* 3*^7 Pearson, Beerbohm Tree, p. 1^-2. 3-58 Herbert Beerbohm Tree, p. h6* The last line is a reference to Sir George Alexander, notorious for his sense of propriety and protocol. 168 Impression on their patrons, although it seems to have been most keenly felt at His Majesty's* Fitzgerald wrote of Tree, "No one entertains better, or gives better val­ ue*" ^ 9 The following excerpt records contemporary im­ pressions of the theatrical experience in Edwardian Lon­ don. The author's most frequent example is His M ajesty's, although hw writes of the theatre in general terms.

The British public • . . goes to the theatre in search, not of intellectual enjoyment, but of a placid and comprehensive gratification of all the senses* • • • Thither do the Briton and his woman­ kind resort, arrayed in full evening panoply, in calm expectation of a reception befitting the guests of a peer's drawing room, rather than the patrons of a public place of entertainment. Instead of servants in livery, attendants, scrup­ ulously attired, meet him at the door, and conduct him to a stall. The entire organization of the theatre reflects that special and artistic conception of its status which is the point of view of its patrons. The very vestibule itself greets the visitor* . . . On each floor there .is a luxurious buffet and cloakroom* The cloakrooms reserved for the ladies are particularly elegant . . 0 between the acts female attendants in black hand round trays with tea, ices, chocolates, biscuits and sweets; or offer for sale special programmes of the entertainment artis- ically illustrated, or pamphlets descriptive of the play. • • o He then goes on to mention the Julius Caesar souvenir from His Majesty's . These and other delicate attentions and dainty refinements impart to the English theatre an atmos­ phere of unaffected and genial good breeding, to the maintenance of which the attitude of the public con­ tributes not a little* The special characteristic of the London theatres * * • is their quiet—no slamming of doojg^ no shuffling of feet, no loud conversations.

Shakesnearean Representation* p* 72*

l 6 0 M ario B o rsa, The English Stage Today, p p. 2 7 9 - 81. 1 6 9 His M ajesty's was .an institution where the playgoer could go and find exactly the comfortable and pleasing sort of

experience that he expected and desired* It was so stable an institution that the prices for seats 3 quoted in Chapter II, did not change over the entire period 3 fro m 1897 t o 19lV* 161 Both Tree and the public could bank: on that sta­ bility and assurance 3 f o r 3 as Tree said, "The box office has Its finger on the pulse of the public." ^2 Some of the "delicate attentions" that Borsa men­

tions can be documented at His M ajesty's through the use of the programs. The features and policies of the house designed in regard for the patron 1 s comfort and safety have already been pointed out. The programs also reveal that the public was expected not to tip any employees of the theatre for any service: "Mr. Tree hopes the public w ill assist him In this rule, which has been made for their comfort." -^3 After morning performances (given instead of afternoon matinees in the warmer months when that time of day be­ came too hot) it was announced that "Special matinee teas are served in the foyer after the performance." The box office was open from ten o'clock until ten‘o'clock each day, and seats from two shillings were booked by the manager

161 Programs (H.M.T.), Folger, NYPL. ■*■62 H.Leverton, Through the Box Office Uindow (London: T. Werner Laurie Ltd7 3 1 9 3 2 ) s p . 1 2 8 . 163 Printed on all programs. 16^ printed on programs after 1908. 170 of that office, whose name was published in the ads for the theatre, and who was well known to the public. *^5 This meant that even the patron of the cheaper seats (not, how­ ever, the gallery or pit) could reserve their seats in ad­ vance. W. H. leverton, Tree!s box office manager for many years (at the Haymarket), writes that it was always standard practice with Tree, if a complaint was received about ser­ vice, to issue an invitation to see the play from a better seat, free, on another night. 165 It was also customary at His Majesty's to post, during elections, "the latest re­ sults from the polls" in the vestibule, "which is accessible to all parts of the house." Programs also announce that "for the convenience of visitors, the Exchange Tele­ graph Company's Tape Instrument is working in the foyer of the theatre." It has been pointed out that His Maj­ esty's was developed as part of an entire city block, all of a harmonious design, the rest of which consisted of the famous Carlton restaurant. Tree did not own or run the Carlton, but he did take advantage of Its existence (be­ sides the fact that he usually ate there) by announcing in the programs that one could purchase "The Carlton," a • -

1^5 Hamilton, "Going to the Theatre," p. 602. Leverton, Through the Box Office, p. 176.

167 P ro g ram s, 1906, IIYPL.

168 program. King John (H.M.T. 1899)a Folger. 171 special after-theatre supper, for five shillings, 1^9 It was generally thought that the Carlton was the only

decent place one could go after the theatre, for London closed up early, ^70 Hamilton wrote that the London theatre of 1910 had "an aroma of gentility which is not applicable else­ where, and which is a source of charm quite unrelated to the merits of the play." -*-71 This was certainly true of

His Majestyrs Theatre, where the theatrical experience

was a community celebration, held in comfort, along lines

specifically defined and recognized by both the manager

and the public. Tree regarded the actor-manager, himself included,

as a public servant, who "caters to the public." I?2 Tree considered himself an artist, who worked at his art pri­ marily for himself, -*-73 but who ran a theatre, a public theatre, as well and who in so doing had an intimate know­ ledge of and relationship with the public. What is known as the "public taste" comes, according to Tree, out of this

169 program, Midsummer H iehfs Dream (H.M.T, 1900), F o lg e r . ■*■70 Hamilton, "Going to the Theatre," p. 602.

■*■71 Ib id ., p. 602, •*•72 Tree, Thoughts and Afterthoughts, pp. 1J>9~91*

3-73 Tree, "Living Shakespeare,11 p, 6 7 , relationship. 1?1+

The function of His Majesty's Theatre in the re ­ lationship described above, as a social institutions may be illustrated with the following specific examples of Tree's management: the Shakespeare Festivals, the special events

that were produced at His Majesty's during each year, out­ side of the regularly scheduled productions and, of these,

especially the 1911 Coronation Gala Performance.

In 1903 Tree was asked by the Committee of the Stratford Shakespeare Festival to serve as manager for the

event the following year, producing the Shakespeare prod­ uctions in the theatre at Stratford. Tree announced that

he would undertake the task, but something went wrong. He

believed the Committee had offered him a "slight," and withdrew his plans. -*-75 Benson was hired instead, and Tree had no more to do with the Stratford Festival until 1910. -*-76 Perhaps because of the slight by the Stratford

Committee, and surely because of the role that Tree saw for himself and his theatre in London, in 1905 he began his own Shakespeare F estival. -**77

17^ Tree, "Living Shakespeare," p. *+2 and pp. 67- 68 . Times (London), 5 May 1903, p. 10. ■*■76 Tree's Hamlet opened the Stratford Festival that year*. See the Tines (London), 22 April 1910, p. 12. •*-77 See George Rowell, "Tree's Shakespeare Festiv­ als," Theatre Notebook 2 b (1975)1 71+-8lf for a recent ac­ count. The follow ing is meant to supplement R ow ell's a r t­ i c l e . 173 The festival “was first called The Shakespeare Birthweek Festival, an<3 the first one opened on 2b

April 1905, the day after the anniversary of Shakespeare*s birth, with a revival of Richard II. This was followed by a different play each night for the rest of the week: Merrv

Wives of Windsor. Ry&Lftti flight, Haffllfit, Much Ado About Nothing. and Julius Caesar, which was then run for the fol­ lowing week. **-79 The revivals, in this and succeeding fes­ tivals, were either new productions or fully mounted re­ productions of plays already in the repertoire "mounted with all the spectacular magnlfiscence which has always been characteristic of Tree's management." 180 The first Festival was called "a program the variety of which may have been equalled, but never exceeded, even in the palm­ iest of the palmy days of the drama .11 181 By the following year the Festival was lauded as a momentous occasion, 182 "likely to be the most memorable week of the theatre year." ^*®3 as Rowell points out, the character of the Festival, a week of performances changed

178 Times (London), 2 b April 1906, p. 12.

I b i d . , 23 M arch 1905, Po 11. -1-80 Illustrated London News. 29 April 1905, p* 6 0 2 . Sketch (London), 12 April 1905, p. **37« -*-82 Graphic (London), 28 April 1906, p. 527 l83 Illustrated London News, 28 April 1906, p. 588. 17b each night, was kept until 1909. ^8l1' The event was then moved from the actual birthweek to the end of the season, and called "The London Shakespeare Festival." The high point of the 1906 Festival was Ellen Terry's Jubilee, when

Tree changed plans to produce Much Ado About Nothing on the

27 April (Miss Terry's Jubilee night) and substituted for it his Merrv Wives of Windsor, with the great lady as Mrs.

Page. All seats were sold out for the performance, and upon her first entrance she received a "deafening" greeting of applause. 3-85 Tree added a short scene to the piece, by

L. N. Parker, wherein Falstaff (Tree) at one point stop­ ped Mrs. Page on her exit and said: Roll drums and flourish trumpets, let the cheers Many a long day echo in you ears. B ut th ro u g h t h e i r clam o u r, may my w h isp er move you. We praise you, we admire you, and we love you.

A dove then flew down from the flies and presented her with her speech. Miss Terry then read the short piece, and was presented , by the president of the Playgoers Club, a sil­ ver casket (reminiscent of her role as Portia in Irving's

Merchant of Venice). The entire company and all sections of the house then sang "Auld Lang Syne." l8^

l 8*f "Tree's Shakespeare Festivals," p. 7^*

185 Times (London), 28 April 1906, p. 8.

186 Ibid., p. 8 . 175 The ceremony 5 in the midst of the productions il­ lustrates perfectly the sense of occasion characteristic of His Majesty*s Theatre. On the middle of the stage* in the middle of the play* the action stopped and Miss Terry became the object of everyone's attention (if that had not been the case from the beginning)o The singing of "Auld

Lang Syne" by the house* cast* and crew* to show their dev­ otion to a fine actress* reveals the Edwardian community united in a moment of celebration. Shakespeare may have ostensibly been the purpose for the gathering in the theatre but the occasion was the fete for Miss Terry. The theatre event reached beyond the proscenium and the promptbook.

The play itself was specially altered.on the occasion. What it seems to have been was a large public party* which is precisely the phrase that Hamilton used to describe to his

United States readers what the London theatrical experience was like* It is because of this kind of function* as well as its function as a culture center* that His Majesty's

Is described In this study as a social institution. By 1907 the "celebration of Shakespeare's birth­ week has obtained a definite place in the calendar as a fixed feast* and Mr. Tree is one of the most scrupulous observers of the feast." The Festival was "a sort of a theatrical octave," with the productions that all of London

Times (London).* 23 A pril 1907* P* 10 176

"was familiar with." 3-88 That fam iliarity, often re­

marked by reviewers of Festival productions, 189 is an­

other indication of the relationship of Tree and the pub­

lic. like a favorite movie one sees many times, the Fes­

tival productions had their followings, who were able to

count on seeing their favorites again and again.

The 1909 Festival, extended to two weeks at the

end of the season (21 June to 3 July) began a trend of ex­ pansion that continued until 1913. The program was longer than ever before, with two additional companies, those of

F. R. Benson and Arthur Bourchier, in on the festivities as well. 190 During this Festival Tree produced two extra

performances of Julius Caesar and Macbeth for the child­ ren of the County Council Schools, charging one shilling for the stalls and letting the other seats free. 3-91

The 1910 Festival was touted in the press as the "greatest Shakespeare Festival London has ever seen." 3-92 It was run by a committee, headed by Tree, and including Benson, Bourchier, H. B. Irving, Cyril Maude, William Poel,

Fred Terry, Ellen Terry, Lewis Waller, Herbert Trench,

188 Times (London), 23 April 1907, P* 10. 189 See particularly the Times (London),22 January 1909, p . 12 . 190 Times (London), 1 June 1909, p. 6 . 191 Ibid., p. 6 .

192 Ibid., 29 March 1910, p. 9. 177 Madge Kendal and John Martin-Harvey. 2-93 it Was a five

■week program, running from 28 March to 29 April, and was described as a series of "turns by different companies, presenting Shakespeare in a variety of styles." ^-9^ The Times noted the importance of the Festival could be seen "in the fact that all the leading actors and actresses of London have offered their services." 195 The1910 F es­ tival showed that "both Sir Herbert Tree and the Memorial governors are following a good course in making each fes­ tival as far as possible a national celebration. ..." 196 Although Rowell characterizes the 1911 F e s tiv a l as "by fa r the most elaborate" one and the "zenith of Tr,eefs care­ er," 197 it was the 1910 Festival that was the truly great celebration of the theatre in Edwardian England. The whole range of Shakespearean representation was available to the public. 19® Tree*s familiar cele­ bration of opened the Festival, fol­ lowed by his Julius Caesar and Twelfth Wight. Two Hamlets

193 Times (London), 1^ March 1910, p. 10.

19^ Ibid., 21 March 1910, p. 12. 195 Ibid., 28 February 1 9 1 0 , p . 1 2 . 196 Ibid., I1*- March 1910, p. 10. 197 «Treefs Shakespeare Festivals," p. 75- 198 ]?or the finalized schedule of performances, see the Times (London), 2$ March 1 9 1 0 , p . h t and see Appen­ d ix A of the present study.. were presented: TreefSj done "-without scenery" (actually a set of green tapestry hangings)* and that of Irving* done "with scenery." The Merchant of Venice was done by both His Majesty*s and Bourchierfs companies. The Benson- ians presented their "atheletic" Tamlng__of the Shrew and Coriolanus. Herbert Trench* s Haymarket company produced

King Xear with the "modern" sets by Charles Ricketts 3 and

Poel's Elizabethan Stage Society presented Two Gentlemen of Verona, for which the orchestra pit and part of the stalls of His Majesty's were floored over with a thrust stage* for an "Elizabethan" style production. 199 Waller produced Henry V with the Lyric Theatre cast* a production which caused there to be generated an intensely chauvanis- tic and patriotic "fellow-feeling" which united the cast and audience.- 200 Tree then put on his Richard II. and the Festival ended with a special bill consisting of one act from Othello, with Tree and Irving* one act from Bour­ chier 's Macbeth; one act of The Clandestine Marriage with

Cyril Maude (he was not a Shakespearean producer 3 b u t was nonetheless an important manager and wanted to be in on the Festival as well)3 and a recitation by Madge Kendal. During the performance of His Majesty*s production of Twelfth Wight each entrance and exit of the stars was

199 Tim e 3 (London)* 11 April 1910* p. 12; Ibid.* 6 A p r il 1910* P- 9* 200 Ibid.* 23 April 1910, p. 12. 179 applauded, and Tree was moved to make a speech after the

show to "express his gratification" at the support given 201 to the Festival* The overall success of the Festival 202 was reported, with full houses commonj "The state of

the house abundantly proves that public .interest in Sir

Harbert Tree's somewhat daring experiment was maintained

to the very end of the Festival •" 2®3 According to Row­ ell, Tree's account book upholds these reports: "Financial­

ly the most successful year seems to have been 1910, w ith

a profit shown of 176^* 15* 11*" 20^ The 1911 Festival was the longest one, running from 17 April, Easter Monday, to 15 July. 2<^ This was Coro­ nation year, and it has been mentioned that Tree intended to celebrate with a special season at His Majesty's. By this year the His Majesty's London Shakespeare Festival had grown so strong a rival that the Stratford Festival was not begun until 22 July, after Tree's had closed* 20^ The

1911 Festival was not so varied a program as that of 1910.

Times (London), 8 April 1910, p. 12. 202 Ibid*, 30 April 1910, p. 10.

203 Clipping, NYPL scrapbook (MWEZ 6187). 20*f Hireeis Shakespeare Festivals," p. 79*

2°5 According to Rowell, the 1911 Festival began 7 May (Ibid., p. 75)* but see the Times (London), 18 April 1911, p. 9i and the Program Henry VIII (IIYPL Stead Scrap­ book II), subtitled London Shakespeare Festival/ (Seventh Y e a r) / Commencing: A n ril 17. 1911.

206 Times (London), 10 July 1911, p. 6 . 1 8 0 Except for the Gala performance, it featured only Bour­

chier, as an actor with the His Majesty’s company, Ir­ ving^ company for one performance of Hamlet. Oscar asche's

company, and Benson’s. The central event and occasion

of this Festival was the Coronation Gala, a huge affair which must have required a great deal of effort to coor­ dinate and manage. All of the policies and management practices,

Tree’s idea of a theatre and its place and function in society, and the theatrical experience at His Majesty's

Theatre are succinctly melded in the institution of the

Festivals. The Festivals were national celebrations, in which a broadly based audience participated in community with each other and the theatrical profession in the com­ memoration of an event: the birth of William Shakespeare. At the center of the celebration was His Majesty’s Theatre. The analogy has been made of Tree to the Poet

Laureate, as a kind of theatrical counterpart, or manager laureate, one who composed events at his theatre for a variety of occasions in London society. In this role the function of His Majesty’s Theatre as a social institution may be- seen q'uite clearly. In addition to the Festivals and the regularly run schedules of productions, His Maj­ esty’s saw, each season, a number of perforranaces that may be termed special events. These were special evening and matinee performances designed to celebrate and commemorate 181 birthdays, coronations, Jubilees, to raise charity funds,

and to serve as expressions of good w ill on the part of

Tree and of official England. Of the character of these events, the Times wrote

that Tree was “always burning for new fields to conquer,“

and t h a t for a charity matinee most managers are content to offer the cromoe reoetlte of excerpts from an evening bill or well worn stock pieces. Not so Mr. Tree. When he undertakes a benefit performance, there is pretty sure to be something fresh and in­ teresting in it. 207 In Appendix B there is presented a survey of such events,

intended to characterize this role and function of His Maj­

esty's Theatre in London society. Every season featured

these special events, which were considered social occa­ sions of importance. The most spectacular of these was the

1911 Coronation Gala. It was presented on 27 June 1911s to celebrate the new monarch, George V, with a salute from the

theatrical profession. The Gala provided an occasion for the gathering of the diplomatic world in the kind of com­ munity celebration that characterized His Majesty's Theatre

throughout the year. Although the Gala is not representa­ tive of all the special events, in that it was a f&te for

the crovning of the King and an occasion of greater than usual pomp, I have chosen it as an example because it does represent well the Idea of the social occasion of many of

207 Times (London), 3 May 1901,. p. 8. the events at His Majesty*s.

The 1911 Coronation Gala Theatrical Performance was hardly the first such fete for a new monarch, but it

was "commanded" to be held at His Majesty*s, instead of

the traditional performance at the opera (it should be mentioned that there was also a gala at Covent Garden

in 1911a after the occasion at His M ajesty's). The week of the nineteenth of June was the date of the

actual Coronation ceremonies, and "observing social cus­ tom, " His Majesty*s and a number of other theatres were closed for the latter part of that week. As early as

8 March advance notices about the upcoming program appeared in the papers, announcing a plan that was changed several

times before finally being settled. The notice attested the theatrical profession would be well represented in the festivities. The Executive Committee was named: Sir Charles Wyndham, Chairman, Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree, D irector, Ar­

thur Bourchier, Organizing Secretary, W. R. Creighton, Act­ ing SceretaryJ other members of the planning group were Sir

John Hare, Sir George Alexander, Cyril Maude, Charles Haw-

trey, H. B. Xrving, and Herbert Trench.

208 T3.meS (London), 13 March 1911, P- 8 .

209 Ibid., 19 June 1911, P* 3^. See Times (London), 8 March 1911, p. 11, for the original program. 183 Hi's Majesty*s was redecorated for the occasion, and the new look was well covered in the press. Percy Macquoid designed the decorationsj which, araid a London very heavily decked out for the Coronation (and not always tastefully), the Times assures "were a choice refreshment for the dis­ cerning eye." 211 The columns of the collonade on the Hay- market side were draped in "Imperial Purple" and inter­ laced with fruit garlands tied with gold ribbon. The bal­ cony itself was covered over and filled with potted trees and a sparkling fountain. Inside the theatre the vesti­ bule and foyer were filled with "masses of crimson Rambler

Roses, Hydrangeas, and L ilies, which gradually blend into fruit garlands and wreaths" toward the auditorium. The house itself was decorated with "vivid colored fruits in their own foliage instead of flowers," in "the manner of

Montegna and Della Robbia." Around the auditorium were festoons of fruit in pink, white, and gold, and around the front of the balcony were "classical" garlands in gold and crimson. Directly below the Royal Box (set up in the cen­ ter of the dress circle) were banners of crimson with the Royal Arms on them. 212 The house colors of His Majesty*s, it may be remembered, were red, gold, and white. The intent of the decorations, of course, was to create an atmosphere both impressive and regalo The effect

2^ Times (London), 28 June 1911, p. 11.

212 I b i d . , 31 May 1 9 H a P<> 1 0 . 18^ vas regarded as "a masterpiece of classic simplicity and

elegance in complete harmony with the existing curves of

the building it adorned." 213 The decoration of the house

was only part of the show however, for nearly all of the

men in the audience were in uniform, of which the Edward­

ian Imperial m ilitary and diplomatic corps provided a col­ orful variety. "In violent contrast to this simple back­

ground was the polychromatic rio t of the uniforms—blazing scarlets, vivid blues, and shimmering Oriental stuffs." 2llf There was as well a contingent of Beefeaters lining the side aisles to the stalls to further enhance the pageant

and the lighting on the occasion was enhanced by the pro­ fusion of diamonds worn by the ladies. 2^

Times (London), 28 June 1911, p. 11. Of course what represented "sim plicity" to an Edwardian soc­ iety columnist would hardly seem so today. The description, however, of the harmony of the decoration with the lines of the building does suggest a certain expertise and taste. It must be remembered that the English were, and are, re­ nowned for their gardening and flower arranging, and there­ for the theatre may have been quite impressive. pi k Ibid. Again, it is easy for us to deprecate the Edwardian manner of describing the "polychromatic riot of uniforms" but before we do so we should try and consid­ er what such a scene would have been like. Certainly the color of the clothes lent a great deal of elegance to a kind of scene that few theatre historians have ever been a p a r ty t o . Ibid. The columnist goes into great detail about the jewelry worn by the ladies, and although we might tend to dismiss this kind of writing, it does give a clue" to the atmosphere of the occasion.' ITothing reflects and refracts light like a diamond, and a theatre literally full of them is a striking-effect. 1 85

Outside the theatre was the scene of much pomp

and ceremony. Crowds of well-wishers gathered along the

route of the Hoyal carriage from Buckingham Palace to the

Haymarketj which had been cordonned off by police for the

use of vehicles going to the theatre only. Drawn up out­

side the theatre were an honor guard of the Irish Guards

with State Color and band. Promptly at twenty minutes past

eight the King and Queen arrived in a state carriage, pre­

ceded by an escort of Life Guards and followed by two other

state carriages. As they stepped from their vehicle, they

were greeted, among hearty cheers, on the steps of His Maj­

esty *s Theatre by Tree, VJyndham, Bourchier, and Hare, the

latter remaining in attendance upon the King throughout the e v e n in g . The house rose as the Royal couple entered the theatre, and remained standing until the King and Queen were seated in the front row of the Royal Box. The dress circle was divided into three parts; the Royal party in

the center, the diplomatic corps on the right, and the M inisterial party on the left. The theatre was full of

royalty, for nearly all the crowned heads of Europe and the Orient were present. All of these dignitaries constituted

the Royal Box, and surveyed the scene from the center of

the dress circle (the actual Royal Box at His Majesty1s was far too small for such a gathering). The rest of the

audience consisted of the European aristocracy and the 186 well-to-do who would be seen in their company* Seats for the affair were In very great demand despite, or perhaps because of, the high prices. Boxes cost from fifty to one hundred Guineas, stalls went for twenty Guineas, and the

amphitheatre was"quickly bought up" at two Guineas per seat. 216 jhg auaience for the Gala performance was not

the usual clientele of His Majesty*s (at least not the majority of them), for the prices excluded persons of low­ er social order. It was announced, however, that all of the Gala decorations were to be left intact for the re­ mainder of the season*s run of Henry V III. in order to give

the regular patrons a taste of the Royal festivities.

The performance, began when Johnston Forbes-Robertson stepped before the curtain and "with his accustomed perfec­ tion of elocution, delivered the neatly tripping verses of Mr. Owen Seamen*s Prologue." 218 The Prologue (which must have taken all of Forbes-Robertson*s skill to be made

"tripping") was a rhymed greeting to the King, Queen, and guests, an explanation of the choice of program, a patriot­

ic tribute to the king, and a ready apology for any short­ comings in the performance; If here'and there a pensive pause is made While memory searches for a line mislaid,

Times (London), 26 June 1911, p. 8 .

217 Ibid., 3 July 1911a P. 10. 218 Ibid., 28 June 1911, p. 11. 1 8 7 Kindly regard such lapses as unique. And due no doubt to Coronation Week. 219

The letter scene from the Merry Wives of Windsor

began the theatrical fare for the evening, and Mrs. Kendal and Miss Terry, in the major roles, were in their usual

form. This was succeeded by the second act of David Gar­ rick. the Robertson play that had brought fame to Sir Char­

les Wyndhan, with that actor in the title role. The third part of the bill was the Forum scene from Julius Caesar, with Tree as Antony, and directed by Harley Granville Bar­

ker. The Times referred to this scene, with a crowd of

over two hundred, as the artistic triumph of the evening. A condensed version of Sheridan1s The C ritic was then pre­ sented, under the direction of Arthur Bourchier, "with a good deal of Sheridan*s fun left.out and a good deal of the

actors' fun put in." The finale, under Tree's direction, was Ben Jonson's masque, The Viainn of Delight, originally

a Christmas entertainment for James I (as the program point­ ed out), and now presented as a display of the beauties of the London stage. At the close of the performance of the masque, Mrs. Clara Butt, one of the beauties (literally every actress and musical comedy singer of note was invol­ ved in i t )

stepped to the front, and with a voice that filled th e t h e a t r e , gave th e f i r s t n o te s of "God Save th e

219 Program, 1911 Coronation Gala Performance. (H.M.T. 1911), Shields Library. 188 King*" The whole house rose to its feet and, to­ gether with the players massed on stage, joined in the anthem. Then their M ajesties, who had shown great delight in the entertainment throughout the evening, departed at the head of a brilliant pro­ cession of guests, and there was an end to a won­ derful show.

The event, described as a "histionic kaleidoscope" which paraded the theatrical profession like so many battleships

in review, was a success. 220 It was a celebration much

more than It was a theatrical performance, a celebration

and display of power, at the center of which was His Maj­

esty’s Theatre. His Majesty’s was the unofficial national theatre of Edwardian England. It was the home of mass culture for

the period, supported by a widely based heterogeneous audience. His Majesty’s was the unofficial representative

of the country and the empire in things artistic, providing all sorts of celebrations for a wide variety of classes, from goodwill trips representing England abroad, to hosting distinguished foreign companies, providing charity benefits for many causes, and providing a setting for the greatest pomp and occasion that the Empire could muster. His Maj­ esty’s provided the community of Edwardian London with oc­ casions of celebration that glorified mankind in general, as well as the particular society itself. His Majesty’s provided a visible symbol for the Edwardian of his country’s

220 jui of the above, except where otherwise noted, is from the Times (London), 28 June 1911, P* 11* 189 stability, power, taste, comfort, pomp and circumstance,

■which, for a small outlay of cash, he could participate in, no matter to what class he belonged. His Majesty's was a theatre perfectly in tune with its society for twenty yearso It both reflects, and is reflected by that society.

The preceding chapter has been an examination of the theatrical experience at His Majesty's Theatre. I began with the assumption that the most Important aspect

of that experience Is not necessarily the stage performance by Itself. By detailing the various policies, practices, ideas, and relationships by which Tree ran His M ajesty's,

I have endeavored to describe the particular kind of theatrical experience that it was Tree's business, as man­ ager, to create. It was the sense of occasion which gave His Majesty's its flavor and house style. It Is in the documentation of the occasion of the theatrical experience that the relationship of the performance and its culture may be seen most clearly. It Is with such documentation that we begin to create a sociological aesthetic of drama­ tic performance. CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

The examination of His Majesty*s Theatre has now

been completed* We have discussed the nature of the phys­

ical structure of the playhouse, the nature of the theatri­

cal events presented there, and the nature of the exper­

ience of going to that theatre and perceiving those events.

In so doing I have attempted, to provide as multi-faceted an answer as possible to the gove ing question of the study: "what happened at His Majesty*s Theatre, .1897 t o

191*+?"* The kinds of information that provide documen­ tation for each of the three above areas of Inquiry serve to give substance to the elusive nature of the past thea­ trical experience* Such information therefore helps to prDi­ vide a clear sense of event, occasion, and experience. It has been shown that His Majesty*s was designed and built with the highest regard for the safety and comfort of the public who constituted its patrons* The architect

was commended for combining the careful and aesthetic plan­

ning of the private theatre with the necessities of the

commercial establishment, and arriving at a most satisfac­ tory result. His Majesty*s was the finest theatre in Lon­

don during its time, and even today is remarkably more 190 191 comfortable than many theatres in that city. The view of the stage was designed so that all seats had the best pos­ sible vantage, and the patron could concentrate on the ac­ tion taking place upon it. The decorations of the house were dignified, in the most modern taste ( 1897)a and kept simple enough so that they did not distract the attention of the playgoer. Every seat in the house, with the excep­ tion of the six proscenium boxes, faced the stage. The auditorium was divided strictly by class, so that the pat­ rons of a particular social standing would not have to mingle with those either above or below them. All the pat­ rons were, nonetheless, in the same room, participating in the same event (although their perception of it may have been different). It was a theatre tailor-made to the spec­ ifications of the actor-manager, Tree. It was designed to serve the public in the most pleasing, artistic, and ef­ ficient manner then possible.

From a study then of the purely physical, archi­ tectural plan of the theatre much information concerning the conditions that governed the theatrical experience has been documented. We have, at the outset, begun to charac­ terize the important relationship between the manager, his theatre, and the public.

On the stage of His M ajesty^ were produced a series of productions that were the epitome of Edwardian artistic taste. These-were possible only through the 192 concentration that relaxation and comfort on the part of the spectator could provide* The productions (or theatrical events) were essentially three dimensional, dynamic translations of the sensibilities of the popular

Pre-Raphaelite and Art Nouveau schools of art. They per­ ceived as lavishly and beautifully visual dream-like il­ lusions, in concrete form. Just as the Pre-Raphaelite painters sought to capture in.their work the heightened and detailed clarity of a dream, no matter how fantastic

(although always picturesque) the subject, so did Tree in his stage work. The productions at His Majesty's have often been < haracterized as nothing more than examples of a spectacular naturalism, the decadent end of a trad­ i t i o n . 1 It has been shown, however, that Treels produc­ tions were actually a great deal more than that rather simplified characterization. Tree was not interested in merely capturing the essence of the real world, or in con­ centrating upon naturalistic detail for its own sake.

Rather, His Majesty's was the home of illusion. Tree said, in his oft-quoted statement of principles, “I take it that the entire business of the stage is~Illusion. As the aim of all art is Illusion, to gain this end all means are f a i r . " 2 To gain his ends, in any sort of play, Tree used

1 See especially Haas, "Kean, Irving, Tree."

2 "Living Shakespeare," p. 57• 193 nationalistic detail where necessary* but did not do so

out of a particular adherence to any school. It must be added that he was, of course, a product of his time, and he ran a theatre that was, above all* popular* period when romantic realism was the dominant mode of art­ istic perception* He experimented* however* with des­ igns by Gordon Craig and the painter V/histler (although neither plan ever came to fruition in production)]! he produced a Hamlet with no scenery* an im pressionistic mime play (Chand d!Habits by Catulle Mendes)* and was instrumentally involved with- the attempt to create a mod­ ern British verse drama. More important than these isol­ ated examples of a catholicity in taste is the fact that* in managing each of his productions* an author's script was treated as no more than a blueprint for a theatrical event of Tree's own devising. The style which emerged I have en­ deavored to describe as a kind of total theatre* of which naturalistic detail was only a single element. In Chapter

III this style has been discussed* and the characterization of it as total theatre has been developed point by point. Productions at His Majesty1s were often perceived and described by Treefs contemporaries as being cinematic* or "kinematographic*" to use Edwardian parlance. Such a description supports the idea of Tree's productions seen as dream-like illusions* a not uncommon way of perceiving the 19^ motion picture. 3 Although to modern eyes early films

may seem crude. Tree could, in 1912, speak of the "nerve shattering swiftness of the cinematograph," ^ which he would try to emulate on the stage where appropriate. Tree was also a film maker himself, producing the first Shakespear­ ean film (Scenes from King John. 1899)* and a number of later efforts. 5 The connection between the cinema and the productions at His M ajesty's was the visual impact. Tree's theatrical events were visually oriented, but not in the static sense that the term "pictorial," often used to characterize them, conveys. Rather, his style was or­

iented toward visual action. The total theatre at His Majesty's, called by Tree "that compound of all the arts that is the modern theatre," ^ was aimed at the senses rather than at the in­ tellect. His Majesty's was geared to the artistically sen­ sual gratification of Its patrons. In combination with the visual impact of the productions, music of all variety and sound, as well as the actors' voices, were orchestrated for sensual effect. The Tempest, as done at His Majesty's,

3 See Roy Armes, Film and Reality (Harmondsworth, England* Penguin Books, 197*0* Tor a treatment of this idea. ** Interview clipping, NYP1 scrapbook (MWEZ 833) 5 gee Robert H. B all, Shakespeare on Silent Film (New YorkZ Theatre Arts Books, 19657*

^ "Living Shakespeare," p. 57. 195 became a musical extravaganza* ressembling a modern mus­ ical adaptation of Shakespeare more than a play written in the early seventeenth century (and Tree was soundly criticized for it by his scholarly enemies), 7 The total dream illusions at His Majesty*s Theatre sated "the eye with splendid pictures . and the ear with voluptuous music of both yerse and orchestra," P It has been shown that participating in such a theatrical experience was an accepted, approved* and of­ ficially sanctioned social norm. His Majesty's quickly acquired a reputation as the most important theatre in the kingdom and empire* and became the symbol for the best in British theatrical taste. His Majesty's was run as if it were the national theatre* serving the needs of Edwardian society* a widely divergent group of social classes* with a wide variety of theatrical events and occasions. It was run as a social institution* a culture center where all mem­ bers of the public at large meet in comfort and celebrate both their own society and mankind in general (Tree's idea

7 See the anonymous review* "The Tenoest." Black­ wood' s Magazine. October 190^* pp. 575-b1+a and Tree 1 s r e ­ ply* "A Personal Explanation*" originally in the souvenir for the production (Folger)* and reprinted as "The Tempest in a Teacup" in Thoughts and Afterthoughts, pp. 211-214-. As Tree points out* treating the Tempest as an excuse for lavish display was hardly a new thing with his production* and he defends his show claiming the play was originally designed as a lavish display. The tone of the Blackwood's critic however, suggests Tree's production outraged him.

® Times (London)* 26 January 1906* p. 6 . 196 of theatre was an uplifting one). His Majesty*s was run* as were most of the major London theatres of the period* by one man* the actor-manager. Beerbohm Tree and the in­ stitution that was his theatre had a very close relation­

ship and rapport with the public* which I have endeavored to show was of great importance. Tree believed that he was a servant and caterer to the public* as well as an artist whose business it was to lead them in matters of artistic taste and expression* In that capacity Tree devised* ad­ opted* and followed numerous policies which allowed him to run His Majesty*s Theatre on a very personal basis. For Tree* as well as for other important London actor-managers (notably Sir George Alexander) the theatre was neither a commercial business nor an elitist art. It was of course something of both* but in combining the two vastly different enterprises* Tree transcended the usual characterizations of both fields and worked in another realm entirely. His Majesty*s was Tree*s theatre and his home* as much as a man's house was his own home (and al­ though I am making an analogy* Tree did live* most of the time* in a suite of rooms at the theatre). The playhouse was not thought of* by either the public or the management* nor was It run* as if it were simply a public place for producing plays. It was public, to be sure* but it was de­ signed and run for social Intercourse* as much as were the great Edwardian homes of the wealthy. 197 The various policies and practices that Tree fol­

lowed in running His Majesty*s have been documented. The

audience, the conglomeration of individual patrons, that

came to partake of and participate in the theatrical ex­ perience at His Majesty1s was a heterogeneous groupD It

consisted in a wide cross section of London society, fil­ ling the shilling gallery, the' family circle, the dress

circle, the pit, the stalls, and the boxes. To each mem­

ber of this group Tree was host, and His Majesty*s was made open and accessable. This meant that although out­ side of the theatre the manager was above some of his pat­

rons in social status, and below others, inside the theatre his position was quite unique. He was host, and as such, servant and caterer to all. In that capacity he held a very special relationship with his society, a special sense of r a p p o r t • Tree welcomed his guests as would a gracious host, and treated them with a care, tact, respect, and politeness which they had come to expect. The public had also come to expect the kind of events that Tree gave them at His Maj­

e s t y 1 s. In creating and catering to these two sets of ex­ pectations, Tree developed the house style with which His

Majesty*s became associated. The house style, as has been shown, symbolized both a particular kind of event on stage, and a particular kind of experience to be had in going to the theatre to see the event. Each of the major London theatres had their house style3 and each -was differenti­ ated by it. To a certain extent the concept of the house style created a particular audience for each playhouse, especial­ ly on first nights, and His Majesty's was not an exception to this rule. I do not mean to suggest, however, that a certain group of people only vent to His Majesty*s and nowhere else. Most probably the theatregoer went to each of the manager*s theatres, or at least to several, 9 the policy of each theatre having its house style allowed the patron to have a very good idea of what he would see and how he w ould see i t 3 wherever he went. The house style at His Majesty*s made the patron feel important. It made him feel as if he were part of an institution where, to quote Bernard Shav 3 "high scenes are to be enacted and dignified things to be done." 10 The house style made the patron feel as if he were a part of the institution by treating him as if he were a member of a large private club. He could go to the theatre know­ ing that the people with whom he would share the evening, on both sides of the proscenium 3 would be on common s o c i a l

9 Although Forbes-Winslow claims there were such resolutely loyal, one-theatre fans as the man who report­ edly sat through 70 performances of The Merry Widow. 50 of The Waltz Dream. 100 of Gvosv Love, and, incredibly, *+00 performances of The Maid of the Mountains, at Daly's Theatre. Dalv*s (London: Vf. H. Allen, 19 l)-3)j P» 31*-* 3-0 Our Theatres in the nineties. 3; 118. 199 ground with him. They were people whose tastes were sim­ ilar to his own. He knew he would be comfortable and safe* and the performance that he would partake of would (us­ ually at least) appeal to his sensibilities. The perfor­ mance would be a His M ajesty's production* and that meant a visual* sensual spectacle* an amalgamation of all the arts. It would be exciting* and perhaps even stimulating. He would probably feel that going to His Majesty's was something of a special occasion^ he would feel pampered and catered to. The patron could count on such being the case every night of the week* excepting Sundays. He could bank on the house style* which in turn depended on him. Such a relationship resulted in the very stable and accepted theatrical and social institution that was His Majesty's

T h e a tre . The policy of the house style on the part of the actor-managers caused there to exist in Edwardian London a theatre of a very special nature. I would suggest the intimate knowledge of the theatre by the patron was actual­ ly an acceptance of the actor manager and his company into the peer group (of whatever class) of the spectator. Such an acceptance In turn sponsored a theatre which was an in­ tegral part of its society. Earlier it was stated that there are brief periods in theatre history* called moments* in which the theatre seems to be In perfect tune with the society in which it exists. The theatre of ancient Athens 200 and Elizabethan London were such moments, I would suggest the theatre of Edwardian London should also be so char­ acterized* The Edwardian theatre was a very personal type of experience. The concept of the house style and the fact that the theatres were run by a single personality who was well known to the public, and who knew and catered to them, allowed a' very close rapport to exist between the artist

(who also happened to be the manager in most cases) and his audience. From that rapport came the stability which allowed His Majesty's Theatre to operate on the scale that it did for twenty years. His Majesty's was a social institution which oper­ ated by virtue of the fact of the close relationship of the manager and the public. The theatrical event provided the basis for social intercourse between the two sides of the proscenium, and in a less direct way, between the mem­ bers of the diverse classes in the auditorium. The sense

H The phenomenon of the actor-manager1s theatre was a long time in building. Earlier managers too surely had "particular relationships" with their public, and were certainly instrumental in creating the conditions which characterize the Edwardian theatrical experience. Charles Kean* for example, did much to raise the*social acceptab­ ility of the theatre through his various Court connections. Sir Henry Irving was perhaps even more responsible for making the theatre socially acceptable, with his knighthood and the institution of the Lyceum. The stability of the Ed wardian theatre, and the artist/audience relationship) I have described, were based on the social acceptance of the theatre. It was not, however, until the late 1890's that the trend toward acceptance was completed. By the early years of this century the actor-manager had become a pillar of society. of occasion associated with His Majesty's was equally real, although different, for everyone involved; this made the theatre, the theatrical event, and the theatrical exper­ ience a dynamic and important part of the culture of Ed­ wardian England. The theatrical experience at His Maj­ esty^ probably represents the height of popularity, force, and importance that the theatre ever attained in Britain.

The Edwardian era is the last period in history in which the theatre had little competition from other media. It is also perhaps the first period in British history in which the theatre was socially acceptable to so large a segment of the population. The dynamic rapport that characterizes

His Majesty's is possible only in a society which makes it not only socially acceptable, but almost necessary, to at­ tend the theatre.

Understanding this dynamic rapport is basic to understanding all facets of the Edwardian era theatre I th e plays written during the period, how plays were mounted and directed, and how they were acted. More importantly, it is basic to understanding how plays, as theatrical events, were perceived during the period. It is in the perception and reception of the theatrical event, which is the theat­ rical experience, that the elusive nature of what the theatre is exists. In documenting what happened at His Maj­ esty's Theatre, under Tree's management, hopefully at least 202 some part of that elusiveness has been made more tan­ gible and accessible. SOURCES CONSULTED

BOOKS

Ackerman* Robert, ed. Microcosm of London- 3 vols. Lon­ don* Methuen 3 1904-.

Agate, James, ed. Those Were the Nights. London; Hutch­ in s o n & Co., Ltd., n.d. Alec - Tweedie, Mrs. Ethel. Behind the Footlights. Lon­ don* Hutchinson & C o ., 190M-. Arts Council of Great Britain. History of Shakespearean Prod.uc.ti.on Exhibit. Catalog, lj? January -2 8 Feb­ ruary, 1948.

Arthur, Sir George. From Phelps to Gielgud. 1936; reprint New York* Books for Libraries Press, 1967.

Bailey, Lesley. Scrapbook 1900 - 191^. London? Frederick M uller, 19F7T

Baker, Henry B. History of the London Stage and its Famous Players. 1904-j reprint, New Yorkt Benjamin Blom, 19-

Beerbohm, Sir Max. Around Theatres. New York; Tapplinger, 1 9 6 9 . . . Herbert.Beerbohm Tree. Some Memories of him and his A rt. London: Hutchinson & Co., 1917.

- - More Theatres, 1898 - 1903. New York; Tapplinger, 1 9 6 9 . Billington, Michael. The Modern Actor. London: Hamish Hamil­ to n , 197 3 . Booth, J. B. Old. Pink»un Days. New York: Dodd, Mead, & Co.,

Borsa, Mario. The English Stage of Today. London; The Bodley Head, 1907.

2 0 3 2 0 ^ Brockett, Oscar. History of the Theatre. Boston* Allyn & B acon 3 1968^

Campbell, Mrs. Patrick. My L if e and Some L e t t e r s . Hew York* Dodd & Mead, 1922.

Cason3 H. An Introduction to Victorian Architecture. London* Art & Technology, 19^87 Clunn, H. P. The Face of London. New York: E. P. Dutton. 1937. Cran, Mrs. George. Herbert Be.erbohm Tree. London: the Bodley Head, 1907. Crosse, Gordon. Shakespearean Plavgoing 1890 - 1952. London: A. R. Mowbray & Co., 1953.

Darbyshire, Alfred. The Art of the Victorian Stage. 1907; reprint, New York; Benjamin Blom, 1969.

Donaldson, Francis. The Actor Managers.. Chicago: Henry Reg- e r y , 1970. Donohue, Joseph* Preface to The Theatrical Manager in Eng­ land. and America, ed. Joseph Donohue. Princeton* Princeton University Press, 1971. Duncan, Barrie. The St. James1s Theatre. London: Barrie & R o c k l i f f , 196V.

Ellraan, Richard. Edwardian and Late Victorian England. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967. Elzea, Rowland. Introduction to The English Dreamers, ed. David Larkin. New York; Bantam Books, 1975. Ervine, St. John. The Theatre in My Time. London* Rich and Cowan, 1933. Fergusson, Francis. The Idea of a Theatre. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 19%.

Fitzgerald, Percy. Shakesnearean Representation. London: Elliot Stock, 19O8 .

Fischer, David Hackett. Historians* Fallacies. New York: Harper and Row, 1973. Forbes - Winslow, D. D alv^. London: W. H. Allen, 19%. 2 0 ?

Harker* Joseph. Studio and Stage. London: Nisbett & Co.. 192*f.

Hibbert* H. G. A Playgoer's Memories. London: G. Richards Ltd. * 1920.

Hynes* Samuel. The Edwardian Turn of Mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press* 196b.

______. Eduardian Occasions. New York: Oxford University Press, 1972.

. James, Henry. The Scenic Art.- ed. Alan Wade. New Bruns­ wick N. J.: Rutgers University Press* 19*f8.

Laver, James. Edwardian Promenade. London: Edward Hulton, 1958. Lawrence, W. J. Old Theatre Da vs and via vs. London! Har- r a p , 1935. Leacroft, Richard. The_ Development of the English Play­ house. London: Eyre Methuen, 1973.

Leverton, VI. H. Through the Box Office Window. -London: T. Werner Laurie Ltd., 1932.

Mac^ueen - Pope, VI. Carriages at Eleven. London! Hutch­ in so n & C o ., iW o i Mander, Raymond, & Mitcheson, Joseph. The Theatres of Lon­ don. 1961; reprint, London: New English Books for Libraries* 1975* Mason, A. E. VI. Sir George Alexander and the St. James 1 s Theatre. London: Macmillan & Co., 1935 Maurois* Andre. The Edwardian Era. New York: Appleton, Cent­ ury* 1933. Minney, James. The Edwardian Age. Boston: L ittle, Brown, 196^. Nowell - Smith, Simon. Edwardian England 1901 - 191*f. London: Oxford University Press* 1964-.

Parker, John. Who*s Who in the Theatre 191*f. Boston: Small, Maynard & Co.* 191*+. 206

Pearson, Hesketh. Beerbohm Tree. His Life and Laughter. New York: Harper & Brothers, 19i?6.

. The_Last of the _Actor_Managers. London: Methuen, 1950.

Priestley, J. B. The Edwardians. New York: Harper & Row, 1970.

Sachs, Edwin 0. Modern Opera Houses and Theatres. 1896 - 1899. 3 vols. London: B. X. Batsford, 1897• Sackville - West, Victoria. The Edwardians. New York: the Literary Guild of America, 1930. Scott, Mrs, Clement. Old Davs in Bohemian London. New Yorki Frederick A. Stokes, n. d.

Schmutzler, Robert. Art Nouveau. Translated by E. Roditi. Stuttgart: Verlag Gerde Hatje, 1962; New York: H. N. Abrams, n . d.

Shakespeare League of London. Report on the Best Methods of Presenting Shakespeare's Plays- London: Chan- dos Press, 1905.

Shaw, G. Bernard. Our Theatres in the Nineties. 3 vols. London: Constable & Co. Ltd., 19^+8.

Speaight, Robert. Shakespeare on the Stage. Boston: L ittle, Brown, & Co., 1973*

St. John, Christopher, ed. Ellen Terry and Bernard Shaw. a Correspondence. New York: G, Putnam's Sons, 1932.

Tree, Sir Herbert. Thoughts and Afterthoughts. London: Cassel & Co., Ltd., 1913. Trewin, J. C, Shakespeare on the English Stage. 1900 - 196M-: A Survey of Productions. London: Barrie & Rockliff, 1964-.

Williams, Bransby. An Actorrs Storv. London: Chapman & Hall Ltd., 1909o Wilson, Edward. The_Edwardian Theatre. London: Arthur Barker Ltd., 1951. 207 PERIODICALS and NEWSPAPERS

"Antony and Cleopatra." Plav Pictorial no. 5*+ (n.d»)! special Tree issue.

Archer, William. "An Appreciation of Beerbbhm Tree." The..Nation. 9 August 1917, PP. 156-58. Aria, E. "About Playgoers." Nineteenth Century. July 1902, p p . 7 6 -8 3 .

Arnett, F. S. "Confessions of an Advance Agent." Munsev. May 1903, pp. 235-^3. "Aspects of the Stage." Nineteenth Century. December 1905, pp. 958-65. Ball, Robert Hamilton. "The Shakespeare Film as Record: Sir Herbert Tree's King John." Shakespeare Quarterly 3 (1952): 227-336. . "Tree*s King John! An Addendum." Shakespeare Quarterly 2*+ (1973): *+55-59. Barnes, J. H. "The Drama of Today and the Public's Attitude." Living Aee. 7 March 1908, pp. 601-605.

Beerbohra, Max. "King John and Other Plays." Saturday Review. 30 September 1899, PP. *+20-22. Bourchier, Arthur. "The Future of the Drama." Nineteenth C e n tu ry .

Bowen, R. A. "Taste and the Theatre." Gunton's Magazine. A p r il 190*+, p p . 328-3*+. Boyenson, H. H. "The Odd and the Eccentric in Drama." Cosmopolitan. January 190*+, pp. 279-88. Brooks, S. "The Safety of London Theatres." Harper's Weekly. 13 F e b ru a ry 190*+, p . 23*+. Corbin, J. "Playgolng In London." Scribner's Magazine. April 190*+, p p . 3 9 5 -^ 1 0 . Courtney, W. L. "Herbert Beerbohm Tree and the English Stage." Fortnightly Review. May 190*+, pp. 899-902.

Crakanthorpe, Mrs. B. A. "A Plea for a Reformed Theatre." Fortnightly Review. August 1917, pp. 209-210. 208 Davis, R. H. "Going to Plays In London." Colliers. 23 Oct­ ober 1909a p. 15. "Decadence of the English Actor." Blackwood*s Magazine. Jan­ u a ry 1901, p p . 85l ”-6 0 .

Deland, L. P. "A Plea for the Manager." Atlantic Monthly. September 1908, pp. *+92-500. "Discomforts of Theatregoers." Outlook. 31 March 1906, PP. 737-38. Dunton, E. K. "The Englishman as Playgoer." The Bookman 25 (May 1907): 276-81. "Drama and the Public Taste." Current Literature 32 (J a n ­ u a ry 1902) : p . 73 9 . Eaton. W. P. "A Question of Scenery." Atlantic Monthly. July 1911, pp. 37^-8*+. ------"Episode in a London Theatre." The Nation. 1*+ December 1905, p p . *+81- 83 .

Ford, J. L. "Holiday at the Theatre." Hamer 1 s W eekly. 2*+ Dec ember 190*+, p . 199*+• . "Why Shakespeare Languishes." Munsey. January 1903 6 2 9 -3 1 . Franklin, B. "A Theatrical Press Agent." Overland. February 1909, PP. 89-98. Frohman, Charles. "New Phases of Theatrical Management." H arness Weekly. 31 December 190*+, pp. 2022-2*+.

Frohman, D. "A Manager*s View of the Stage." Har-per*s V7eeklv. 2*+ December 190h, pp. 1988- 99 . Garnett, E. "Repertory Theatre in England." The Nation. 25 August 1909, pp. 125-26. Gilman, L. “Shakespearean Reverberations and the Doings of Sir Herbert Tree." North American Review 203 (May 1916): 761-65. Gosse, Edmund. "Revival of Poetic Drama." Atlantic Monthly. August 1902, pp. 156-66.

Graphic. An Illustrated Newsnaner (London), 1897-191^. "Great Public and the Theatre." Current Literature 28 (May 1900): 16*+. 209 Hamilton, Clayton. "Economy of Attention in Theatrical Performers." North American Review. April 1908, pp. 513-22. . "Going to the Theatre in London." The Bookman 31 (August 1910)*601-610.

. "Psychology of Theatre Audiences." Forum. October 1997s PP. 234-1+8. Hankin, St. John. "How to Run an Art Theatre in London." Fortnightly'Review. November 1907s pp. 8l4-l8. . "The Need for an Endowed Theatre in London." Fortnightly Review. December 1908, pp. 1038-4-7. "His Majesty's Theatre." Illustrated London News. 1 May 1897s P. 593. Hutchinson, H. G. "People Who Go to Plays." Living Age. 5 June 1909s PP. 6 1 3 -1 9 . Illustrated London News. 1897-1914.

"Is the Theatrical Manager Killing the Drama?" Review of Re­ views 40 (November 1909): 622

Irving, H. B. "Art and the Status of the Actor." Fortnightly Review* May 1900, pp. 743-54.

Kendall, Madge. "Liesured Public and the Stage." Cosmopol­ itan. July 1903s pp. 246-54. Klauber, A. "Playgoers Who Pose." Current Literature 34 (Jan­ uary 1903): 654. King, E. C. "Humor of Theatrical Advertisements." Colliers 20 March 1909, p. 28. * Kingston, G. "First Night Fallacies." Nineteenth Century. August 1907, pp. 272- 8 1 . . "The Public as Seen from the Stage." Nineteenth Century. January 1900, pp. 146-56.

Lee, Sir Sidney. "Shakespeare and the Modern Stage." Nineteenth Century. April 1905, pp. 601-6l4. . "Shakespeare and the Modern Stage." The Nation. 22 November 1906, pp. 444-46.

"Limits of Stage Illusion." Living Age. 3 December 1910, pp. 587-99. 2 10 Marble, A. R* "Reign of the Spectacular." Dial. 1 November 1903, pp. 297-99. "Moral for Theatrical Managers." Literary Digest 2h (Aug­ u s t 1912) : 302.

Moses, M. J. "Ho-w Tree Plays Shakespeare." Independent. 13 March 1916, pp. 387- 88.

Nathan, George Jean. "Manager and Manuscript." The Bookman 3^ (September 1911)r 6 O-6 3 . "Objections to a National Theatre." Blackwood1s Magazine . March 190^-, pp. *+27-33• Paulus, Gretchen. "Beerbohra Tree and the New Drama." University of Toronto Quarterly 27 (1957/58): 103- 1 0 5 .. Phelps, W. L. "First Night at a London Theatre." Independence. 31 January 1901, pp. 271-72.

"Predecessors of Mr. Treefs Theatre." Sketch (London), 5 May 1897, P . Schmitt, Anthony B. "Herbert Beerbohm Tree Produces The Winter!s Tale." Ohio State University Theatre Col­ lection Bulletin 17 (1970): 20-^1.

"The Spectacular Element in Drama." Living Age. 12 October 190*+, pp. 73-85. The Sketch. A Journal of Art and Actuality (London), 1896- 19037 Shaw, G. Bernard. "The Actor Manager and the Playwright." Harper*s Bazaar. November 1920, p. 65.

"Shakespeare Memorials and a National Theatre." The Nation. 16 A p r il 19083 p p . 3*+8-*f9.

Stoker, Brara. "Dead Heads." Fortnightly Review . October 1909, pp. 6*f6-58. "The Story of Seats of the Mighty." Sketch (London), 5 May 1897, pp. £- 6 .

Thomas, W. Moy. "The Coronation and the Actor Managers." Sketch (London), 13 August 1902, pp. l*f2-l*+7. Todhunter, John. "Blank Verse on the Stage." Fortnightly Review. February 1902, pp. 3*+6-60. 211 Tree, Sir Herbert Beerbohm# "Shakespeare at His Majesty's Theatre." Times (London), h October 1913 3 P# 10#. _ _ _ * - Times (London), 1896-191^. The Theatre, Monthly Review and Magazine, January - June 1597. Walbrook, H. M. "Herbert Beerbohm Tree and the Shakespear­ ia n theatre." nineteenth Century. November 1917, ' 1060- 6^ .

Wegeforth, VI. G. "Box Office Manager." Lfonincott 1 s Magazine. March 1912, pp. h-^5-56.

"What Can be Done to Help the B ritish Stage." Fortnightly Review. February 190M-, pp. 187-93*

"Ylhat Mr. Tree's Theatre Looks Like." Sketch (London), 5 May 1897. p p . 1 -3 .

Whibley, C. "Shakespeare and a National Theatre." The Nation. 16 April 1908, pp..3^8-^9. "VIho's V/ho in a F irst Night Audience at His M ajesty's Theatre." The Tatler. 29 January 1902, p. 216. Unpublished material

Haas, Thomas Booth. "Kean, Irving, and Tree! Shakespear­ ean Production Aesthetics." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 19&3* Macoraber, A. P. "Iconography of London Theatre Auditorium Architecture, 1660-1900." Ph.D. dissertation, . .Ohio State University, 1959*

Schmitt, Anthony B. "The W inter's Tale in Production." Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1970. Shandler, Donald. "American Shakespeare Festival Theatre, a Sense of Occasion." Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1972.

Vander Yacht, Douglas. "Queen V ictoria's Patronage of Charles Kean, Actor Manager." Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1970. SPECIAL COLLECTIONS 212 Enthoven Collection, Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Beerbohm Tree Collection; Harry R. Beard Collection. Promptbooks, programs, and souvenirs; photographs and portraits. Collection now housed at Bristol.

Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington D. C. Collection of programs and souvenirs from His Maj­ esty^ Theatre; Collection of art (photographs, prints, drawings, and paintings) concerning Tree and His Majesty*s Theatre. Theatre Collection, University of B ristol. Beerbohm Tree .Collection.

Theatre Collection, the Library and Museum of the Performing Arts, Lincoln Center, New York City. Collection of programs and souvenirs; scrapbook collection, clip­ pings, periodical articles. Shields Library, University of California at Davis, Special Collections Department. Herbert Beerbohm Tree Col— lection. Programs, souvenirs, promptbook, photo­ graphs. Microfilms of some of the material now at the Theatre Research Institute, Ohio State University.

Theatre Research Institute, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Microfilm copies of promptbooks, programs, and souvenirs. .APPENDIX A

CALENDAR OF PERFORMANCES AT HIS MAJESTY1 S THEATRE 1897 - 191k-

Unless otherwise indicated 3 all production runs included matinees on Wednesdays and Saturdays.

1897 Seats of the Mighty (Gilbert Parker) 28 April - June. Chand d*Habits (Catulle Mendes) 9 May - 5 Ju n e, wordless play added to above b ill.

Trilbv (Paul Potter) 7 June - 11 June.

The Red Lamp (W. 0. Tristram) 12 June - 9 July. - w ith The Ballad Monger (VI. Pollock) 12 June - 9 July.

The Silver ICev (Sydney Grundy) 10 July -—12 August. Hamlet (Shakespeare) 13 August. - special performances last night of season. Rio Vafl Winkle Hansel and Gretel k September - 2 October. - Hedgemont Opera Company Season 3 His Majesty*s Com­ pany on tour until November. The Silver Kev 2 November ~ .26 November. - w ith Katherine and Petruchio (David Garrick) 2 November - 26 November. A Man*s Shadow (R. Buchannon) 27 November - 15 January 1898. 1898

Julius Caesar (Shakespeare) 23 January - 18 June,

Haggled Robin (L . N. P a rk e r) 23 June - 22 J u ly . - closed season. 213 21*f The Termagant (L. N. Parker) 2 September - 7 October. - Olga Nethersole Season; theatre dark 7 Oct­ ober until 3 November.

The Musketeers (Sydney Grundy) 3 November 7 April 1899*

1899 Carnac Sahib (H. A. Jones) 12 April - 12 Hay.

Cautain Swift (Haddon Chambers) 13 May - 16 June. - w ith First Night (H. A. Jones) 13 May - 16 June.

The Musketeers 17 June - 7 July. - closed season. King John (Shakespeare) 20 September - 6 January 1900. 1900

Midsummer N ights Dream (Shakespeare) 10 January - 26 May.

Hip van Winkle (adp. by Tree) 30 May - 22 June. - closed season.

Julius Caesar 6 September - 27 October.

Herod (Stephen Phillips) 31 October - 22 January 1901. - closed for the mourning for Queen Victoriaa •theatre reopened 5 February. 1901

Twelfth Night (Shakespeare) 5 February - 1 June.

Constant Coquelin and Companya 3 June through close of season in July,

Twelfth Night 7 October - 19 October. The Last of the Dandies (Clyde Fitch) 2b October - 25 January 1902. - theatre dark 21 — 26 D ecem ber. 1902

Ulysses (Stephen Phillips) 1 February - 31 May.

T w e lfth N ight 2 Ju n e - 7 Ju n e . - special revival for Coronation Season. 215 M erry Wives of Windsor (Shakespeare) 10 June - 8 August. - special revival for Coronation Season* closed s e a s o n .

Tile Eternal City. (Hall Caine) 2 October - 17 January 1903. 1903 Merry Wives of Windsor 19 January - lb- February. Resurrection (Tolstoy) 17 February - 16 May. The Gordlan Knot (Claude Lowther) 20 May - 29 May. T r i lb y 30 May - 19 Ju n e .

Flodden Field (Alfred Austin) 8 J u n e . - w ith The Man Who Was (Rudyard Kipling) -> special performance* one night only. The Ballad Monger 20 June - 26 Ju n e . - w ith Flodden Field and The Man Who Was 20 June - 26 June.

T r i lb y 27 Ju n e —-8 J u ly - w ith The Man VJho YJas - closed season.

King Richard,_II (Shakespeare) 10 September - 23 December.

The. Darling, of the. Gods (Belasco) 28 December - 28 May 190*+. 190b-

The Last of the Dandies 30 May - 5 June. - w ith The Man Vino Was 30 May - 5 J u n e .

Merry Wives of Windsor 6 June - 11 June. Twelfth Might 13 June - 18 June.

Sarah Bernhardt and Company 20 June - 9 July. - closed season.

The _Temnes_t (S h a k e s p e a re ) l^t S eptem ber - 19 Ja n u ary 1905. - run cut short due to pre-existing arrangements f or _lluch.,Ado, About Ho th in g . 2X6 1905 Much Ado About Nothing (Shakespeare) 2b J a n u a ry - 2b M arch.

A Man’s Shadow 25 M arch — 15 A p r i l . - except Monday nights. H am let 2b M arch - special matinee, done "without scenery." Hamlet 27 March. - special Monday night performance, done with scenery. Trilby 3 April. - special Monday night performance. Trllbv 10 April. - special Monday night performance. FIRST ANNUAL SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL Richard II 2b A p r i l. Twelfth Nireht 25 April. Merry Wives of VJindsor 26 A pril. Hamlet 27 April. — done "without" scenery. Much Ado About Nothing 28 April. Julius Caesar 29 April.

J u l i u s C a esa r 1 May - 6 May.

Twelfth Night 8 May - 11 May.

Business.., is Business (Sydney Grundy, a dp.) 13 May - 9 J u ly . Oliver Twist (J. Comyns Carr, adp.) 10 July. - special performance, last night of season. Oliver Twist September - 16 December.

The Temoest 26 December - 7 January 1906. - special Boxing Night revival, Christmas production. 1906

Twelfth Night 8 January - 17 January.

AnLEnerny^ of the People (Ibsen) 18 January - 20 January. - special revival, with The Man Who Was 18 January - 20 January. 218 Nero (Stephen Phillips) 25 January - 26 May, Interrupted for the festival,

SECOND ANNUAL SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL

The Temnest 23 A pril. Henry IV Part I 2b A pril* Twelfth Night 25 April. Pfiiu:y-.LV.-E&iiUL 25 A p r i l. - m a tin e e . Hamlet 26 April. Much Ado About Nothing 27 A pril. Julius Caesar 28 April. Hamlet~28 A pril. - matinee, done "without scenery."

Nero resumed 30 April, closed 26 May.

C o lo n el Newcome (M. M orton, a d p .) 29 May - 7 J u ly . - closed season. The W interfs Tale 2 September — 27 O cto b e r. — His Majesty*s Company and Ellen Terry, Tree touring. C o lo n el Newcome 29 O ctober - 17 November.

Richard II 19 November —8 December.

Antony and Cleooatra (Shakespeare) 26 December - 15 March 1907.

1907 The Red Lamu 16 March —6 A pril. —w ith The Van Dvck (C. G. Lennox, adp.) 16 March - 6 April.

His Majesty*s Theatre closed 6-22 April while Tree and company on tour in Berlin.

THIRD ANNUAL SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL i The Tempest 22 April. The Y/inter’s Tale 23 April. Twelfth Night 2Jb~^A n r il. Hamlet 2^* A pril. - m a tin e e . Julius Caesar 25 April. Merry Wives of Windsor 26 April, 27 April. Julius Caesar 27 April. - m a tin e e . 219 The Red Lamp 29 A p r il — 10 May. - w ith The Van Dyck 29 April — 10 May.

J u l i u s C aesar 11 May - 17 May.

T r i lb v 18 May - 21 May. A Vfoman _of_No. Importance (H. A. Jones) 22 May - b J u ly . - special revival, with The Door Upon the Latch - added to above bill l1* June, closed July.

Special last Night of Season Program 5 July. - bits and pieces of the season's work: Act II o f C o l. Newcome . The. Van D yck. Act I I I of A Woman of No Importance . the last act of Antony and Cleopatra, and scenes from The Win- ter's Tale.

Oscar Asche and Lily Brayton Season September - January, Tree and Company on provincial tour. 1908

The Mystery of Edwin Drood (J. Comyns Carr, adp.) Jan­ uary - 1 February- T.he_ Beloved Vagabond (W. J. Locke) b February - 1 April. The Merchant of Venice (Shakespeare) b April - 30 May. - interrupted for festival.

FOURTH ANNUAL SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL Merrv Wives of Windsor 20 April. Merchant of Venice 21 April. . Twelfth Night 22 April. Merchant of Venice 22 April. - m a tin e e . Merchant of Venice 23 April. Ham let 2b A p r i l. Merchant of Venice 25 April. Hamlet 25 April. - m a tin e e .

Merchant of Venice resumes 27 April, closed 30 May. Merrv Wives of Windsor 1 June - 13

Constant Coquelin and Company 15 June - 11 July. - closed season. 220 Faust (S. Phillips & J. Comyns Carr* adp.) 6 September - 12 December.

Pinkie and the Fairies (W. G, Robertson) 19 December —13 February 1909.

1909 The Dancing Girl (H. A. Jones) 16 February - 27 March. - special revival* with Tilda!s New Hat (G. Paston) 16 February - 27 March. - as curtain raiser to the above bill. School for Scandal (R. B. Sheridan) 7 April - 19 June.

FIFTH ANNUAL SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL —moved to end of season. Merrv Wives of Vfindsor 21 June - 2b Ju n e . Tv?olfth Night 25 June. Julius Caesar 26 June, 28 June. Hamlet 29 June. Merchant of Venice 30 June. Richard III 30 June. - matinee, F. R. Benson*s Company. H am let 1 J u ly . Richard III 2 July.’ - Benson's Company. Merchant of Venice 3 July. Macbeth 3 July. - matinee* Arthur Bourchier's Company.

School for Scandal resumes 5 July* closed 10 July. - closed season. False Gods (Brieux) lV September - 2 November. T r i lb y 3 November - 2b Novem ber. - w ith The Van Dyck 3 November - 2b November. Beethoven (L. N. Parker) 2J? November - December. - w ith A Russian Tragedy (H. Hamilton, adp.) 2$ November - 6 December. - afterpiece to above bill. The Lethal Hotel (Frederick Whelan, adp.) 7 December - 15 December, curtain raiser to Beethoven.

Pinkie and the Fairies 16 December --22 January. - special Christmas play. 221 1910 Beethoven resumes 2h January3 closed 29 January. - run iterrupted for Christmas play.

The 0*Flvnn (J. H. McCarthy) 1 February - 19 March.

SIXTH ANNUAL SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL

Merrv Hives-of Windsor 28 March - 8 April. Julius Caesar 2 April. - m a tin e e . Twelfth Night 7 April. - m a tin ee. Twelfth Night 9 April. Merrv Wives of Windsor 9 April. - m a tin e e. Hamlet 11 April. Julius Caesar 12 April - 1? April. King Lear 12 April. - matinee3 Herbert Trench*s Company. Merchant of Venice 13 April. - matinee, Arthur Bourchier*s Company. Hamlet I 1* A pril. - matinee, H. B. Irving*s Company. Twelfth Night 16 April. Hamlet l 6 A p ril. - m atin e e. Taming of the Shrew 18 A p ril. - Benson's Company. Merrv Wives of VJindsor 19 April. Coriolanns 19 April. - matinee, Benson*s Company. Two Gentlemen of Verona 20 April. - William Poel and the Elizabethan Stage Society. Twelfth Night 21 April. Henrv V 21 April. - matinee, Lewis Waller and Company. Twelfth Night 22 April. Julius Caesar 23 April. Hamlet 23 April. . - matinee. Merchant of Venice 25 April, 26 A p r il. Richard II 27 April, 28 April. Merchant of Venice 29 April. Special Matinee Performance 29 April. - one act from Othello (Tree & Irving), one act from Macbeth (Bourchler). one act from The Clandest.ine_Marriage (Cyril Maude), and recitations by Madge Kendall. 222

Merchant of Venice 30 April, Tjael_£tJt3L-Kight 30 A p r i l . - m a tin e e .

Thomas Beecham Opera Season 9 May through close of season i n J u ly .

Henry VIII (Shakespeare, L. N. Parker) 1 September - 8 April 1911.

1911 SEVENTH ANNUAL SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL

Midsummer Night*s Dream 17 April - 20 May. Julius Caesar 22 May - 31 May. Midsummer Nights Dream 2.$ May. - m a tin e e . As You Like It 30 May. - matinee, Oscar Asche and Company. Merchant of Venice 1 June - 3 June. - matinee 3 June. Twelfth Night 5 June - 10 June. Richard III 6 June. - matinee, Benson and Company. Othello 8 June. - matinee, Oscar Asche*s Company. Taming of the Shrew 9 June. - matinee, Benson and Company. Henry VIII 12 June - 2h Ju n e . theatre dark 26 June, preparing for Gala. Coronation Gala Performance 27 June. Henrv vTlI 28 June - 1 July. Merry V/ives of Windsor 3 July - 15 July. Midsummer Night's Dream 6 July. - m a tin e e .

Macbeth (Shakespeare) 5 September - 13 December. Oruheus in the Underground (A. Noyes, F. Norton, Tree, adp.) 20 December - 17 February 1912. 1912 Trilbv 19 February - 30 March. Othello (Shakespeare) 9 April -.18 May. , 223 EIGHTH ANNUAL SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL Merchant of Venice 20 May - 22 May. - two performances per day. T w e lfth N ig h t 23 May - 25 May. O th e llo 25 Mav. - m a tin e e . Henry VIII 27 May - 31 May. Twelfth Might 31 May. - m a tin e e . Othello 1 June. Twelfth Night 1 June. - m a tin e e . Julius Caesar 3 June - 5 June. Inhigenia in Taurus (Euripides) ^ June. - matinees Granville-Barker*s Company. Merry VJives of Windsor 6 Ju n e - 8 . June • - two performances per day. Oliver Twist 11 June - 6 J u ly . - closed season.

Drake (L. N. Parker) 3 September --.12 March 1913.

1913 Hanpy_ I s la n d (M. L en g y l) 2 hr March - 9 April. School for Scandal 12 April - 23 May.

The Perfect Gentleman (V/. S. Maughm, Moliere) 27 May - 7 June. - w ith Ariadne auf Naxos (Strauss) 27 May - 7 June.

NINTH ANNUAL SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL Merchant of Venice 9 June - l1! June. Twelfth Night 16 June - 21 June. Julius Caesar 23 June - 28 June. Romeo and Juliet 30 June - 7 July. - closed season.

Joseph and his Brethren (L. N. Parker) 2 September - l*f January 191V.

191^ Darling _of the Gods 17 January - 28 March.

Pygmalion (G. B. Shaw) 11 April - 18 July. - closed season. Drake (L. N. Parker) 19 August - 11 Novem ber. - special revival.

Henry IV (Shakespeare) 15 Novemeber - 12 December. DavitLCoPuerfield (L. N. Parkera adp.) 2*+ December. APPENDIX B

SPECIAL EVENTS AT HIS MAJESTY'S THEATRE

A REPRESENTATIVE LIST

1897 28 A p r i l Inaugural Ceremony* Seats of the Mighty (G. Parker) 1898

2 b May Savage Club and Prince of Wales Hospital fund Matineej Sir Henry Irving and Compnay in Waterloo Veteran and His M ajesty's Theatre Company in the Forum Scene from Julies Caesar. 1899 19 January Kitchner Matinee for Gordon College* Karthoum; Dancing Girl (H.A. Jones), revival with original cast and First Night (H.A*Jones)* with "all star" cast.

2 b May Her Majesty the Queen*s Birthday Matinee. 1900

13 February Entertainment by Mrs. Arthur Paget for the Widows and Or- phnas of the Household Troopsj "living statues" by society ladies* a "Masque" by L.N.Parker. Royalty present. 1901 1 January Special "Professional" matinee for the theatrical profes­ sion. Herod. (S. Phillips)* Tree's "Happy New Year Greet­ ing?' to his colleagues.

225 1903 8 June Guy's Hospital Benefit Matinee; two new plays, Flodden Field (A, Austin, Poet Laureate) and The Man Who Was (R, Kipling). King Edward present.

22 June Q. A. Sanitorium Matinee; Forbes-Robert son in Carrots. The Man Who. Was, Seymour Hicks and Elaline Terriss in Bluebell in Fairyland. Princess of Baltenburg present.

190 b

I March Dutchess of Albany's Matinee for the National Hospital for Paralysis and Epilepsy; H. M. the King, Patron; the Senate Scene from Jhlius Caesar. The Case of the Rebellious Susan (H.A. Jones), Garden Scene from Much Ado About Nothing, and A Pantomime Rehearsal (C. Clay).

23 June Clement Scott Matinee; Sir Henry Irving as "Corporal BrewsterTree as "The Ragpicker," George Alexander in Flower of the Rose. Forbes-Robertson, Rejane, Marie Tem­ pest, George Grossmith, aid Arthur Bourchier in recitations.

5 J u ly B ritish Opthalmic Hospital in Jereusalem Matinee; King and Queen present. Scenes from Merrv Wives of Windsor. a pro­ gram of operatic arias, M. Constant Coquelin, and tableaux vivants of the history of the Order of Jereusalem by Wil­ lia m P o e l. 190? 1? June Lional Brough Matinee; seven one act plays presented.

II December St, Bartholomew's Hospital Fund Building Matinee; The Man Who Was. H arrison's Hayraarket Company in Privy Council, imitations by Ida Valli, program of dances, A. Bourchier in A Marriage Has Been Arranged (Sutro), music hall turns by George G ro ssm ith and G eorge G roves, C h a rle s Wyndham i n Cap­ tain Drew on Leave. George Alexander in Act I of If I Were King. I heard it on the Telephone by the Palace Girls. 1906

22 May Matinee for the Royal Free Children's Hospital; arranged 227 by the Princess of Schleswig - Holstein* Cantain Swift, special souvenirs sold by society ladies. l*f Ju n e Matinee for Princess Frederica’s Home for Gentlewomen; prologue, musical concert, The Ballad Monger. Third Time for the Asking, recitations by H.B. Irving.

1907 28 M arch Matinee for Children’s Hospital; The Red Lamp, program of music by Tschaikovsky and Rubenstein.

7 April - l*f April His Majesty’s Theatre Company, as official state repres­ entatives of Britain,' tour Berlin.

2 J u ly Charity Matinee; bill of singers and dancers,' bits of Julius Caesar, the second act of Miss Tommy (Jerome K. Jerome). 1908 28 A p r il 21st Anniversary of Mr. Tree’s Management, 1 1 t h B ir th d a y of His Majesty’s Theatre; Merchant of Venice.

1910 21 November Special Sunday Matinee for Funds for Children; Special pro­ gram of recitations by Tree, H.B. Irving, A. Bourchier and o t h e r s . 30 November R istori Matinee; scenes from Merchant of Venice, recitations by H. B* Irving, Forbes-Robertson In scenes from Hamlet. Geo­ rge Alexander in The Thief. Marie Tempest, Oscar Asche and Lily Brayton in scenes from The Taming of the Shrew. Genev­ ieve Ward in scenes from Macbeth wearing "the mantle of R istori," Cyril Maude and John Martin-Harvey reciting.

1 9 1 1 28 February Matinee for the Children’s League of Kindness; The Van Dyck, program of short pieces with Marie Tempest, Arthur Bourchier, Vesta Tilley, Marie Lohr, and Madge Kendall. Royalty present. 228

7 F e b ru a ry Boy Scouts Matinee.

5 J u n e Special Matinee for the Children of the London County Council of Schools; Henry VIII. Pit and Gallery free, other prices lowered substantially.

19 December "Professional" invitation performance of Orpheus in the Underground (Offenbach, Tree, A. Noyes, F. Norton}• 1.912 1*4- May Titanic Matinee.

1 9 1 3 7 F e b ru a ry Boy Scouts Matinee; Drake (L;N. Parker).

1 91^ 18 A p ril The Silver Kev: special revival for the King and Queen and King George's Actor's Pension Fund. Some original 1 8 8 2 c a s t members featured, "all-star" cast.

21 A ugust Boy Scout Matinee; Drake.' Revival caused by the events fol­ lowing Sarajevo.

1 9 1 ? 9 February Entente Matinee.