Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Václav Opatřil

A Debate of Modern Dramatic Realism in the US in the Late 19th Century: The Case of

Margaret Fleming by James A. Heme

Bachelor's Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Tomáš Kačer, Ph.D.

2019 / declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

Author's signature Acknowledgement

I would like to thank my supervisor and everyone in the world with an open enough mind to keep me going through all of this. Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. The Voices of Realism 5

3. A Singular Fictional Woman in Time 15

4. Critics and Supporters 23

5. Louder and Silenced 30

6. Followers in Footsteps 34

7. Conclusion 38

Works Cited 42

Resume 48 1. Introduction

The panorama of American drama in the later part of the 19th century was not a very diverse one, as opposed to the various movements seen in the century following it. We now consider elements of realism as essential and matter-of-course tools of the modern dramatist which seem to have been there for centuries. The truth is that things have not always been this way, and that melodrama, a typically bombastic and sentimental genre, dominated the stage in the epoch discussed here (Richardson 153), and this status quo was only gradually altered both by outside influence coming from Europe (where Ibsen and others started to push for realism much earlier than in America), from other forms of art such as prose, or from various literary theorists, as well as by prominent figures from within, daring enough to shed the conventions of the time in favour of something before unseen. One such figure was James A.

Heme, whose now-best-known 1890 play Margaret Fleming stands apart from its contemporaries and may have provided the necessary impulse for the flourishing of realism coming later.

James A. Heme was born in 1839 in Cohoes, New York (Quinn, Representative 515), and after some years spent working in a factory, decided at the age of twenty to pursue a career in theatre, starting as an actor, mostly not in lead, but character roles, travelling around the continent and staying for periods of time in Washington and California, paying a visiting to Canada as well, and throughout this acting even opposite the then-famous Edwin Booth

(Griffiths 8-11). He gained experience in managing a theatre at the Grand Opera House in

New York or Maguire's Theatre in San Francisco (11). While there, he married his second wife, Katharine Corcoran, who would turn out to be an influence on his life as well as his work (Denison). Together they had five children, and three of his daughters - Dorothy, Julie and Chrystal, would go on to become actresses.

1 During this earlier period of his life, Heme would stage plays by other authors or

rework popular literary works, especially those by Dickens for the stage (Heme, "Art" 365).

The success of his first play, Hearts of Oak (1879) co-written with David Belasco, marked a

shift for him (Watt 235), and he decided to turn to writing more from then on. His other

notable plays include Drifting Apart (1888), the aforementioned controversial Margaret

Fleming (1890), Shore Acres (1893), which, along with Hearts of Oak was his most

financially successful (Quinn, A History 126), The Reverend Griffith Davenport (1899) and

his last play, Sag Harbor (1900) (Gannon 105-106). He died in New York in 1901 (Quinn,

Representative 517), leaving behind some popular and universally appreciated works, as well

as an especially daring one.

It would be unfair to state that Heme was the sole proponent of dramatic realism in

his time - however, these attempts, such as those of Steele Mackaye or David Belasco (an

associate of Heme for some time during his career) were mostly slighter deviations still well

embedded within the niche of melodrama. Realist theory was developed by Henry James

(who, although much more renowned as a novelist and short story writer, produced also a

large number of plays) and William Dean Howells (Robinson 154), a central representative

of the early stage of the American realist novel, both of whom, however, were primarily

concerned with fiction. The first part of this thesis will be dedicated to precisely these voices

either giving shape to an early, primitive form of realism, or giving the movement a theoretical

background to lean on.

In addition, it should also be noted that James A. Heme did not adhere to the (then-

forming) realist principles for the whole of his career, and that he himself also underwent a journey that comprised of more adventurous forays as well as "safe bet" returns to the

conventional (Fearnow 178). He did, nonetheless, do a significant deal to help dramatic

realism both in terms of theory, in his essay "Art for Truth's Sake in the Drama", which is its

2 only American manifesto (Robinson 118), and in terms of actual dramatic works, among which Margaret Fleming, no doubt, is the finest example, but which can just as well be viewed as one continuum, an oeuvre in which a truthfulness to life frequently shows itself in one way or the other.

The production history of Margaret Fleming and its various iterations is complicated and broken apart by gaps of seeming silence. It first appeared before the eyes of the audience in July 1890 in Lynn, Massachusetts, after which, as a result of a joint effort and in the face of significant setbacks, it received two runs in Boston during 1891 (Quinn, Representative

516). It was commercially unsuccessful, but garnered endorsement from several important intellectuals and literary figures of the era. It presented several things the audiences of the day weren't, and presumably couldn't have been prepared for - from its absence of soliloquy and breaking from melodramatic outbursts of emotion, to the notable, now almost notorious scene where the titular heroine prepares to breastfeed a child which is not her own. It also "turned

[its] small audience's attention to sexual infidelity in middle-class marriage" (Paul 202), pointing subtly, but bitingly at a double standard of the time. Those were some of the aspects that place it in sharp contrast to the rest of the dramatic production of the time, and are likely also the very same which brought about its failure to amass sufficient revenue. The reaction of the public and the reasons behind it will be further divulged in the middle part of the thesis.

Also left to be desired is an explanation as to how such a work came about in an epoch like this.

If the play was indeed ahead of its time in the US context, and as shocking for its contemporaries as described, further questions arise: Was it ground-breaking enough to spearhead a new movement? Can a direct influence it had on later playwrights be traced? And what was it that prevented it from being staged some years later, once the ice had been broken and it could finally be appreciated by the masses? That is the focus of the third part of the

3 thesis, which follows the years immediately after its staging, and also goes later into the 20th century, when the play was rediscovered and enjoyed a critical reappraisal of the kind that few people in the 1890s could imagine.

Margaret Fleming was described as "epoch-marking" (often misquoted as epoch- making) by William Dean Howells in his influential Editor's Study column (478), and is now rightfully hailed as a forerunner of dramatic realism, with its author being called the

"American Ibsen" (Perry), and these facts should not be viewed lightly. Some of this renown may, however, be simply the result of later reactions with the benefit of hindsight. This thesis aims to address that as well: the apparent discrepancy between the play's lack of success in its time and its being praised and singled out by critics and literary scholars in later periods.

This is because the latter may as well have been caused by the search for a missing link in the development of realism that was then somewhat artificially made to fit. The aim of the thesis is not, however, to dispute that Margaret Fleming had all the necessary qualities of a ground• breaking, status quo-altering work - merely to consider to what extent it actually achieved this breaking of new ground, and how much the stifling conditions of the time it was premiered affected the end result.

4 2. The Voices of Realism

The beginnings of what we now call dramatic realism trace its first solid and discernible roots in America to the latter half of the 19th century. Some of the prominent playwrights of the period mentioned above (aside from James A. Heme) included Dion Boucicault (c. 1820-

1890), Steele Mackaye (1842-1894), David Belasco (1854-1931) and William Gillette (1855-

1937) (Griffiths 1), all of whose work was, understandably, aimed mostly at the average theatregoer of the time, whose taste was for sentimental and sensational melodrama. However incorrect it would be to state that this scene was entirely stale and repeated the same formula over and over, it must be stated that for some time, it appeared that nothing needed to be changed about this mode of expression as long as it drew audiences. Several key players tried to alter this status quo in their own ways, though not truly producing a brand of realism of their own as Heme later managed - the results being "every bit as varied as the melodramas with which they contended" (Richardson 154).

The major elements of dramatic realism, for the purposes of this thesis, will be defined as an attempt to present true-to-life characters with a developed psychological side, whose motivations to act as they do are believable and can be understood via their mental processes, all of this taking place in an often rather stripped-down, non-sensational environment with an emphasis on telling a story that could conceivably happen in real life, as opposed to a contrived one. Often present is also an element of social commentary, with a realist play tackling a sensitive issue of the time, albeit at times not overtly.

On the other hand, the typical elements of melodrama, which Heme largely jettisoned, were sensationalism, a sense of adventure, unproblematized morality of the plays, and many others. The plays were usually welcoming and easily accessible to the viewer by the use of

"contemporary situations or events easily recognizable to an audience for action fundamentally unrelated to the issues characterizing the actual social or political situation" (Griffiths 3). To an

5 audience of today, it may seem unthinkable to have a play about the pre-Civil War era that does not deal with the issue of slavery, or to have, say, World War I serve only as backdrop to the action, yet this was essentially what the audience of the time desired, as opposed to a deeper analysis of the given period and horrors of the given war. Such is the case for instance with

Bronson Howard's Shenandoah, which had its premiere just a year before Margaret Fleming, in 1889 (Griffiths 6).

One particular subtype of play (a loose one, at that) came with a sense of hope that things may be changing - the so-called "local color plays", which "reflect the customs, scenes and ideas of New England, the South, the Middle West, the far West and particular locales such as

New York City" (Meserve 152). These plays showed life with the particular flavour that the viewers might recognize from their own lives, and enjoyed a degree of popularity with works by playwrights still firmly rooted in melodrama such as Augustus Thomas (Meserve 153) or

William Harrigan, called the "American Goldoni" for paying attention to the working people, who believed in a "realist drama laced with farce and melodrama" (154). It may be noted that the local atmosphere of New England was an influence on James A. Heme as well, and his

Shore Acres was a prime example of American rural dramas (Hapgood 63), showing that this was also part of his journey towards realism.

Leaving the aforementioned Shenandoah aside, Bronson Howard may be seen as yet another contributor to realism with his treatment of American business. In The Henrietta

(1887), he presents a "complicated mixture of realism, satire, and melodrama" (Richardson

179). With his addressing of current issues in a humorous way, he breaks some of the conventions of the time. This rebounds in an unfortunate manner, however, since this satirical tone makes his characters lose believability in the service of becoming tools for this satire - becoming "little more than pasteboard figures who represent various political positions" (180).

6 It would appear, then, that this lighter way of progressing was not the right direction for realist drama, and that an emphasis had to be placed on developing characters.

As for the realism of character, two critics interestingly ascribe the accomplishment of this feat to different playwrights - Richardson to Bronson Howard and Steele Mackaye (169),

Quinn to James A. Heme himself (A History, 123). These authors, writing practically at the same time, are perhaps better viewed not as distinct streams, but as parts of a larger movement away from the mainstream, with Heme being more extreme and taking this ongoing process to lengths that previous playwrights had not dared. Quinn calls both his Margaret Fleming and

Shore Acres character studies (A History, 141, 147) and sees the author as rising above the other dramatists of the time mainly due to his beginnings with more old-fashioned productions and the fact that he "grew above it and that in him appeared the combination of the playwright and the actor" (129). He used experience from both these aspects of his career to make his characters into a before-unseen realist shape.

All of the above are predominantly textual characteristics, found within the given plays themselves; yet just as important for melodrama was its transition from text to stage - sometimes beyond the control of the actual writer - , during which a lot might be added in terms of props and stage design. The aforementioned David Belasco may be cited as an influential player here in terms of realism, with his stage designs, however bombastic, at least helping to bring what is happening on the stage closer to what these events looked like in reality. We need only mention a few examples from late 19th century to illustrate this - a production of Ben-Hur including a "chariot race with real horses on a revolving treadmill" (Griffiths 5), or, on the more bombastic side, a production of Mackaye's Hazel Kirke featuring more than 200 singers. On the whole, as Griffiths writes, "such elaborate scenic effects seemed to obviate the need for intimate psychological character portrayal" (5), something which Margaret Fleming would break from, as shall be seen later.

7 An as-yet unmentioned aspect was the acting itself. Steele Mackaye is noted by Arthur

Hobson Quinn as bringing a "quiet, restrained quality" to the stage, concluding that his contribution "is more significant in the history of the theatre than in the history of the drama, but in the former his valiant struggles for naturalness helped in the general movement towards realism" (126). This paragraph and the preceding one help us realize that for a true realist production to take place, much more needed to change than what was written in the actors' scripts - that is, the approach to acting, directing and stage design itself. Quinn also strikes a correct note with "general movement" - for it at the time indeed did not possess much clear delineation, and therefore we may find contributions to it coming from various, however unexpected places and however small. As evidence of that, it may be mentioned that Mackaye's own influence was not one-sided, and he may also be thanked for his construction of "stages that allowed for more rapid scene changes and a variety of machinery to create complex lighting effects" (Richardson 169).

In a similar manner, Taubman calls the new realism of this time "a matter of superficial details" (109), citing for instance Thomas Bailey Aldrich, whose plays' "chief virtue was their natural and familiar settings" (108). Similarly, according to Richardson's view of what was then considered realism, "the term ... served more to evoke unrealized aspirations" (154), and both of these critiques strike the heart of the matter - any realist elements were implemented gradually and mostly still in the services of pure effect. If the reader of today was to approach these plays in expectation of realistic characters and plot, they would most likely emerge with laughter or severe disillusionment.

To name another dramatist of the time, Dion Boucicault theorized as early as in 1877

(preceding Heme) the existence of a "realistic", and opposite it a "transcendental" drama, the first being a reflection of its period and featuring "life-size" characters, and the second term describing melodrama (Rebhorn 105). However, his own work does not strictly follow this

8 division, as seen in his seminal play The Octoroon. The standard situation for many melodramas is present here - slavery and slave characters are dealt with in the play, but used for effect rather than problematized, as is the case with the "noble redskin" character, who serves to drive the action towards an epic final act including "the burning of a Mississippi riverboat" (Taubman

103). Boucicault argues that "the liberty of imagination should not be sacrificed to arbitrary restrictions and traditions" (qtd. in Rebhorn 105), showing discontent with both modes and trying to search for a new drama himself. Such approaches were not unique in the time, but they lacked the unification that would help them become a movement - which, arguably, might have prophesied their unsuccess.

In the period spoken of here, there was, according to Meserve, there was a notable lack of success in writing both fiction and drama among realist figures, and "the list of those who tried and failed is impressive - Mark Twain, Bret Harte, Henry James, Hamlin Garland, Stephen

Crane..." (156). While works by realist novelists did get adapted for the stage, as mentioned before, there was nobody in the American scene to successfully bridge the gap between the two forms of art, with the possible exception of the aforementioned William Dean Howells, a major realist fiction writer, whose realist plays were, however "enjoyed mainly by amateur theatre groups" (Meserve 152). One ought to bear in mind that in fiction, the realist tradition had deeper roots than in drama, having been established by the work of Elizabeth Barstow Stoddard or

Howells himself in the sixties and seventies (Quinn 125), and therefore having such a mediator could have significantly sped up the creation of drama. Despite the failures of the aforementioned attempts at writing both worthy fiction and drama, some success was achieved in realist dramatic theory.

On this theoretical layer, Henry James was one of those who, since the 1860s had criticized the "sentimentality which made a rosy view of human nature possible" (Emerson 161) in his reviews. His campaign for realism was aimed mostly at fiction, not at drama, perhaps

9 best represented in The Art of Fiction (1884), where he claims that "the air of reality ... seems to me to be the supreme virtue of a novel" (James 6), but as the dramatic world and the world of fiction overlapped (as with Heme's own adaptations of Dickens), his influence is not to be diminished. Emerson writes: "in the same breath in which James called for realism, he criticized it and invoked the touch of idealism which he felt must accompany it" (161), an invocation which Heme might have answered, since the idealism and "preaching" nature of his plays were sometimes pointed out by critics.

Called "The Dean of American Letters" (Campbell), William Dean Howells, another theorist and man of many professions, prolifically writing criticism alongside fiction and drama, was another voice that helped shape the direction of realism, notably in his Criticism and

Fiction. He claims here that "the ugly delights as well as the beautiful" - the awareness of which was sorely missing from the drama of the time, presumably because of the line of thinking that people would not frequent theatre houses just to see something ugly. His influence was felt both through his own art, and his extensive essays and critical works, in which he wrote on subjects such as Ibsen, Zola or Tolstoy (Campbell) , all of them Europeans whose influence was nonetheless felt in the United States. He also did much to endorse fellow Americans, often aspiring writers such as Hamlin Garland or Stephen Crane (Campbell), and lent his support also to James A. Heme himself, as shall be seen later.

There were several discordances between the two theorists, James and Howells, with

Howells holding the real as opposed to the ideal (as was a fairly common conception) and professing hope that eventually "the common, average man, who always 'has the standard of the arts in his power,' will have also the courage to apply it, and will reject the ideal grasshopper"

{Criticism), seeing it as a sort of natural direction for art that will come from the people themselves. His treatment of realism is as radical as his definition of it, calling it "nothing more and nothing less than the truthful treatment of material" (Crow 92). Far more mercilessly than

10 James, he sought "to reverse tradition aesthetic conceptions of dramatic structure" (Richardson

155) and felt strongly "the necessity of for realist drama to find its touchstone in the inherently inconclusive material of "real life"" (156), something in which James was more benevolent, in line with his previously mentioned touches of idealism.

The two also disagreed on the subject of acting. While both recognized the need for

"consistency of portrayal" from actors to make a good play (Richardson 158), James felt that actors cannot use the same subdued style they use in realist plays for prior drama, such as

Shakespeare (Richardson 157). Howells, on the other hand, felt that this new style was inherently superior and that it "implicitly revealed the overblown and essentially false nature of the drama that had previously dominated the repertoire" (157). In many respects, James seems to have more respect for the past and to be more compromising, while Howells, always understanding of the needs to give the up-and-coming writers a place in the spotlight, had more faith in the new movement he saw taking form.

The disagreement between these two key figures helps to uncover deep-rooted problems that may have contributed to the fact that realism's way into drama was not as smooth and swift as into fiction. As Robinson writes, "the principles of realist doctrine - antiromanticism, scientific coolness, skepticism - lose their allure to audiences beguiled, instead, by sensuous artifacts" (111), those artifacts naturally being most of the other plays that were available for the theatregoers at the time. Realism in its early stage was a movement unsure of its footing and this uncertainty also projected itself into the issue of how to attract audiences used to rather more simple and digestible spectacles. This issue stalled or set back several of the early attempts to apply these realist principles, not excluding Margaret Fleming.

Some of the aspects of the evolution of drama that was going on at the time can be found even in the career "the greatest realist playwright of the period", James A. Heme himself

(Richardson 159), and in his theories on drama. It is therefore appropriate to consider also the

11 formation of such an outstanding artist at a time like this, as it may serve as an example of said process and may shed some more light on how the realist movement itself came about.

Representing a transition of sorts, Heme is an intriguing subject to many; there is, however,

"little concord among critics as to the exact influences upon Heme" (Bucks & Nethercott 312)

- as to that, one can cite a wide array of contemporary sources and later assessments, and yet it is hard to cut this number down to a smaller amount of prime motivators.

In the following paragraphs, a number of such texts will be analysed in order to help the reader form a more fleshed-out view of Heme as a person firmly embedded in the cultural climate of his time. Perhaps the closest and most personal testimony available as to that is that of Hamlin Garland, who became a close friend and collaborator of the Hemes, in his piece about the couple "Mr. and Mrs. Heme". He, similarly to Heme, had an interest in science and this topic occupied much of their discussions (Waggoner 66) and often took interest in the same books. Garland describes that: "In their home the oft-quoted volumes of Spencer, Darwin,

Fiske, Carlyle, Ibsen, Valdes, Howells, give evidence that they not only kept abreast but ahead of the current thought of the day" ("Mr. and Mrs.", 551). Here Garland, never one to spare a word of praise for Heme, paints a picture from which it becomes less surprising that a couple as well-read as this would become dissatisfied with the overall atmosphere of this era of drama.

One name from the above gets mentioned alongside Heme far more than the others, and that is the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen, a pioneer of realism in Europe along with others such as August Strindberg. The formerly popular opinion that the explanation of Heme's transformation into a realist "must be explained without recourse to any influence of foreign literature" (Bucks & Nethercott 312) is now largely obscured by substantial evidence that already at the time Margaret Fleming was produced "Ibsen was being discussed everywhere, and when people saw Heme's play they were immediately reminded of the Norwegian" (Bucks

& Nethercott 324), despite the fact that it had not been long since the first translations of him

12 started appearing in America (322). Bucks and Nethercott also find noted similarities between

Margaret Fleming and Ibsen's plays "A Doll's House" (322) and "Ghosts" (323), especially in their description of the role of women in a family and their social standing. John Steven Paul comes with a definition of a movement called Ibsenism - "drama that revolved around new ideas about the roles of women in society, about familiar structure, and about sex" (202), something that Heme with his most important play can certainly be seen as subscribing to.

What is also certain about the European influence on Heme comes, to name one instance, from a discussion about the German playwright Sudermann that his friend and fellow realist writer Hamlin Garland describes in his travelogue "On the Road with James A. Heme", but it is unclear whether there was any direct influence - such as by him having seen or read a play. What clearly did influence him was Charles Dickens and his characters, the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin (see above), the thinker Herbert Spencer, or the economic views of

Henry George (Hewitt 166), of whom he was a staunch proponent. Both Hamlin Garland, who became a friend of his after seeing an 1888 performance of Drifting Apart (Garland, "On the

Road"), and William Dean Howells, to whom Garland introduced Heme (Edwards 74), likely also shaped his views on realism, and, as will be seen later, Garland's enthusiasm was much of what kept Margaret Fleming going at least for the limited time it did. Overall, as seen from this mix, it becomes clearer that while clearly Heme was a man who kept up with the time and the events in his country, the non-American influences on him ought not to be discounted.

Heme's own realist theories are important as they use drama as the focal point (he never published any fiction) and also because of his experience from a lifetime of acting in and producing melodramas, which he reflects on in "Old Stock Days in the Theatre". From the title, it can already be sensed that he is examining something rapidly growing obsolete. "As a believer in evolution, I know that nothing is stable," he writes (401). This is just one example of science having an impact on his dramatic style, which Waggoner calls an "anticipation of naturalism"

13 (63). In Margaret Fleming, Heme uses the, now dated, medical knowledge about glaucoma as a crucial plot point (532), and he regularly draws on other sciences in work as well, including psychology (Waggoner 64). Science was (and is) a solid source of "truth" in life and something

Heme could use as groundwork for his plays to give them a sense of the real.

In "Art for Truth's Sake in the Drama", Heme contrasts the titular form of art with "Art for Art's Sake" (361), which he sees as still-prevalent at the time. The qualities of the first are its seriousness, emphasis on humanity, and being representative of a larger truth, the latter emphasizes beauty, aesthetic quality and fineness (362). In calling the former "the higher art"

(369), he seems to adhere more to Howells's view than that of James's compromising one, but his stance is more non-conflicting and is not to be directly compared with the others, also for the sheer fact that the volume of realist theory that he produced is far thinner than that of the other two. Nonetheless, the quality and vision of this essay are hard to contend with, and Heme ends on the effective note that about the purpose of drama: "To interest and to instruct ... It strikes at unequal standards and unjust systems. It is as unyielding as it is honest" (370). This prediction would turn out to be accurate and fulfilled by future socially and politically aware dramas.

Before we idealize Heme as an almost saintly avatar of realism, it is perhaps appropriate to come back to his background. It should be noted that Heme did not write realistic drama from the very start of his career, nor did he ever replicate the realism of Margaret Fleming after the end of its run (Edwards 58). His first original works after years of adapting and starring in plays by others were with David Belasco (notably Hearts of Oak, his breakthrough) were in the melodramatic fashion, and a similar statement applies to The Minute Men of 1774-1775, which uses the American Revolutionary War much like Shenandoah used the Civil War. Heme's play

Drifting Apart, his second solo foray and an early temperance play, showed with some honesty and truth to life the effects of alcohol on a marriage, but also contained a melodramatic dream

14 sequence which broke up this effort at realism. As Rebhorn puts it, the play "is a work clearly caught in the cusp between two different theatres and two different cultures" (180).

Garland's reaction to it at the time, however, was positive, if not delighted (badly received though it was by the public) - perhaps because he had seen past its flaws and recognized something which he and Heme could work on together and which could bring about the change he had long been working towards. He said after seeing it that the play "deals with the essentials of American domestic life" (qtd. in Rebhorn 180). Garland later approached

Heme and would soon become his supporter. Despite this, he is unlikely to have had a direct input in the writing of Margaret Fleming - which he nonetheless claims he was "instantly and profoundly interested". He would soon after that find another role for himself and become an essential companion to Heme. Only with him on board could the history of Margaret Fleming and its attempt at dramatic realism truly begin to be written.

15 3. A Singular Fictional Woman in Time

When referring to the text of Margaret Fleming, it is important to establish what one is in fact referring to - the text we know today is, metaphorically put, "a memorial stone to an irretrievable original" (Robinson 124). While even the first version did not last long unrevised, the situation is further complicated by the fact that the original manuscript burned in the Heme house fire of 1909, after which the text was recreated from memory by Katharine Heme, who had experience playing the titular part and played a role in the creation of the play as well

(Quinn, Representative 516). The play was changed again this a series of recreation leading up to its publication by Arthur Hobson Quinn (Shepherd-Barr 103).

This means that, for the purposes of a textual analysis, what we have at our disposition may very well be the work of more people, including "friends, editors and potential producers"

(Robinson 124). However, taking into account this eventuality, as well as considering other first-hand accounts from the day, it is possible to, with some accuracy, recreate the play and get an idea of the features all of the versions share, and which are often the crucial elements that made the play unique in its time. Robinson fittingly gives another purpose to undertake this task and to consider it worthwhile: "the textual unreliability that audiences must reconcile themselves to on seeing Margaret fosters a flexibility that suits Heme's larger, ethical project"

(125), that flexibility being a useful tool in studying much of the sources from those days. This thesis uses said ambiguity, among other purposes, in order not to excessively dwell on details and over-analyse what may have been changed time and time again, but rather to draw more general conclusions and focus on a wider picture.

The play, as we know it today, begins in the private office of mill owner Philip Fleming.

And office boy called Bobby enters bringing mail, and while conversing with his employee,

Philip comes upon a letter which he "pauses over ... with a worried frown" (Heme, Margaret

521). Bobby leaves and the mill manager, Foster, enters, for another conversation showing

16 Philip's relationship with his subordinates, also revealing the financial troubles he is in. The next visitors are the foreman of the mill, Williams, followed by Joe Fletcher, a comical figure

- a drunkard and peddler who used to be an employee at the mill. The two chat about their lives,

Joe tries to sell Philip some of his stock, and later Philips tells him to stop by his house, as his wife, Margaret, might "want something" (524). After Joe comes the most important visitor of the scene - Dr. Larkin. In a conversation that swiftly reaches a breaking point, the doctor tells

Philip about a child that his former mistress Lena has just given birth to. The girl is in a bad shape and soon to die, and the doctor makes no secret of his disgust with Philip and the blame he places on him. Philip tries to defend himself and laments that "If my wife hears of this, my home will be ruined" (525). Dr. Larkin recommends he keep his wife away from the whole thing and demands that Philip visit Lena before she dies.

In the second scene of the first act, we see Philip's cozy home where his wife, Margaret, has their baby, Lucy, in her lap, and is talking to the German4jorn nurse Maria about the nurse's life story. The audience learns that Maria's sister Lena is dying, and it is also revealed that Joe

Fletcher is her estranged husband. Maria then goes to sleep and Philip arrives, much later than he had been expected to. He and Margaret have a husband-and-wife conversation, during which disagreements are apparent, but it does result in some showing of tenderness, too. He attempts to have the deed to the house written in Margaret's name because of his financial difficulties, but she refuses, saying "I don't want the responsibility. Suppose something happened to me"

(530).

At the start of the second act, the reader finds out what this "something" that might happen to her might be with Dr. Larkin's diagnosis of glaucoma in Margaret. Philip learns from him that any "great physical or mental suffering" (533) could cause her to go blind - a crucial plot point. Margaret is then asked by Maria to go see the dying Lena, as her condition is worsening,

17 to which she agrees. The act ends with a depiction (or rather an illusion) of an untroubled relationship and homely happiness once more before she heads out to see Lena on her deathbed.

The third act takes place in the cottage of a Mrs. Burton. Lena has died off-stage and Dr.

Larkin enters. He and Mrs. Burton talk about Lena's child and its fate. Margaret enters, much to the doctor's surprise, and finds out from Maria that she is too late for her visit. Despite Dr.

Larkin's effort to spare her the shock, the truth about the child actually being Philip's comes to light through a letter Lena had written to Philip after his visit. Maria then draws a pistol and threatens to go and kill Philip before being subdued by Margaret. Margaret then wishes to see

Philip and asks for him to be sent to the cottage, which the doctor advises against, citing concern for her health. She asks him to leave. As the act ends, Margaret's blindness nonetheless progresses, with her saying: "Bring a lamp—it's getting dark here" (540), before hearing Lena's child wailing and coming to comfort it. When nothing works, she "unbuttons her dress to give nourishment to the child" (540), just in time to be seen by the stunned Philip who has just come in through the door.

The final act takes place seven days later. Margaret, now blind, is visited by the doctor. She has taken Lena's child home to raise alongside her own. After a chat, the doctor informs her that Philip, who has been missing for the past days, is waiting outside, too shy to come speak to her. She comes outside to confront him and he is shocked to see her blindness. He is apologetic and asks her: "Will you ever forget? Will you ever forgive?" (542). Philip is overjoyed at her seeming willingness to take him back, but she clarifies that while she welcomes his return and she wishes to stay with him and their children, she cannot be the wife to him that she used to be. The ending of the play is somewhat hopeful, with Philip stepping out into the garden where both of his children from different mothers are playing.

It is the last act that was the most changed one after the initial run. The original tone of the rest of the play was bleaker, and the time gap between the scene at Mrs. Burton's cottage and

18 the reunion of Margaret and Philip was, in this version, four years rather than a single week.

This version is known to us from an 1890 account by Hamlin Garland who was in the attendance

(qtd. in Pizer). In it, Maria has taken Lucy, Margaret and Philip's child, and lives with Joe

Fletcher again. Philip has spent the interim "broken and dejected", while a blind Margaret comes to see Maria, pleading to have her child back, which she eventually does. In a revenge against Philip, however, Maria tells him she has sold the child when he, too, visits her. Events are brought to a resolution at the police station with all of the aforementioned present, and

Margaret and Philip in the end saying that they now "understand each other... better than [they] ever did before" (qtd. in Pizer 267).

There are several problems with this ending, at least some of which must have been apparent to the author and its associates, since it was revised (Garland, nonetheless, speaks of the plays in a very honorific language in the same text). The goings-on in this final act are far more convoluted, with confusion as to the identity of the two babies and the more prominent reappearance of two characters who, in the now-known play, have minor roles. What the longer gap mainly does is break apart an otherwise very concise play whose end again revisits the

Fleming house of the first act. There are, additionally, some seemingly quite melodramatic elements - the stealing of the baby, and the intervention of the police in the whole matter - something that would feel unthinkably out of place in the play as we know it today. These problems were, however, certainly not enough to kill the play, although they may explain why the Lynn try-out did not do much to gain the attention of Boston theatre owners.

Let us turn now to the play as it is now known, and the version in which it, more-or-less, appeared in 1891 and later productions after said change. The most apparent elements of the play that deviated from the standards of the day (some of which have already been mentioned) included the absence of soliloquies from either of the central characters, lack of melodramatic outbursts of emotions (although there is still some of that left, especially in the last act with

19 Margaret's "Ah, Philip, the old Margaret is dead. The truth killed her." (543)), and extensive stage directions, giving detailed description of the action of the characters and hints about their emotional state. As a result of all of these, the play has a much more subdued, quiet tone, with the most crucial points in the play still loaded with emotion, but in a way that does not let feelings escape in expressive bursts, but rather leaves things half-said, in allusions (Margaret's gradual blindness), or said indirectly (as, for example, the revelation of infidelity through the letter). This new way of expression was arguably just as powerful as it was misunderstood.

Aside from that, the play contains various statements that could be labelled proto-feminist, addressing in a biting fashion how male infidelity was treated at the time of its production, and the differences between male and female roles in a marriage. When Maria threatens Margaret with the pistol because she is Philip's wife and "[will] take his part" (538), the heroine retaliates with: "You think—I—am happy—because I am his wife?" (538), saying that the suffering of

Lena is incomparable to what she suffered just "in these past five minutes" (538) with the discovery of her husband's infidelity. She later takes the same issue up with Philip himself, reversing the roles: "Suppose—I—had been unfaithful to you!", provoking a "cry of repugnance" (543) from Philip, clearly showing the difference in reactions.

The heroine does utter statements about men and women in general, too. When Philip apologizes for running and hiding in the wake of the shameful discovery, Margaret brushes it off with: "Oh, you are a man - people will soon forget" (542), showing the different perception of the act, especially with an important person such as the mill owner Philip. Immediately after the earlier inverting of the roles, Margaret also states: "You are a man, and you have your ideals of—the—sanctity—of—the thing you love. Well, I am a woman—and perhaps—I, too, have the same ideals" (543). This clearly shows her perceived inequality between the two sexes and points to what Philip, in her opinion, fails to see, and what may have led to his carelessness towards her. Most of the above mentioned examples would have been enough to make

20 (especially the male) members of the audience shift uncomfortably in their seats at the time.

Heme does not shy away from presenting a morally ambiguous topic and addressing the social situation of the day.

This aspect of the play - its themes of maternity, male-female dynamics within a marriage and the dissection of the female psyche, in all probability, stems from the influence that Heme's wife Katharine had on the playwright, not only in terms of living together, but also in terms of actual writing and suggesting ideas (Garland, "On the Road"). While the play bears similarities in the treatment of its central female character to several earlier Ibsen plays (Bucks & Nethercott

322-323), on the American stage, this detailed and vivid picture of the psyche of a woman, one who has found herself caught in a love triangle and in a collapsing marriage, was quite a novelty.

It was likely due to the perspective his wife could provide on the matter that Heme managed to bring this new fictional woman to the stage, and indeed, Hamlin Garland speaks of the pair as more of an artistic duo both in "Mr. and Mrs. Heme" and "On the Road with James A. Heme".

The scene that is the most shocking and which, as Shepherd-Barr argues, likely also stemmed from Katharine's influence (105), is the breastfeeding scene at the close of the third act. Following the tension and the revelation directly preceding it, it is a strangely, eerily peaceful moment when Margaret does what feels natural to a mother, just before the lights go down on her. It nevertheless contains enough power to shock - whether it be the fact that the child is not her own - and of a servant nonetheless - , or the actual revelation of the breast, around which there is some uncertainty, and Shepherd-Barr speculates how much of the breast was, or could have been, actually shown (106).

While breastfeeding itself was not unprecedented on the stage, the constellation of events surrounding it in the play made sure that it would be a divisive moment, again underlining the gap between Europe and the States in terms of what the audiences were ready to accept. Both because of stylistic and linguistic choices, and the topics he deals with, Heme and his

21 "American Play without a Soliloquy", as it was advertised at the time (Newlin 152), allowed for a number of polarized reactions, which started coming soon after.

22 4. Critics and Supporters

The public was not silent towards Margaret Fleming - which is no surprise, what with it coming from the pen of an established dramatist and actor - and the play was by no means ignored. Upon closer examination, one often finds the reactions to it to come from both extremes, and only rarely to be neutral. This evidences the polarizing qualities spoken about earlier, and potentially provides the perfect space for any revolutionary play to exist in and leave its mark on the atmosphere of the era. This was partly the case with Margaret Fleming, but it may be stated that this succession of opinions from both sides of the spectrum did not, in its case, last long enough or possess enough force for their echo to have been truly resounding and enduring.

As has already been established, the play was championed by Hamlin Garland and supported by William Dean Howells, both chief figures in the realist cause. Other voices of support came, but notably often from a similar demographic - either people from the same circles as these two and their associates, or the forward-thinking intellectuals of the day in general. "Artistic Boston flocked to see it and it became the talk of the town", Julie Heme recalls

(qtd. in Bucks & Nethercott 322). Among the people who came to see the play at some point were familiar names such as Howells and Garland, but also the journalist and abolitionist

William Lloyd Harrison, painter J. J Enneking, and writers such as Mary Eleanor Wilkins

Freeman and Helen H. Gardener (Hatlen 18) or James T. Fields and Thomas Bailey Aldrich

(Bucks & Nethercott 332), When one takes a look at the widely circulated newspapers of the day, however, the situation is often very dissimilar from the elated praise of Garland and the interest of art circles.

First of all, let us not fall for the illusion that the audiences the play was greeted with were large. Its premiere in Lynn took place only after two months of fruitless search and in the hope that producers in Boston would take up the play if they had the chance to see it (Griffiths 60).

23 It was nonetheless praised in a personal letter by the critic Thomas Sergeant Perry (Hatlen 18), who cited its aim to "paint life and not to copy sun-dried models" as its advantage (qtd. in

Edwards 61). While great preparations for its run in Chickering Hall, Boston (originally a concert hall) followed after the three try-out performances in Lynn, the audiences there only held up for the first week of the planned three and then dropped, forcing Heme to close the play after the second week (Edwards 68), with the initial interest largely being due to Hamlin

Garland's efforts, which included taking up the role of press agent for Heme without a salary

(Hewitt 168) and persuading prominent Bostonians to attend (169).

This production of the play being possible at all was a result of a large number of things coming together - help was required even from Heme's own family, with his daughters Julie and Chrystal helping to promote the play around the city (Hewitt 168). This went as far as

Katharine Heme having to make curtains for the production from older materials (Edwards 65).

Money also had to be accepted for wherever it came from, and even so, there was barely enough and loans from close associates including Harland and B. O. Flower were needed, as well as

"furniture ... lent by the friendly proprietors of Boston shops" (Edwards 65). Such admirable determination proved that there was indeed some interest in getting the play produced, although only in certain spheres.

The result of the first night at Chickering Hall, was, in the end, encouraging, and it would appear the play was off to a good start. William Dean Howells noted that "probably no other play ever drew such audiences there", which writer and journalist Norman Hapgood nonetheless contrasts this with "seventy five or one hundred persons" (both qtd. in Bucks & Nethercott 332).

Either way, the aforementioned eventual diminishing of audiences showed, especially given the original expectations, "how severely realist theory underestimates the hypnotic power of staged milieux" (Robinson 112) in comparison to the restrained, less readily available enjoyment that it serves through its own methods. The main problem the play faced was simple. The Boston

24 intelligentsia "was limited in numbers" (Edwards 68), and the wider public was not ready to accept the play in spite of all the effort made to the contrary - a fate that Margaret Fleming would go through several more times.

As for its production history during the rest of Heme's life - after the run at Chickering

Hall, the play was revived there with the help of producers Klaw and Erlanger in the autumn of the same year despite the less-than-convincing results of its first run, proving disastrous

(Edwards 69). A matinee performance in New York in December bore similar results (Griffiths

67). Despite all this lack of success, the attempts did not stop and this was not the last time

Margaret Fleming was produced in the nineteenth century.

For the July 1892 production, James H. McVicker of McVicker's Theatre in Chicago, always a champion of new drama, requested some changes to soften the play (Edwards 70).

Margaret Fleming received some of its kindest reception there and ran the full twelve days it was given (Griffiths 70). This might have been a glimpse of hope for the play's future, yet it would take almost two years before it was produced again, for the last time in Heme's lifetime, in April 1894 at Miner's Fifth Avenue Theatre in New York (Griffiths 71). This was largely thanks to the fact that the managerial duo of Carl and Theodore Rosenfeldt, being German, were not familiar with the responses of American public towards realist drama (Edwards 71).

The reaction to the play was again negative - as Griffiths writes, since the play's first opening in 1890, "four years had not changed the attitude of most critics towards realism" (71). This shift was, sadly, only to come later, making the story of Margaret Fleming a sort of misunderstood one for its day.

Let us now step away from specific productions and focus on the overall reception the play and its various aspects received, including the various voices for and against it. What was it within the play that caused the polarity of opinions, from scathing criticism to enthusiasm and talk of a ushering in a new kind of drama?

25 During its first performances, the play had errors which were removed for later ones, such as the not-always-lifelike language or lack of unity between the more emotional and quieter scenes (Hewitt 169). But there were deeper flaws for some at the very heart of what the plays was and represented. William Winter, who had already panned Heme's Drifting Apart for its didactic approach and problematic nature (Rebhorn 180) was among Heme's harshest critics

(Shepherd-Barr 106) and "excoriated" the play's 1891 matinee performance (Edwards 69). The

"preaching" quality or didactical nature - Heme's expressing of a larger truth, as he saw it - was also mentioned by other critics, and was seen as a source of its unbelievability (Bucks &

Nethercott 325). A frequently quoted criticism was regarding the crudeness and inartistic nature of the play (Hatlen 19), present in the realism of character, the unexaggerated situations it presents, as well as the original bleaker ending. Others resorted to "crying Ibsen" in their criticism, such as the critic from New-York Tribune (Bucks & Nethercott 325), with the language used going as far as naming Heme a member of the "Ibsen cult" (qtd. in Hatlen 19).

Perhaps the greatest setback faced by innovators such as Heme and Ibsen in an American environment were the frankness and shocking themes, the rejection of which sometimes came on the grounds of Christian values, leading a reviewer in The Boston Post to call the aforementioned a "violation of the Seventh Commandment" (qtd. in Hatlen 20). Even the harshest critics, however, could not deny that there was some merit in this warts-and-all treatment of life by the plays. E. A. Dithmar, another critic of Heme's, admitted while writing about Margaret Fleming that the play was "consistent" and "realistic in everything. We see human beings as they are..." (qtd. in Hatlen 19). Comparing other reviews from the era, however, we can see hints that this realism in everything was not to the general audiences taste.

Richardson names the addressing of the sexual double standard as the most significant realist element of the play, saying that it "draws down the curtain asking its audience to address such

26 an issue seriously" (197) - something a melodrama of the time would refrain from asking them to do.

In the voices of praise for the play, we can distinguish two streams - the more cautious, from people who were delighted by some aspects of the play, and the overwhelmingly positive responses, which mostly come from people who had already supported realist expression before or were involved in the wider scene from which the play arose. Reacting to its Chicago production, the Chicago Daily Tribune opted for the former approach, and while saying that it did not hold up to the qualities that Howells suggested with his "epoch-marking" play statement, they were positive about the play as a whole (Griffiths 70).

Writing about the play in retrospect, B. O. Flower, who supported the play in Boston with a loan of money, admitted the play "lacked the advantage of scenic effect" ("An Appreciation",

290) that many of its contemporaries had. In "Mask or Mirror", another essay of his, it is apparent that he does not see Margaret Fleming as so distinctive in Heme's catalog as it is viewed now, and calls its follow-up Shore Acres "a radically unconventional drama, which boldly ignores many of the most cherished traditions of the conventional stage" (307). Marco

Tiempo similarly says that Hearts of Oak, Shore Acres and Griffith Davenport "present a progressive trilogy of plays vital with the genuine American spirit" (380) around the same time, disregarding Margaret Fleming completely. So deep can the difference in appreciation be once some time has passed - this also goes to show from what different angles this new movement in drama could be approached.

Coming to Heme's most ardent supporters, these voices mostly reiterate what is known to us from the initial debate regarding realism - the play's novelty and effectivity in its subtleness and its true-to-life treatment of (especially Margaret's) character. They address the striking difference which is apparent to a contemporary reader from reading Margaret Fleming alongside almost any other work from its time and the effect of said difference. Howells claims

27 that at the play's Chickering Hall opening, "none saw it without profound impression" (qtd. in

Bucks & Nethercott 322) and said that "the naked simplicity of Mrs. Heme's acting clutched the heart" (qtd. in Hatlen 19). His support helped the play considerably at the start, but it alone was not enough. The in-part artificially created buzz around the play, brought about using methods such as giving free tickets to important patrons, could not hold up.

Hamlin Garland had much to say about the qualities of the play from its very inception to as late as in his autobiography Roadside Meetings (1930). In "On the Road with James A.

Heme", one of his several works centering on his relationship with the playwright, he makes it very clear that he endorses the play with his recollection of the Boston opening night. "Without question it was the most naturalistic, the most colloquial, and the most truthful presentation of a domestic drama ever seen on the American stage", he writes, before calling it the best play of

Heme's whole career (Garland, "On the Road"). Earlier, in reaction to the Lynn premiere, he had written that Margaret Fleming's "emotion is intellectual, deep and quiet" (qtd. in Pizen

265), showing that he appreciated the precise things that were sometimes the focus of criticism aimed at Heme. In addition to these reactions, he wrote extensively to newspapers, either to promote Heme or the realist cause itself. In "The New Drama", published in the Boston Evening

Transcript, he expresses his hope in the play and recognizes that they play appealed to the type of thoughtful people who "had practically given up on going to the theatre at all" otherwise

(12). He gives quotes from some of these people with positive reactions to the play to give support, but his expectations and visions for the play come off as hopelessly naive.

What one comes to notice is that the positive reactions to Margaret Fleming are largely limited to a specific sort of people from similar circles, who motivations may sometimes be guessed - one of them might have been that they saw in Heme what they had been trying to accomplish themselves, but failed, another that they were influenced by the same thinkers and intellectual trends of the era, therefore easily won over. One may also speculate how much of

28 this praise was overestimated in order to draw larger crowds. While it is not true that the reaction from outside critics was always negative towards the play, it was in the end the audiences who voted with their feet and their less-than-stellar numbers ended the attempts to produce it.

Perhaps it is as Herbert Edwards wrote, and Heme indeed "could not have chosen a worse time for his bold venture into advanced realism" (57) - he did not learn from the failure of

Drifting Apart and continued further in the realist direction. The result of that bold effort remains somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, the play was not ignored, but did not get access to enough people so that it could stun them with its realism. Or perhaps not to the right ones - or, there is still another option, it shocked whoever it reached too much or not enough to produce the desired effect. All that is left to do in that regard is speculate.

29 5. Louder and Silenced

While the voices of (sometimes anonymous) individuals in newspapers may give us a good idea of what the general response to the play was, what followed in its wake was not only verbal and textual, but also came in the form of concrete actions. Led predominantly by the ever-so- enthusiastic Garland, a movement of sorts, or the embryo of one, tried to form in Boston.

Inspired by movements such as the Theatre Libre in France, there was certainly some willingness among the intellectuals of the time to continue with the ice-breaking that Margaret

Fleming had started with its Chickering Hall performance, with a prospectus summarizing the aims of this movement even being produced.

Garland considered the first performances of Margaret Fleming as the "first modest trial of the independent art theatres" (Newlin 152), which he envisioned would become much more prominent and perhaps dethrone melodrama as the predominant form of dramatic expression.

With the fresh experience of being Heme's manager and taking on various roles in bringing about the production of his play, Garland did not lose any of his enthusiasm and, seeing this as an opportunity to advance the realism he himself was trying to promote mainly through his fiction, he went around gathering support from prominent figures especially from the Boston area who shared this common interest. As Barnard Hewitt argues, this movement shares some similarities with the later "Little Theatres" movement which started in the US later, in 1912, and also largely strayed from the tradition of melodrama, leading him to tentatively call

Chickering Hall, a concert hall which was rented and re-purposed for the production much in the same way as the later movement did, "the first little theatre in America" (165).

Several elements support this claim and suggest an inspiration from European movements such as the French Theatre Libre, founded by Andere Antoine, or the Freie Biihne in Berlin by

Otto Brahm - as Bucks and Nethercott write, "the Heme group regarded themselves as the vanguard of the same movement" (330). There are testimonies from the time describing

30 carpenters and electricians being hired at Heme's own expense to make Chickering Hall into a place fit for the play as he envisioned it (Hewitt 168). This corresponds with another title given to this movement, both by scholars and its own members, the "independent theatre" (Hatlen), an important distinction in a time when the Theatrical Syndicate controlled most of the most prestigious theatres in America. A notable inclination towards do-it-yourself methods, smaller venues and different approaches to acting all help distinguish this forming movement - which was on the part of Garland and Heme an effort "to escape the tyranny of the box office" (Hewitt

171).

A series of meetings between Boston intellectuals and articles occasionally published in newspapers seemed to predict that a new theatre was indeed brewing. To give it some degree of officiality, this newborn collective called itself the first "Independent Theater Society" and included aside from Heme and Garland also B. O. Flower and actress Mary Shaw, with others later joining in (Bucks & Nethercott 331). This society formed a committee, which in turn produced the already-mentioned prospectus calling for emphasis on American life in future dramas as well as for more space for European playwrights on the stage (Hatlen 21). Signers were, not by coincidence, often familiar names already mentioned as being in the audience during productions of Margaret Fleming.

The Society's goals, however, were anything if not over-ambitious. "A thirty-week season was suggested, using twelve new plays selected by a reading committee" (Hatlen 21) and there were "plans ... drawn for a fully equipped 500 seat theatre to be built" (Hewitt 170). From these claims and judging by the overall climate of the era, it is, from today's view, clear that this movement was not destined to be long-lived. The reasons why it eventually faded away, however, are not apparent from historical sources. Hatlen writes that the plans "inexplicably stopped after the prospectus was issued" (21), while Bucks and Nethercott simply state that

"necessary support... did not materialize" (333). Regardless of how this decline came about,

31 Heme's departure from Boston after the failure of both runs of Margaret Fleming there struck the final nail in the coffin (Hatlen 21).

It must be noted, however, that Heme was from the start not as active a person in this regard as Garland was - he only begrudgingly accepted his place as a herald of realism, saying "I have been accorded a place among the leaders in what is known as the new drama" and belittling his own role as an influence on others: "I am not... a teacher, except as I may teach through my work" (Heme, "Art" 361). His opinion differed from Garland's in the sense that he wished the

"little theatre" of Chickering Hall to be a step towards commercial theatres which had previously rejected Margaret Fleming, not a new way of doing theatre in the future (Hewitt

171). This was likely another little conflict that added to the gradual demise of the movement.

Though there was no break between the two friends, Heme never produced a play as radical as

Margaret Fleming in his lifetime - this can be read as a sign of the influence Garland and other people in his vicinity had had on him, perhaps even directing his efforts in subtle ways.

There was a need on Heme's part to compensate for the loss of money from Margaret

Fleming. His next play, Shore Acres, was a resounding success (Garland, "On the Road"), and one which he would turn to for the remainder of his life when in need of money. Drawing from

Heme's fondness for New England's coast, it is light on plot and emphasises atmosphere and honest description of rural life over spectacle. While its realism of character, especially of Uncle

Nat, was praised (Flower, "Mask" 309), the play was still a notable step back towards what might appeal to the viewers whom Margaret Fleming alienated. Edwards goes as far as to state that "Margaret Fleming resembled no other play Heme ever wrote" (58). Similarly, Heme's last play, Sag Harbor, was again a step away from the previously explored radical direction, but was a reworked version of Hearts of Oak which enjoyed a success much like that of the original.

32 After the interest in the new drama in Boston dissipated, some of the individuals involved in the short-lived movement did continue their fight for realism - most notably again Garland, who, with his "contentious personality" and full of the "exuberance of youth", did not give up, aware that "this was only the opening engagement of what would become a protracted battle"

(Newlin 184). As for William Dean Howells, a break came in their relationship with Heme that lasted until the latter's death and caused deep regrets in the final years of Heme's life (Edwards

83), plagued by sickness and unreliable income.

It was for others than James A. Heme to go on innovating the current state of drama and the artistic scene in general, and he sadly did not live long enough to see realism move towards the centre of the stage later in the 20th century with playwright such as Elmer Rice or Eugene

O'Neill, nor to see his play re-appreciated and granted its rightful place in dramatic history.

33 6. Followers in Footsteps

As has already been established, whatever commotion Margaret Fleming might have caused at the time of its first performances, as well as the short-lived movement surrounding it, albeit hopeful, eventually died down, with even the author moving on to other things and relying on his better-known and more successful play to produce the needed income. That being said, however, Margaret Fleming did reappear in certain ways several times before its critical rediscovery and reappraisal, culminating with its inclusion in textbooks dealing with American drama history. How did this coda of sorts to the Margaret Fleming story play out and did it leave any impact on the years to come? This section provides rather an overview that a detailed examination of that part of the play's life, but does attempt to give attention to all the relevant later developments surrounding it.

Shortly after Heme's death in 1901, a tribute to him was published in The Arena, a newspaper to which he had contributed. It was written by three men, all his former associates and acquaintances - painter J. J. Enneking, B. O. Flower, editor of The Arena, and, of course,

Hamlin Garland. Titled "An Appreciation: James A. Heme, Actor, Dramatist and Man", it tells three different narratives about the recently deceased author. Garland praises the late playwright for not being commanded solely by the box office in his writing (282), and commends the drama he produced - "a sane, unexaggerated, humorous and tender story of American life" (283). After reminiscing about Heme's determination in the face of difficulties which often came in getting his plays produced, Garland mentions Shore Acres and Margaret Fleming as in his opinion the most representative of Heme (284). He goes on to say about Heme that "the best of his teaching has already entered into the stage-craft of our day". What part of the teaching that was, he does not say, nor can we determine how lasting this piece of his teachings was, since the article was written only shortly after Heme's death.

34 Enneking begins with a similar celebratory note, calling Heme a man "who has helped along some great movement in art" (284), but rightly poses the question as to what he had accomplished. He praises the realism and progressivism of his plays, but interestingly calls

Drifting Apart and Margaret Fleming "sermons" (286), referencing the preaching quality sometimes associated with Heme. Flower is the last to eulogize and he is unequivocal in calling

Margaret Fleming "by far his greatest dramatic creation, as it is also the most powerful protest against the double standard of morals" (289). So much for the immediate recollections soon after the playwright's passing - even such a small sample can show the differing views on his career and the impact he had made.

Norman Hap good, writing in 1901 on the last few years of American drama, names Heme among "our two ablest dramatists" alongside William Gillette, expresses hope that Margaret

Fleming may see the stage again (61), and singles it out in Heme's career along with Griffith

Davenport (63), again showing the lack of consensus as to which play or plays were Heme's most remarkable. Hapgood echoes the sentiments of others who complimented the playwright's oeuvre, but fears that it is destined for oblivion, and that people visit the theatre solely for amusement (67).

It was not too long after Heme's death - close to six years - before Hapgood's wish came true. A hopeful production of Margaret Fleming took place in Chicago's New Theatre in 1907, with Chrystal Heme, James's daughter, playing the starring part. This time, "the theatre was filled for each performance in the two week run" (Griffith 72), and the play was judged to be

"the only play which represented the new trends" (Highlander 290) from the repertoire, receiving positive reviews (Privatt 104). The theatre itself failed to be sufficiently forward- thinking and adjust to the continental trends, and Margaret Fleming, produced near the end of the theatre project, perhaps could have saved it. Further plans were made to "engage a downtown theatre and put the piece on for a run", or even to take it to New York, but

35 unfortunately, the contract-bound Chrystal Heme could not undertake this venture (Edwards

73).

Julie Heme, another one of the daughters of James and Katharine who later became a biographer of the playwright's life, also got a chance to star as Margaret Fleming. This was in

1915 (Quinn, A History 141). After this production was over, the play largely "languished in obscurity" (Windeler) and the debate about it shifted to different circles or died down altogether.

It may be that it was mostly coincidence that stopped Margaret Fleming from truly enjoying a re-appreciation in the years when it could still appear as ground-breaking and far from stale.

Judging by the contemporary reactions, some of the revivals had the potency to become something greater than what ultimately happened of them. Had the New Theatre of Chicago not failed - and, according to Highlander, "it is impossible to arrive at any conclusive answer as to why the theatre failed" (290), much like how the Boston independent theatre inexplicably ceased to exist - or had Julie Heme not been called off to other projects, things might have been very different for the strange and flawed play that is Margaret Fleming - a play which nonetheless deserved the recognition it never got.

Is that truly something to mourn as irretrievable, or does the play still have something to resonate with even the audiences of today? The play was once more revived, far more recently, at the Metropolitan Playhouse in New York in 2007. It was reasonably successful there, with one review saying it "does justice both to its watershed period and to a contemporary audience"

(Windeler). However, others did acknowledge its age, Martin Denton calling it "a museum piece, in its way, but museums are enormously entertaining and useful" and Michael Feingold, more critical, ends with describing it as a "play well worth knowing". While it is likely that

Margaret Fleming will receive more revivals, especially for the museum-like quality Denton mentioned, it has likely used up all its chances of being brought to public notice, and not just that of drama enthusiasts.

36 Aside from the theatrical productions, the play received renewed scholarly attention with its inclusion in Representative American Plays from 1797 to the Present Day in 1917, for which the editor requested the recreation of the play from Mrs. Heme (Shepherd-Barr 106). This sparked a new wave of interest across the 20th century, with focus on the persona of James A.

Heme and his role in the development of early realism. In-depth textual analysis of the play has been rare, however, purely because the play defies it - being a reconstruction from memory and having appeared in different versions. The play is therefore often mentioned as an oddball, its difference from most melodramas and similarity to modern drama being plain to most readers of today and highlighted by critics. It it described as the first modem drama in American dramatic history, which it may well have been, but that claim should not be mistaken for it being a key step in dramatic evolution - this statement would be somewhat contrived. It appears to have been, sadly, only one of a whole array of different sources, from which enough pressure and artistic merit eventually arose to bring about a new form of drama - despite the fact that it, in the author's opinion, possessed the potential to become more.

37 7. Conclusion

There can be little doubt that the appearance of Margaret Fleming was an unexpected occurrence that significantly deviated from the established standards of the time. The question is, how many people did notice this ripple in the water, and how many people actually could, given the limited run it was given and the press it received. Its distinctive traits discussed above, which arguably held a larger appeal for the intellectual, higher-class people of the time, were very probably part of what caused its initial descent into obscurity. It did have some fairly prominent supporters who spoke of it in terms of superlatives, and, for some time, it appeared that a sort of "little theatres" movement may indeed arise from Boston, but all of these efforts eventually died out from reasons that are not quite clear, but are likely to have stemmed from the environment of the time. The author of this thesis was unable to find evidence of a direct influence the play on later playwrights or movements - nonetheless, the role it played should not be unjustly diminished.

The play has been taken in gratefully by critics who wish to see in it the very beginning of modern drama, or in its production, in the more practical sense, a forerunner to the "Little

Theaters" movement. Feminist criticism has highlighted the play in terms of dealing with issues such as motherhood (Case 287), and others have more modestly commented on its qualities in comparison to its contemporaries. Nonetheless, the have been voices perhaps too dramatic in their treatment of the play. Let us cite John Perry, author of Heme's biography James A. Heme:

The American Ibsen: "Opening night of Margaret Fleming. May 4, 1891, 8:00p.m. Chickering

Hall, Boston. The birth of modern American drama" (154). As riveting as this statement may sound, the beginnings of American modem drama are far too complicated to be assigned one specific starting point.

When writing a review of Perry's book, Joseph Donohue pinpoints the problems of such a treatment of the playwright and his work. He questions the accuracy of the biography's

38 honorary title, and claims that Herne "did not share Ibsen's profound philosophical anarchism or ... his towering dramatic genius" (1180). It can easily be seen how the presence of even an

Ibsen-esque author on American soil could lead to a sense of national pride and propensity for statements like this, as European dramatic tradition faced a difficult time entering the US. Sad as it is, when Donohue states that "to call Herne 'the American Ibsen' is to overvalue the considerable contribution Herne made in his own way to American popular entertainment and to the rise of realism as a potent force in American life" (1180), he may be summing up the precise problems that have arisen in the treatment of Herne and his most renowned play since its rediscovery.

As Meserve writes, "realism came to the drama in the same way that it came to fiction in nineteenth century America, progressing in a similar if less effective pattern" (159). He sees a similar progress within Heme's career. It would, then, surely appear unfair to the other playwrights and performers mentioned in the first part of this thesis to disregard their contributions in favour of one work from the catalog of a man who, for much of his life, worked in a direction similar to theirs. The forward-looking nature of the play must be, for a better understanding of its history, reconciled with what preceded and followed it.

On that point, many writers and critics are in accord. "Although Heme had no immediate followers, his work was not without influence", writes Griffiths (78). The play "started no landslide of new realistic dramas", finds Richardson (178), and after the unsuccessful early attempts to produce it, "its opportunity never came again" (Edwards 73). These writers are not dismissive of the play in any sense, they simply wish to shift the landmark status of the play from its revolutionary piedestál to a more accurate role as a breaker of the ice for others - a role which it is, nonetheless, far more difficult to evidence and circumscribe.

In much the same way, the independent theatre movement surrounding the play was "one small, uncertain step in an insurgency which has done much to change the face of American

39 theater" (Hewitt 171), that insurgency being the rise of little theatres in early 20th century, with groups such as the Washington Square Players and the Provincetown Players (Griffiths 78), followed by Off-Broadway and similar ventures. Margaret Fleming was, in all probability, not referred to by these artists and theatre-people as a direct source of inspiration, nor was Heme revered as their founding father. The effect was probably less pronounced, and resided simply in the awareness that something similar to what they were doing had been done before - the ground had been broken for them.

"Plays, like people, have their moments of opportunity and fulfillment," writes Edwards

(73). Though he goes on to lament that Margaret Fleming's window of opportunity had been missed, in the light of the previous paragraph we may say that the play's and its author's legacy came to a sort of satisfaction when a quarter of a century later, Eugene O'Neill's realist dramas at last came to "surpass Heme's work" (Griffiths 78) and give a new face to the realism that had existed in the 1890s.

It is time now, perhaps, to return to the statement Howells made of the play being "epoch- marking" ("Editor's Study" 478), and its misquoting as "epoch-making" by Perry (163) and others (Waggoner 62). Bucks and Nethercott rightly note that "the play itself was not the primary cause of this epoch, in spite of the positive statements to the contrary by some ... scholars" (311) - to ascertain that, one can simply take a broader look at the plays produced at the same time as Margaret Fleming and compare them. The play, therefore, did not "make" the epoch it stems from, but rather left a mark in time to which future pioneers in drama could return, even if only as to a precedent.

Lastly, returning to the question as to whether the play has anything to offer modem readers and audiences, the author of this thesis has this to say: study of the play and its historical circumstances can yield many findings. Its productions serve as a tale of admirable determination, self-sacrifice and durability in the face of adversity from all who took part in

40 helping the play see the stage. Its realism of character may still appeal to some - though it is a long shot from many of the realist pieces that have been written since. Stock characters and unbelievable character development have found ways to persevere or make their comeback through television and film, and an example of the contrary is therefore always welcome even in this day and age. And, ideologically speaking, Heme, his idealism and his sometimes didactic approach to the burning questions of his time reminds us of the ultimate purpose of drama as he sees it in "Art for Truth's Sake in the Drama": "It sets forth clearly that the concern of one is the concern of all. It stands for the higher development and thus the individual liberty of the human race" (370).

41 Works Cited

Bucks, Dorothy S., and Arthur H. Nethercot. "Ibsen and Heme's Margaret Fleming: A Study

of the Early Ibsen Movement in America." American Literature, vol. 17, no. 4, 1946, pp.

311-333. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2920954. Accessed 14 Apr. 2019.

Boucicault, Dion. The Octoroon. Representative American Plays From 1797 To The Present

Day, edited by Arthur Hobson Quinn, Appleton-Century Crofts inc., 1957. Archive.org,

https://archive.org/details/representativeam027343mbp/page/n7. Accessed 11 May 2019.

Campbell, Donna M. "W. D. Howells Biography." W. D. Howells Society,

https://howellssociety.wordpress.com/biography/howells-biography/. Accessed 30 Oct.

2019.

Case, Sue-Ellen. Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre. Johns

Hopkins University Press, 1997. Books.google.cz,

https://books.google.cz/books/about/Performing_Feminisms. html?id=GNNww3jmH3kC

&redir_esc=y. Accessed 25 May 2019.

Crow, Charles L. A Companion to the Regional Literatures of America. Maiden, MA:

Blackwell Pub., 2003. Books.google.cz,

https://books.google.cz/books/about/A_Companion_to_the_Regional_Literatures.html7id

=3PfK161XfCYC&redir_esc=y. Accessed 25 May 2019.

Denison, Patricia D. "The Legacy of James A. Heme: American Realities and Realisms."

Realism and the American Dramatic Tradition, edited by William W. Demastes.

University of Alabama Press, 1996.

Denton, Martin. "Review of Margaret Fleming." Metropolitan Playhouse,

http://metropolitanplayhouse.org/MFReview. Accessed 30 Oct. 2019.

42 Donohue, Joseph. "John Perry. James A. Heme: The American Ibsen." The American

Historical Review, vol. 84, no. 4, 1979, pp. 1180-1181,

https://doi.Org/10.1086/ahr/84.4.1180. Accessed 30 Jun. 2019.

Edwards, Herbert Joseph. James A Heme; The Rise of Realism in the American Drama.

Orono, Me., University of Maine Press, 1964.

Emerson, Donald. "Henry James and the Limitations of Realism." College English, vol. 22,

no. 3, 1960, pp. 161-166. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/373352. Accessed 12 Feb. 2019.

Enneking. "An Appreciation: James A. Heme, Actor, Dramatist and Man." The Arena, vol.

26, 1901, pp. 284-286. Archive.org, https://archive.org/details/ArenaMagazine-

Volume26. Accessed 17 Jul. 2019.

Fearnow, Mark. "A New Realism." The Oxford Handbook of American Drama, edited by

Jeffrey H, and Heather S. Nathans. Oxford University Press, 2014.

Feingold, Michael. "Review of Margaret Fleming." Metropolitan Playhouse,

http://metropolitanplayhouse.org/MFReview. Accessed 30 Oct. 2019.

Flower, B. O. "Mask or Mirror." The Arena, vol. 8, 1893, pp. 304-313. Archive.org,

https://archive.org/details/ArenaMagazine-Volume08. Accessed 16 July 2019.

—. "An Appreciation: James A. Heme, Actor, Dramatist and Man." The Arena, vol. 26, 1901,

pp. 287-291. Archive.org, https://archive.org/details/ArenaMagazine-Volume26.

Accessed 16 Jul. 2019.

Gannon, Barbara C. "James A. Heme: A Bibliography." American Literary Realism, 1870-

1910, vol. 16, no. 1, 1983, pp. 102-106. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27746078.

Accessed 21 Sep. 2019.

Garland, Hamlin. "An Appreciation: James A. Heme, Actor, Dramatist and Man." The Arena,

vol. 26, 1901, pp. 282-284. Archive.org, https://archive.org/details/ArenaMagazine-

Volume26. Accessed 16 Jul. 2019.

43 —. "Mr. and Mrs. Heme." The Arena, vol. 4, 1891, pp. 543-560. Archive.org,

https://archive.org/details/ArenaMagazine-Volume04. Accessed 2 Jul. 2019.

—. "On the Road with James A. Heme" The Century Magazine, Aug 1914, Wikisource,

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Road_with_James_A._Herne. Accessed 20 Aug.

2019.

—. Roadside Meetings. Macmillan, 1930. Archive.org,

https://archive.org/details/roadsidemeetingsOOOOgarl. Accessed 1 Nov. 2019.

—. "The New Drama." Boston Evening Transcript, May 7 189, p.12. News.google.com,

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=sArNg04T4MoC&dat=l 8910507&printsec=fr

ontpage&hl=en. Accessed 30 Apr. 2019.

Griffiths, David Lloyd. James A. Heme's Margaret Fleming and the Emergence of Dramatic

Realism in the American Theatre. MA Thesis, Michigan State University, 1975.

Hapgood, Norman. The Stage in America, 1897-1900. Macmillan, 1901. Archive, org,

https://archive.org/details/stageinamerical800hapguoft. Accessed 11 Jun. 2019.

Hatlen, Theodore. '"Margaret Fleming' and the Boston Independent Theatre." Educational

Theatre Journal, vol. 8, no. 1, 1956, pp. 17-21. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/3203911. Accessed 21 Sep.2019.

Heme, James A. "Art for Truth's Sake in the Drama." The Arena, vol. 17, 1897, pp. 361-370.

Archive.org, https://archive.org/details/ArenaMagazine-Volumel7. Accessed 28 Feb.

2019.

—. Margaret Fleming. Representative American Plays From 1797 To The Present Day,

edited by Arthur Hobson Quinn. Appleton-Century Crofts inc., 1957 Archive.org,

https://archive.org/details/representativeam027343mbp/page/n7. Accessed 22 Jan. 2019.

—. "Old Stock Days in the Theatre." The Arena, vol. 6, 1892, pp. 401-416. Archive, org,

https://archive.org/details/ArenaMagazine-Volume06. Accessed 28 Feb. 2019.

44 Hewitt, Barnard. '"Margaret Fleming' in Chickering Hall: The First Little Theatre in

America?" Theatre Journal, vol. 34, no. 2, 1982, pp. 165-171. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/3207447. Accessed 15 May 2019.

Highlander, James L. "America's First Art Theatre: The New Theatre of Chicago."

Educational Theatre Journal, vol. 11, no. 4, 1959, pp. 285-290. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/3204755. Accessed 15 May 2019.

Howells, William Dean. Criticism and Fiction. E-book, Project Gutenberg, 2004.

—. "Editor's Study." Harper'sMagazine, vol. 83, 1891, pp. 478-479.

https://harpers.org/archive/1891/08/v-47/. Accessed 25 Feb. 2019.

James, Henry. "The Art of Fiction". Virgil.org, http://virgil.org/dswo/courses/novel/james-

fiction.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct. 2019. PDF file.

Meserve, Walter J. "American Drama and the Rise of Realism." Jahrbuch Fur

Amerikastudien, vol. 9, 7964, pp. 152-159. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41155278.

Accessed 10 Oct. 2019.

Newlin, Keith. Hamlin Garland: a Life. University of Nebraska Press, 2008. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/j.cttldgn4b7. Accessed 22 Jan. 2019.

Paul, John S. "Body of Work: Sexuality in Recent American Drama." Annual Review of Sex

Research, vol. 17, 2006, pp. 200-214. ProQuest,

https://search.proquest.com/docview/225228989?accountid=16531. Accessed 7 Jun.

2019.

Perry, John. James A. Heme: the American Ibsen. Nelson-Hall, 1978. Archive.org,

https://archive.org/details/jamesaherne00perr/page/78. Accessed 1 Feb. 2019.

Pizer, Donald. "An 1890 Account of Margaret Fleming." American Literature, vol. 27, no. 2,

1955, pp. 264-267. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2922855. Accessed 15 May 2019.

45 Privatt, Kathy L. "The New Theater of Chicago: Democracy 1; Aristocracy 0." Theatre

History Studies, vol. 24, 2004, pp. 97-108. ProQuest,

https://search.proquest.com/docview/748215337?accountid=16531. Accessed 2 Jul. 2019.

Quinn, Arthur Hobson. A History of the American Drama: From the Civil War to the Present

Day. Appleton-Century Crofts inc., 1951. Archive.org,

https://archive.org/details/historyofamerica0000quin_ylx7. Accessed 30 Aug. 2019.

—. Representative American Plays From 1797 To The Present Day, Appleton-Century Crofts

inc., 1957, pp. 515-518. Archive.org,

https://archive.org/details/representativeam027343mbp/page/n7. Accessed 29 Aug. 2019.

Rebhorn, Matthew. Pioneer Performances: Staging the Frontier. Oxford University Press,

2014.

Richardson, Gary A. American Drama from the Colonial Period through World War I: a

Critical History. Twayne Publishers, 1997, pp. 153-204.

Robinson, Marc. The American Play, 1787-2000. Yale University Press, 2011.

Shepherd-Barr, Kirsten. Theatre and Evolution from Ibsen to Beckett. Columbia University

Press, 2015.

Taubman, Howard H. "Realism of a Sort." The Making of the American Theatre. Coward-

McCann, 1965, pp. 102-117.

Tiempo, Marco. "James A. Heme in 'Griffith Davenport'." The Arena, vol. 22, 1899, pp. 375-

382. Archive.org, https://archive.org/details/ArenaMagazine-Volume22. Accessed 10

May 2019.

Waggoner, Hyatt Howe. "The Growth of a Realist: James A. Heme." The New England

Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 1, 1942, pp. 62-73. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/360230.

Accessed 5 Apr. 2019.

46 Watt, Stephen, and Gary A. Richardson. American Drama: Colonial to Contemporary.

Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1995, pp. 234-237.

Windeier, Robert. "Review of Margaret Fleming." Metropolitan Playhouse,

http://metropolitanplayhouse.org/MFReview. Accessed 30 Oct. 2019.

47 Resume

The thesis examines the development of American dramatic realism in the second half of the 19th century, giving particular attention to the play Margaret Fleming by James A. Heme.

It uses examples from the time to illustrate the realist elements that gradually amounted to a full and pronounced movement in American drama and includes mentions of influential figures who pioneered such elements - for instance, the realism of character. By doing this, the thesis also brings forward some of the probable influences on Heme in writing his best known play and charts Heme's own path towards realist expression.

Secondly, the thesis analyses what made Margaret Fleming stand apart from its contemporaries - its turn away from melodrama and overall subtlety, along with its daring political undertones of attacking the double standard applied for men and women of the time.

It then goes on to consider the reaction the play received at the time - from the public and individual critics - as well as during later attempts to stage it, and the impact it had, including the attempt to create America's very own "free theatre" that was immediately set off by it. Lastly, but importantly, the thesis tries to establish what effect, if any, the appearance of the play "years ahead of its time" (Edwards 73) had on later revolutionary playwrights and the full blossoming of realist drama in the 20th century.

48 Resumé

Tato práce zkoumá vývoj dramatického realismu ve Spoj ených Státech v druhé polovině

19. století, přičemž zvláštní pozornost věnuje hře Margaret Fleming od dramatika Jamese A.

Hernea. Užívá přitom příkladů z této doby, aby ilustrovala jednotlivé prvky realismu, jež se postupně nahromadily a vzniklo z nich plnohodnotné a jednotné hnutí v rámci amerického dramatu. V práci j sou také uvedeny některé význačné postavy, které tyto realistické prvky, např. realismus postav, poprvé na jevišti představily. Tímto také práce zmiňuje některé pravděpodobné vlivy na Hernea a jeho zásadní dílo, a prezentuje hrubé nastínění jeho vlastní cesty k realistickému psaní.

V druhé části tato práce analyzuje, čím hra Margaret Fleming vyčnívala a lišila se od svých současníků -její odvrácení se od stereotypů melodramatu, její celkový smysl pro detail, a také její odvážné politické tóny, jež adresují dvojí měřítko užívané na ženy a na muže v

Herneově době.

Následně se práce věnuje reakci jak publika, tak jednotlivých kritiků na uvedení

Margaret Fleming i jejích pozdějších inscenací. Je rozebrán dopad, jaký hra měla, včetně pokusu o založení hnutí za "svobodné divadlo", který po jejím uvedení následoval. Na závěr, ale s nemenší důležitostí, se práce pokouší určit, jak velký, pokud vůbec nějaký efekt mělo uvedení této hry, která "předběhla svoji dobu o celá léta" (Edwards 73) na pozdější nadějné dramatiky a na skutečný rozkvět dramatického realismu ve 20. století.

49