INTRODUCTION I. HARDY AND THE THEATRE, 1867-1893 THE drama appealed to Thomas Hardy. Like Keats he wanted to write a few fine plays. Apart from lyric poetry Hardy's earliest literary aspiration lay in the field of poetic drama. His interest in contributing to the theatre extended over a period of nearly sixty years, from 1867, when he first considered writing for the stage, until 1926, when he still desired to see Jude the Obscure dramatized. Although, as Mrs. Hardy reminded me, most people do not think of Hardy as a dramatist, his private papers reveal the fact that there were times when he was interested in writing drama not only to be read but also for the stage. At certain times this attraction to the theatre was especially strong; but unfortunately at these crucial moments he was repulsed, frustrated, and turned in some other direction either by the advice of a friend, the conditions of the contemporary stage, or the break-down of negotiations with actors and managers. As a result Hardy never devoted his full energy to the practical art of writing plays. But, despite that, his interest in the folk-drama of Wessex, and in the Greek and Elizabethan tragedy, as well as in the current productions of the London stage, is marked in varying degrees throughout his long life. And his correspondence with actors, managers, and dramatic critics, as revealed in this study, shows that his attitude toward his own work in the theatre varies from indifference to enthusiasm. In 1867, Hardy had formed the idea of writing drama in blank verse and planned to make a first-hand study of the theatre for six or twelve months from the vantage-point of a supernumerary. He even sought advice from Mark Lemon, a dramatist and amateur actor (and at that time editor of Punch), and Mr. Coe, the stage manager of the Haymarket under Buckstone's lesseeship. Their counsel and the first sight of stage realities, however, so discouraged xv XVl TESS IN THE THEATRE Hardy that he gave up his initial idea of writing plays in blank verse.1 Hardy turned to the stage again in the early eighties when he allowed J. Comyns Carr to adapt Far from the Madding Crowd. Dramatized novels were enjoying a golden age in Victoria's reign. Indeed Mr. Reynolds remarks: "Original drama stood little chance beside versions of books which had already won national fame." 2 Under ordinary circumstances, Hardy and Carr should have had some success with a stage version of a novel so popular as Far from the Madding Crowd. Unfortunately, however, an acrimonious newspaper dispute8 arose between Hardy and Carr on the one hand and Arthur Wing Pinero on the other because of the resemblance of the dramatized novel to Pinero's play, The Squire. The Critic (New York, April, 1906) speaks of "tiresome litigation" over the two plays, but Mr. Carl J. Weber could find no evidence of litiga- tion in the British courts.4 The wordy dispute over the coincidences of the two plays, however, was bitter and involved John Hare, the Kendalls, and R. C. Carton, as well as Hardy, Carr, and Pinero. Carr charged Pinero with appropriating Hardy's work and robbing his play thereby of commercial value. Hare and Kendall were sus- pected of betraying the Hardy-Carr version to Pinero. Strong denials from both author and producers naturally followed in the press. Pinero was especially sarcastic, with the condescending atti- tude of a successful dramatist toward the failure who falls back upon the charge of plagiarism to belittle a successful work. He was, however, probably quite innocent of being (as Carr called him) a "literary somnambulist who trespasses on other men's dramas."11 The unpleasantness of the controversy and the consequent failure of Far from the Madding Crowd resulted in a repugnance for the 1 Cf. Florence Emily Hardy, The Life of Thomas Hardy (London: Mac- millan & Co., 1933), I, 71. 2 Ernest Reynolds, Early Victorian Drama, 1830-1870 (Cambridge: W. Heifer & Sons, 1936), p. 145. 3 Cf. the Era, December 31, 1881-January 21, 1882. 4 Hardy, Far from the Madding Crowd, ed. Carl J. Weber (New York: Oxford, 1937), p. xvii, foot-note 16. 11 Boston Eflening Transcript, April 6, 1900. INTRODUCTION XVll stage on Hardy's part lasting a decade or so. In 1892, it is distinctly reflected in his little article, "Why I Don't Write Plays."1 To understand the change of mind evident in Hardy's drama- tizing of "The Three Strangers" in 1893 and Tess of the D'Urber- villes in 1894-5, it is necessary to remind ourselves of the revival of interest in the drama in the latter part of the nineteenth century. There were attractions, some vague and some definite, both at home and abroad, which lured Hardy to the theatre at last. It is true that throughout the century there had been good acting. The classics had been produced, and French plays imported, but before Shaw finished Widowers' Houses in 1892, the numerous unrealistic native plays had shown little relation to contemporary culture. In 1879 Matthew Arnold had written: We have our Elizabethan drama. We have a drama of the last century and of the latter part of the century preceding, a drama which may be called our drama of the town . ... But we have no modern drama . We have apparitions of poetic and romantic drama . •. , because man has always in his nature the poetical fibre. Then we have numberless imitations and adap- tations from the French. All of these are at the bottom fantastic. We may truly say of them that "truth and sense and liberty are flown." And the reason is evident. They are pages out of a life which the ideal of the homme sensuel moyen rules, transferred to a life where this ideal does not reign.2 In the following decade, however, new activity on the part of dramatic critics and producers became manifest, which culminated in the nineties. William Archer battled enthusiastically for the pro- ducing of Ibsen's plays in London, and with some success. J. T. Grein, who founded the Independent Theatre and inaugurated its career with Ibsen's Ghosts on March 13, 1891, also encouraged native dramatists, particularly George Moore and Bernard Shaw. A foreign development which affected the future of literary drama in England was the passing of the American Copyright Bill in 1891. This new copyright convention was especially encouraging to men of letters, since it meant that published plays were not only pro- 1 Pall Mall Budget, September I, 1900. 2 Matthew Arnold, "The French Play in London," Nineteenth Century, August, 1879, pp. 238-9. xviii TESS IN THE THEATRE tected from exploitation on the American stage but also that those which failed in the theatre were not necessarily doomed to oblivion. Authors could look on plays as literature worthy of the literary finish which would recommend them to a discriminating intellec- tual reading public rather than as mere toys of the moment needing "garish artificial light."1 English producers like George Alexander, John Hare, and Beer- bohm Tree began to produce the plays of contemporary novelists, if only to charm and delight the few. In 1891, Tree presented Beau Austin by Stevenson and Henley, and in the same year, Edward Compton produced The American by Henry James. For Henry Arthur Jones and William Archer, the hope of the theatre lay in luring other men of letters into writing for the stage. In a letter to Barrett H. Clark, Jones wrote (April 15, 1916) that he had always tried to show "that no nation can have a drama that is worth con- sideration unless it is or becomes part of the national literature- that all plays outside this are mere toys of the theatre-that there- fore the highest aim of those who are working for the drama should be to bring it into relation with literature, and to draw men of letters to an understanding of, and a sympathy with the theater, so that they may exercise their authority as to what is produced."2 To show the literary possibilities of the drama, William Archer, in an article, "The Stage and Literature," exalted Ibsen's ability to com- bine theatrical technique with literary beauty. He cited the fusion of character, action, and dialogue in Hedda Gabler into an indis- soluble whole with an intensity and multiplicity of meaning: "The simplest sentence," he wrote, "proves, on examination, to be cut in many facets." 3 Archer challenged men of letters to write for the English stage: "So soon as we have an English playwright who possesses the literary vigour and technical skill of Dumas, or Meil- hac, or Becque, we shall cease to dispute as to the possibility of a literary drama."4 1 Henry Arthur Jones, Preface to Saints and Sinners, in The Renascence of the English Drama (New York: Macmillan Co., 1895), p. 310. 2 Quoted in European Theories of the Drama, ed. Barrett H. Clark (Cin- cinnati: Stewart & Kidd Co., 1918), p. 458. 8 Fortnightly Review, February, 1892, p. 232. ' Ibid., p. 231. INTRODUCTION XJX The Pall Mall Budget decided to follow up Archer's challenge to men of letters. On September 1, 1892, it said: In the recent discussions on the Drama a good deal has been said about what is called "the divorce of literature from the stage." Mr. William Archer, in particular, has been greatly pained at this unhappy incompatibility, and in a recent number of the Fortnightly Review urged strongly upon the parties the desirability of reunion.