This dissertation has been 64-1266 microfilmed exactly as received

HUNTER, Jack Worth, 1928- THE CORSICAN BROTHERS: ITS HISTORY, AND TECHNICAL PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE PRO­ DUCTION OF THE PLAY. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1963 Speech-Theater

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan THE CORSICAN BROTHERS:

rrs HISTORY, AND TECHNICAL PROBLEMS

RELATED TO THE PRODUCTION

OF THE PLAY

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

By Jack Worth Hunter, B.A., M.A.

The Ohio State University 1903

Approved by

Department of Speech 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To Anne for encouragement, perseverance, understanding; and to John McDowell for his vision and energy which created the unique research facility which has made such studies as this possible.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... iii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS...... vi

Chapter I. INTRODUCTION...... 1 Scope and purpose of the study Nature of the materials consulted Organization of the study Definition of terms I I . A HALF CENTURY OF THE CORSICAN BROTHERS...... 9 The Play in F ra n c e ...... 9 Origin of the play Charles Fechter The Productions in England...... 14 Charles Kean and the original English production Fechter in England The revivals of Sir Henry Irving Sir John Martin-Harvey The Productions in A m erica...... 46 New York productions Productions outside of New York Toy Theatre Productions ...... 60 III. THE PLAY...... 66 Critical reaction A note on Boucicault's contribution Structure of the play iv Page

The plot The sub-plot Variations from BoucicauLt!s version IV . STAGING THE PLAY ON THE ENGLISH STAGE ...... 97 The English stage Staging of the original Kean production Critical reaction to Kean*s staging Staging of Sir Henry Irving^ productions V. MECHANICAL DEVICES USED IN THE PRODUCTION...... 132 Visions and tableaux The vampire trap Scruto The Corsican trap V I. METHODS OF USING THE MECHANICAL DEVICES...... 168 Prompt book markings Act I Act H, Scene 4 A ctm V II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...... 194 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 200 APPENDIXES...... 208 A. Chronology of Major New York Productions B. Cast Lists of Major Productions C. Critical Reviews of Major Productions AUTOBIOGRAPHY...... 219

v PLEASE NOTE: Figure pages are not original copy. They tend to "curl”. Filmed in the best possible way. University Microfilms, Inc. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page Frontispiece. Henry Irving in the Duel Scene from Actm, 1880 i i 1. Sir Henry Irving as Fabian Seeing the Ghost of Louis, Act I ...... 2 2. Charles Kean...... 12 3. The Princess*s Theatre, London ...... 13 4. Playbill for the First Performance of The Corsican Brothers on the English Stage *...... 17 5. Dion Boucicault...... 18 6. Charles Fechter...... 28 7. Henry Irving as the Brothers ...... 35 8. The Bowery Theatre as It Appeared in the 1850*s .... 47 9. Robert Mantell in The Corsican B rothers ...... 53 10. The Walnut Street Theatre, Philadelphia ...... 56 11. Cover Sheet for The Corsican Brothers from Green*s Toy Theatre S h eets ...... 63 12. The Five Levels Below the Stage of the Paris Opera House ...... 98 13. Plan of the Stage Floor of the Conventional English Wooden Stage During the Nineteenth Century ...... 99

vi Figure Page 14. Cross-section of the Cellar of a Typical English Wooden Stage, Showing the Mezzanine Floor and Details of Bridges and Sliders Built in the Center "Well"...... 101 15. Kean: Act I, Scene 1 (F. Lloyds) ...... 107 16. Kean: Act I, Tableau (F. Lloyds) ...... 109 17. Kean: Act H, Scene 1 (I. Days) ...... 110 18. Kean: Act n, Scene 2 (F. Lloyds) ...... 112 19. Kean: Act n, Scene 3 (F. Lloyds)...... 113 20. Kean: Act n, Tableau (W. Gordon) ...... 114 21. Kean: Act IH (W. Gordon)...... 116 22. Irving's Representation of the Paris Opera House, Act n, Scene 1 ...... 124 23. Irving's Final Duel Scene in Act i n ...... 127 24. Tableau, Act n, Irving's 1891 Revival ...... 130 25. Methods of Using Falling or Double-Faced Flaps 133 26. Two "Trick" Scenes from Toy Theatre Sheets for the "Vision" Scene in the Forest of Fontainebleau 135 27. Detail of Title Page of Green's The Corsican Brothers Sheets Showing "Trick" Scene in Place for *'Vision" Scene, End of Act n ...... 136 28. Details of Sliding Trap Covers and Their Rigging 141 29. Plan of Typical English Stage Showing the Arrange­ ment of the Mezzanine and the Location of the Traps and B ridges...... 142 v ii Figure Page 30. A Trap in the Stage...... 143 31. A Corner '‘Star" Trap, Often Referred to as an "English Trap”...... 145 32. Rehearsing a Pantomime, Valentine and Orson, at Covent Garden Theatre...... 147 33. Fontana Descends into the Sea...... 151 34. Plan of the Stage at the Theatre Royal, Tacket Street, Ipswich, Showing the Location of the Corsican Trap Which Existed from 1858 to 1877 ...... 154 35. Diagram Showing Travelling Distances on the Corsican Trap ...... 158 36. Methods of Mounting S cru to ...... 160 37. Alternate Methods of Rigging a Line to the Actor’s P latform ...... 161 38. Alternate Methods of Taking up Lines from the Actor’s Platform Directly onto the Scruto Drum . . . 163 39. Reconstruction of the Corsican T r a p...... 165 40. Reconstruction of Corsican Trap, Details...... 166 41. Directions and Locations on the Nineteenth Century English and American Stage ...... 169 42. The Corsican Brothers. Act I. Princess’s Theatre, 1852 ...... 175 43. Floor Plan for Act I. John MoOre’s Prompt Book for the Bowery, 1852 ...... 181 44. Floor Plan for Act I. J. B. Wright’s Prompt Book . . 181 45. Floor Plan for Act I. John Procter’s Prompt Book for the Pittsburgh, 1852 ...... 181 viii CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Scope and purpose of the study. - -The nineteenth century marked the rise and fall of the melodrama. While melodramas were written before that period, and later developments of the melodrama have continued into the twentieth century, the era of its importance as a prime mover in British, continental, and American dramatic activity lay essentially within that hundred year span. About the middle of the century a new and vigorous strain of "gentlemanly" melodrama was introduced to England and America, from France. This new strain was destined to attract the enthusiastic following of the upper levels of society, which previously had scorned such "vulgar" displays. One of the first and most popular of the new Gallic works was an adaptation from a novel by Dumas pere, which was titled The Corsican Brothers. Introduced to the English speaking stage in 1852, it had a consider­ able impact in establishing a new status for melodrama on the I

Fig. 1. —Sir Henry Irving as Fabian seeing the ghost of Louis, Act I. Illustrated London News. February 5, 1881, p. 124. legitimate stage, and its popularity carried its frequent production over into the early years of the twentieth century. One of the more sensational aspects of The Corsican Brothers was that it called for the leading actor to portray identical twin brothers, both of whom seemingly appeared on the stage at the same time (Fig. 1). The play also called for the use of "vision" scenes, and for the appearance of the "ghost" of one of the brothers. The accomplishment of these extraordinary requirements was made possible only through the use of carefully devised staging techniques and specially constructed mechanical devices. The history of this significant work from the era of the melo­ drama was recorded in periodicals and stage records which accumulated throughout its active life of more than three score years. Scholarly inroads have been made into various aspects of the play's production, but no general study of the play's production history has been attempted. Likewise, there has been no organized attempt to define the staging devices which were demanded by the play, nor to ascertain the specific methods by which the devices were employed In the creation of the required effects. The construction of one particular device has long puzzled scholars. This was the trap which was named for the play, and which provided the play's most astonishing effect. On it the "ghost, " played by the leading actor, appeared to rise slowly through the stage floor, in which there was no apparent opening, and at the same time to glide silently across the full width of the stage as he rose. The popularity of the play and the sensational nature of the device made the installation of the Corsican trap mandatory in many theatres. Two remnants, one an eyewitness account of the machine, the other a description and plan of the trap's location on the stage of a small provincial English theatre, have comprised most of the specific information available about the trap. It has been the purpose of this study to examine the history of the play's major productions, to define the nature of the mechan­ ical devices employed in the various productions, to determine the method of operation and the physical structure of the Corsican trap, and finally to ascertain the exact methods by which the mechanical devices normally were incorporated in the actual staging of the play. Nature of Hie materials consulted. - -Thro ughout the study every effort has been made to present the maximum evidence possible from primary sources. Periodicals which were con­ temporary with the play's production, have been particularly valuable in determining critical attitudes toward the play and in establishing specific dates. Some secondary sources have been consulted in establishing historical and biographical data on major events and personalities associated with the play. An exhaustive search of printed materials dealing with the period was undertaken, far in excess of those items which logically could be included in a selective bibliography. However, by far the most valuable single type of material studied, in determining the exact methods which were used in staging the play, was the prompt book. Each of these most unique volumes constitutes the carefully constructed record of one of the various production companies which performed the melodrama. Each was annotated by the prompter, and contains extensive information relating to the movements and timing of the actors, as well as technical information related to the performance. Through the facilities of the Ohio State University Theatre Collec­ tion, the author was able to consult reproductions of six early prompt books, including those of both the first London and New York productions. The use of this primary source material has been considered invaluable, and has made possible the major contribution of the study, that of clearly determining the staging methods used in the presentation of the play. Organization of the study. —A logical sequence has been followed in approaching the material to be studied. The background and significance of the play’s extensive production history is followed by a brief look at the design of the play itself. This understanding of the play was prerequisite to the study of the general approach to staging which was applied in the English theatres. From the evalua­ tion of staging, the study proceeds to a definition of the specific mechanical devices used in the play, and from the individual machines to their combined use in creating the concerted theatrical effects required by the production. The study concludes with a short chapter in summary. Definition of terms. --Certain terms have been used through­ out the paper which have somewhat restricted meanings, and other terms have been used which are unique to particular historical periods. Some clarification of the most common of these words has seemed appropriate. PLAY: Generally used in reference to the literary work from which the performance is taken. PLOT: The plan of the play, or the main story line. PRODUCTION: The completely mounted play, readied for perform­ ance, including actors, special scenery and effects, costumes, musicians, and technicians. Usually associated with a specific group, theatre, or individual. STAGING: The act or art of mounting the production or of putting the play on the stage. REVIVAL: Any subsequent production which follows the closing of the original. ACTOR-MANAGER: A nineteenth century system of theatrical management in which the leading actor assumed the responsibility of hiring the company and the house, and of managing the production, as well as starring in it. This was a carry-over from the eighteenth century Star System which worked in much the same way, and which innately contained many abuses. STOCK COMPANY: A system in which plays were adapted to a more permanent resident group of actors, many of whom were usually rendered as ineffective as possible, in order to assure the precedence of the "star. " PROMPT BOOK: The physical script of the play, usually inter­ leaved with blank pages, on which are written the director's (or actors manager's) blocking of the actors' movements, and the prompter or stage manager's notes on the physical requirements and operation of the performance. It is the performance record of the play, and each company usually compiles its own prompt script for each new production. TABLEAU (or Tableau Vivant. from the French meaning "living picture"): A technique widely employed in the nineteenth century in which all of the actors momentarily become motionless on the stage, each in his own appropriate posture, thus giving a "vivid" picture of some dramatic moment in the play. Usually that moment was the last one in a given scene or act, just before the curtain was lowered. TRAP: Any of several mechanical devices, other than doors or windows, through which an actor can enter the stage. While traps are sometimes placed in the scenery (especially in English pantomime), they most often are located in the floor, and are operated from an area below the stage. Definitions of other more technical terms used in the prompt books have been included at the beginning of chapter six. CHAPTER II

A HALF CENTURY OF THE CORSICAN BROTHERS

The Play in France Origin of the plav. —The "Corsican Brothers," as known on the English stage, was translated from the French play, "Les Freres Corses, " which Eugene Pierre Baste Grange and Xavier Aymon de Montepin had adapted from the novel of the same name by Alexandre Dumas, pere. Sherson indicates that a somewhat factual basis for the story involved a distinguished art critic, Charles Blanc, and his brother Louis, who, on their mother's side, were Corsican. The story goes that Charles was visiting with a friend, some distance from Paris, when suddenly he cried out in pain, saying that he had been struck by a blow, and that he was sure something had happened to his brother. The following day a letter arrived that described how Louis had been struck down in the street, receiving a blow across his forehead. This event happened in 1830, and Sherson says that it was Charles who related the story to Dumas, who then used it as the basis of the 10 novel which he completed in 1845. * A critic in The Albion, review­ ing a New York production in 1852, ^ related a somewhat different version in which Louis was stabbed while entering his Paris quarters and that a “sudden and alarming pang" was felt by his brother. For over two decades, ever since Henri PI in 1829, Alexandre Dumas pere (1803-70) had been an acclaimed romantic dramatist. His most famous play was la Tour de Nesle written in 1832. His plays and novels moved swiftly and were marked by their extreme energy, passion, and often unbridled violence. The energy of his works was matched by the energy of the man, which he combined with an exceptional imagination to create nearly three hundred novels. Of these, Les Freres Corses was but one. It is doubtful that Dumas, himself, collaborated in the adaptation of the Corsican Brothers from novel to finished melodrama. In any event, Grange and de Montepin completed the play for its first production at the Theatre Historique^ in Paris on August 10,

^Erroll Sherson, Londons Lost Theatres of the 19th Century (London: John Lane, The Bodley Head, Ltd., 1925), p. 148. ^The Albion (New York). May 22, 1852, p. 248. 3 / The Theatre Historique had been built and financed by Dumas, and he was nearly ruined when it failed later in the year 1850. 11

1850,4 with Charles Fechter (1824-79) in the role of the twin brothers. This production was an immediate success. After a short run at the Historique, the play was transferred to the Ambigu Comique. 5 Charles Fechter. --There is little question that Fechter's talents contributed to the play's success, and further proof of these talents came later when he bridged the gap between the French and the English speaking stages. While French was his first language and he was raised in France, he had been born a cockney in Hanway Yard, London, just off Oxford Street. ® His father was of continental parentage, but his mother was English. His acting success in Paris had come in leading roles of the new romantic drama. He learned to act while studying with Frederic Lemaiter, who was known as one of the great romantic actors, and Fechter had mastered his lessons well. Besides his triumph

4F. C. Wemyss, in the introduction to the Modem Standard Drama, No. XCm, gives the date of the first production at the Theatre Historique as April 16, 1850. The later date, however, seems to be universally accepted. ^From a Letter to the Editor by Douglas Munro, Times Literary Supplement (London). March 4, 1944, p. 115, in which he cites an article on Xavier de Montepin in Vapereau's "Dictionnaire des Contemporains," 1865. ^Sherson, loc. cit. Fig. 2. ~Cha£ duced in Coleman, p. 65. Fig. 3. —The Princess's Theatre, London. Original in the Harvard Theatre Collection. OSUTC film No. 1443*. 14 as the twins in Les Freres Corses. Fechter had also created the original role of Armand in La Dame aux Camelias. His influence and fortunes on the English stage are touched upon later in this study.

The Productions in England Charles Kean and the original English production. —Had the play been given by a lesser actor-manager of the time and in a less important theatre than the Royal Princess's, the history of The Corsican Brothers might, indeed, have taken a considerably less notable course. But Charles Kean (1811-1868, Fig. 2), whose tenure at the Princess's (Fig. 3) is now a legend, gave it the full power of the production facilities at his disposal. Charles's famous actor-manager father, Edmund Kean (1787-1833), had sent him to Eton in an effort to keep the boy from following a theatrical profession. But by 1827 Kean had already begun his acting career. Edmund's last performance on the stage was as Othello at Covent Garden on March 25, 1833, and his Iago was played by Charles. Less than two months later Edmund was dead. While not the actor his father was, Charles, with his wife Ellen Tree (1806-80), became the most important name in the English theatre during his management at the Princess's Theatre from 1851 to 1859. 15

Lavish spectacle which laid claim to historical accu­ racy embellished all types of drama from Plzarro to Sardanapalus. and brought the new Gallic drama into line with Shakespeare. Praises of Charles's style in "gentlemanly melodrama" have tended to damn him as an actor, but his place in theatre history cannot be ignored. ? So influential was Kean's management that for the remainder of the Nineteenth Century his example in production was followed, with variations, by most of his successors, and certainly it pro­ vided the basis for comparison of all succeeding actor-managers and their accomplishments. His energetic antiquarian approach to scenery and costuming was a revolution in an era when careful historical research was an exceptional approach to mounting theatricals. His "grand manner" of using scenery and costume carried over into his direction of crowds, pageantry, and stage lighting; and he drew no line between the use of these elements for Shakespearean productions and for the melodramas and romances which were to cross the boards of his theatre. Many old guard voices were raised against his introduction of the new French romances and melodramas, but "all were agreed, however, that

^Maurice Willson Disher, "Charles Kean, " Oxford Companion to the Theatre, ed. Phyllis Hartnoll (2nd ed.; London: Oxford Uni­ versity Press, 1957), p. 435. 16 never before had the English stage seen such brilliant, picturesque, and appropriate setting. "8 With a certain sureness in sensing the popular tastes of the time, Kean also introduced something of the French romantic style of acting to the English stage, a style which was to reach its full impact with the appearance in England of Charles Fechter a decade later. Charles Kean's curiously exact sense of the spirit of the age is proved by the way three or four of the plays he first brought upon the English stage were kept together by succeeding actor-managers as the nucleus of the romantic drama. The Lyons Mail. Louis XI. The Corsican Brothers and Faust and Marguerite, for fifty years mingled with Hamlet. Richard HI. Lear and Macbeth as though their equals in colour and form. ® Kean's first significant French import to be installed at the Princess's was a play titled Pauline, which was presented in 1851 following a successful run the previous year at the Theatre His- torique. The work was based on one of Dumas pere's stories. It was reported that the drama was so effective that at one point Queen Victoria was seen to clutch the curtains in fear for the desperate predicament of the heroine.

^Ernest Bradlee Watson, Sheridan to Robertson (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926), p. 267. ^M. Willson Disher, Melodrama (London: Rockliff, 1954), p. 145. Fig. 4. —Playbill for the first performance of The Corsican Brothers on the English Stage. Original in the Enthoven Collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum. OSBTC film No. 958*. 18

Fig, 5. --Dion Boucicault, from a newspaper clipping dated September 27, 1890. Original in the Enthoven Collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum. OSUTC film No. 959*. 19

The following year, Kean imported still another melodrama from the 1850 season at the Theatre Historique. On February 24th, 1852 Dion Boucicault's English adaptation of Grange and de Montepin's* Les Freres \ Corses opened at the Princess's as The 9 Corsican Brothers (see playbill, Fig. 4). In the words of The Illustrated London News, "The drama was entirely successful. Dion Boucicault (1820-90, Fig. 5) had been born in Dublin under the name of Dionysius Lardner Boursiquot and educated by his father at the University of London. His father, Dionysius Lardner, was a French refugee who had been a roomer in the home of his mother. Both an actor and a playwright, Boucicault had scored his first success in 1841 with the sensational melodrama London Assurance, and had met with somewhat less success during the succeeding years. The year 1852 marked the complete break between the Boucicault of London Assurance—and therefore of the English tradition—and the Boucicault of sen­ sation, sentimentality, and intense realism. H The immediate result of this break was the immense popularity which he scored with his translation of The Corsican Brothers. So successful was Boucicault's version that it played some

l OThe Illustrated London News. February 28, 1852, p. 182. ^-Watson, op. cit., p. 242. 20 sixty-six times during that first season, between February 24th and July the 9th, and was destined to have a total run with Kean, at the Princess's, of some 240 performances by 1859. It also developed as an enormous success throughout Britain and the United States, hi The Corsican Brothers Boucicault reached new heights in the use of ingenuity, intense realism, sensation, and one of his greatest tools, sentimentality. Also in 1852 he made his debut at the Princess's in his new play, The Vampire. The Vampire failed to meet with critical or even extensive popular acclaim. In 1853 Boucicault came to America and became eminently successful as a dramatic writer. He made several return trips to England, but most of the remainder of his life was spent in America. His greatest successes included The Poor of New York (1857). The Octoroon (1859). The Colleen Bawn (his most popular Irish play, 1860), The Shauqhraun (1874), Rip Van Winkle (1865), and Belle Lamar (1874). By the end of his career he had written or adapted nearly one hundred and forty pieces. Boucicault was by no means the on±; author to translate the French version. Once Kean had scored with the play several other translations and bootlegged editions appeared. In 1852 alone, Clarence recorded other versions at the Marylebone (March 8), a 21 version by G. Almar at the Victoria, and others at the Queen's, the Grecian, City of London, and the Standard. 12 Evidence of still another is found in a review of Irving's revival, some twenty- eight years later, when one reviewer wrote: . . . it so chanced that (early in '52, I think) I trans­ lated Alexandre Dumas' romance . . . for Mr. Pierce, the publisher, of the Strand, and that (in conjunction with my brother) I translated the French melodrama and produced it as "The Corsicans" at the Surrey Theatre, then under the management of Messrs. Shepherd and Creswick. Mr. Creswick played the leading character; but we altered the names as much as we could from those in the Princess's version. The deed of translation from the French was done in the course of a single summer's night (I think we worked from nine p. m. till seven p. m. on the mor­ row); and within ten days the Surrey piece (the Princess's one had taken many weeks of elaborate preparation) was "out. "13 While Kean's production achieved vigorous popular acclaim, the reactions of the press and of the more conservative British theatre goers were less enthusiastic, and somewhat mixed in nature. A typical reaction came in the review of the production which appeared in the Illustrated London News: Unique in its way, it must be considered rather as a peculiarity—a curiosity—than as an exemplary theatric production. It boasts of being the best ghost

l2Reginald Clarence, "The Stage" Cyclopaedia. A Bibliography of Plays (London: "The Stage," 16 York Street, Covent Garden, 1909), p. 91. 1 1 "The Playhouses. " The Illustrated London News. September 18, 1880, p. 279. 22

play on the stage; not, however in regard to declama­ tory ghosts, such as Hamlet, but those machine-ghosts usually found in melodramas. At most it takes rank with the “Castle Spectre, " and in that rank may justly claim superiority. I4 However, no one seemed to think that, as melodrama, it ranked anywhere but at the top. G. H. Lewes, a highly regarded critic of the period wrote that: . . . the Corsican Brothers is the most daring, ingenious, and exciting melodrama I remember to have seen; and is mounted with an elegance, an accuracy, an ingenuity in the mingling of the supernatural with the real and an artistic disposition of effects, such as perhaps no theatre could equal, certainly not surpass. 15 For Kean the most significant personal effect of the French productions was the recognition of his particular acting talents in melodrama. Even his most established critics were beginning to find merit in his performances. Lewes analyzed his acting in the following way: Charles Kean, after vainly battling with fate so many years, seems now, consciously or unconsciously settling down to the conviction that his talent does not lie in any Shakespearian sphere whatever, but in melo­ dramas, such as Pauline, or his last venture, The Corsican Brothers, where, as high intellect is not

^Review of Kean's opening night, Illustrated London News. February 28, 1852, p. 182. 15'“Touching the Drama in London, ” The Albion (New York), March 20, 1852, p. 141. This was a reprint of G. H. Lewes' original London review which appeared in America under the signature "Vivian. “ 23

de liqueur, he is not restricted by its fastidious exigencies. It is certainly worth a passing remark, to note how bad an actor he is in any part requiring the expression of intellect or emotion, —in any part calling for representative power; and how impressive, and, I may say, unrivalled, he is in gentlemanly melodrama. The successful portions of his tragic characters are all melodramatic; and to Pauline and The Corsican Brothers he satisfies all the exigencies of criticism. 16 In the same article Lewes decried the more conventionally declamatory state of acting on the British stage and praised Mme. Vestris1 husband, Charles Mathews, for his mastery of the French "drawingroom quietness of well bred acting—the subordination of 'points’ to character—the reliance upon nature. " While he asserted that it was the absence of these same qualities which had earned Kean his reputation, certainly some of them must have been enter­ ing into his performance, because the reviewer in the News included the following statement in his review. Mr. Kean's acting of his two characters was admir­ able, being touched off with those quiet points of telling efficiency which are so rare in modern acting, and in which, indeed, Mr. Charles Mathews and Mr. Charles Kean are now the only masters. 17 Even Lewes admitted later in his review that these same elements were present in Kean's portrayal.

ISlbid. ^Review, Illustrated London News, loc. cit. 24

Charles Kean plays the two brothers; and you must see him before you will believe how well and how quietly he plays them; preserving a gentlemanly demeanour, a drawing-room manner very difficult to assume on the stage, if one may judge from its rarity, which intensifies the passion of the part, and gives it terrible reality. His effectiveness in melodrama was further confirmed by the Theatrical Journal more than a year later: His principal power is decidedly in melodrama, which gives him full scope for the sudden and almost electric bursts of passion for which he is so famous. More recent writers have seen Kean's contribution primarily from the standpoint of the actual introduction of French romances and melodramas, and have suggested that this innovation on his part may have been signally significant. Watson has said: Great as was Kean's contribution to the English stage as a producer of plays from the conventional repertory, his real claim to distinction as an innovator was his fearless introduction of French plays and the French romantic type of acting upon a footincrof equality with the work of the older English school. To support his statement, Watson quoted an article in the Theatrical Journal which went so far as to label Kean's productions of The Corsican Brothers and Pauline as "an era in the history of

I ftrhe Albion (New York). March 20, 1852, p. 142. 1 ^Theatrical Journal (London). March 23, 1853. ^Owatson, op. cit., p. 227. 25 the drama. " Baker hasn't suggested an "era," but has stated that the two productions "Gallicised our stage for a generation. Kean's innovations were not extreme, and yet they did manage to stir up a considerable amount of protest, both from the conserva­ tive press (which was to stand staunchly with him during the latter portion of his management), and those in his audience who were predisposed towards that "older English school. " Less than three months after The Corsican Brothers opened at the Princess's, one of the papers complained: The Queen has been to see this vulgar Victorian trash four times, and she might just as well go to the saloons and witness blood and murder pieces as this silly, wild, and impossible farrago. Good heaven! In this piece (The Corsican Brothers) we have lewd ballet girls introduced, speaking in the most offensive way, . . . a hobgoblin apparition, a ghost, a duel- genuine old Rich nonsense—at the Royal Princess Theatre. 22

Part of the new innovations included the elimination of the traditional bombastic and inflated language used by the actors. Here, a peasant spoke as a peasant would naturally speak, while lordly verbiage was left for the lords. There was considerable economy in the use of dialogue and an extensive use of rapidly

^Henry Barton Baker, History of the London Stage (London: George Routledge and Sons, Ltd., 1904J, p. 484. ^Theatrical Journal (London), May 12, 1852. 26 moving action. Kean attempted to make a Corsican act like a Corsican, even to the Vendetta’s death duel. The fight with broken swords brought forth the classic utterance from one of the English gentleman spectators, "Un-English!" By the end of the second season, June 9, 1853, the play had been produced at least one-hundred and seventeen times, and it was to have been more than twice that number of performances before the termination of Kean’s management. The success of the Kean production caused the play to be widely produced in Britain, both by resident and by touring com­ panies. James Dibdin recorded that two different productions had appeared in Edinburgh within seven weeks of the London premiere. The first opened at the Adelphi with Davenport in the title roles, and employed a "pirated" edition. Soon after, Lloyd began his production which opened on April 12th, 1852 at the Patent Royal Theatre, using the original Kean text. The excellent cast at the Royal was headed by Bland, but Davenport had the support of Wyndham as Chateau Neuf, and the version at the Adelphi won the greatest popular acclaim. 23

23 James C. Dibdin, The Annals of the Edinburgh Stage (Edinburgh: Richard Cameron, 1888), pp. 433 and 436. The follow­ ing year (1853) the Adelphi burned. When it was rebuilt it acquired both the patent and the name "Theatre Royal" from the other house. 27

The productions in America which began as early as April 5th, 1852 have been considered later. Periodically Kean continued to perform The Corsican Brothers throughout his management, but the final performance during a regular season was at the Princess's on March 25th, 1859. He included nine more performances^ during the "Last Four Weeks" before his farewell address and termination of his management at the final performance, August 29, 1859. ^ In 1863 Kean began his world tour, arriving in San Francisco in October of 1864, and finally opening in New York on April 26, 1865. Here Mr. Wheatley had just concluded several performances of The Corsican Brothers at Niblo's Gardens, and Edward Eddy was about to revive it in May at the New Bowery.

24piaybills from the Princess's Theatre during these weeks indicate that the play was scheduled to run only six performances, concluding with the 237th, on August 6th. However, the run was extended to the first three nights of the next week, which dates the final performance (the 240th) on August 10th, 1859. This was con­ firmed by an ad appearing in the Illustrated London News of August 6, 1859. “Playbills from the Princess's Theatre, " from the Enthoven Collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum, OSU Theatre Collection Microfilm No. 958*. 2&A detailed description of the banquet given in honor of Kean's retirement, quoted from the London Era of July 24, 1859, is found in the Albion of August 13, 1859, p. 391. A description of Kean's closing night and the complete text of his farewell speech is found in the Illustrated London News of September 3, 1859, p. 233. 28

Fig. 8. —Charlas Ffccttter, from a contemporary engraving, uced in Coleman^ Plsyerg anlfrtowrtcflits I lavs Known, op, 29

Kean, with the aid of Boucicault, created the Corsican Brothers for the English speaking world, and it was with Kean's production that all productions, up into the twentieth century, traditionally have been compared. Fechter in England. —A little more than a year later, on November 3, 1860, a date which Watson marks as the beginning of contemporary stagecraft in England, Charles Fechter (Fig. 6) opened in Ruy Bias at the Princess's. The theatre had come under the management of the elder August Harris following Kean's retire­ ment in 1859. For Harris the introduction of Fechter with an English speaking company amounted to something of an experiment, but the effect of his new "discovery" was stunning and instantaneous. What Kean had begun hesitantly as an experiment, Fechter, on the same stage, completed as a positive revolutionary triumph. Even Dickens, a constant and appreciative patron of the stage, pronounced the work of Fechter one of the most complete revolutions in art that it was possible to imagine. While Kean had introduced certain of the revolutionary aspects of the French style of acting, he did so within the framework of "Gentlemanly melodrama. “ But it was Fechter who finally brought about the complete revolution, doing away entirely with the more

26watson, op. cit., p. 234. 27ibid. 30 stilted aspects of the actors stance and declamatory style and replacing it with a style that was natural in gesture and speech. In spite of his pronounced accent he triumphed not only in the romantic repertoire, but equally well in the most venerable dramas of Shakespeare, scoring a decisive success in Hamlet in 1861. It was on December 15, 1860 that Fechter, supported by Harris as Chateau Renaud, appeared on the stage of the Princess1 s Theatre as the twins in The Corsican Brothers, just sixteen months after Kean*s final performance on that stage in the same roles. The play remained a part of Fechter *s repertory throughout the remainder of his career. He also proved a brilliantly capable manager and proceeded to revolutionize staging methods while he managed the Lyceum from 1865 to 1867. Among his innovations was the sinking of footlights, the replacing of hanging cloths with three-dimensional settings, and the re-arrangement of the stage floor itself, to allow more rapid changing of the heavy scenes. He even attempted to do away with the traditional English grooves, and for a time he succeeded, but eventually the groove system returned. Unfortunately, Fechter *s relationship with the people around him suffered from his arrogant, overbearing and somewhat quarrel­ some nature. Although he had been the toast of London society, the fervor he had inspired soon passed. He found himself forced to play 3 1 in the provinces. Finally, in 1870, he went to America, where Charles Dickens had already heralded his fame. Climaxing Fechter's great success, Arthur Cheny built a theatre in Boston especially for him. But his autocratic domination of the men and women with whom he came in contact foreshadowed the oncoming eclipse of Ms star. His first appearance in New York was at Niblo's Gardens on January 10, 1870. He appeared in The Corsican Brothers at the Theatre Frangais in the late spring of 1870, and again in the same roles at the Grand Opera House three years later. However, according to Coleman, empty houses at the Lyceum and Park Theatres, in 1873, marked the beginning of the end for Fechter. ^8 In 1876 he finally retired from the stage to a farm outside of Phila­ delphia where, in 1879, he died, far from the Porte-Saint-Martin, the Theatre-Historique, and the Royal Princess's where he had once been so popular. It was no small achievement, however, to have done away, at a single stroke, with the pernicious habit of "points" and with bombastic declamation; this destructive service is Fechter*s just and worthy claim to celebrity. 29

28john Coleman, Players and Playwrights I Have Known (PMladelphia: Gebbie & Co., 1890), p. 319. ~ 3®Watson, op. cit., p. 240. 32

Sherson records that still another actor appeared at the Princess's to play the brothers only four years before the great Irving revival of 1880. The production was in 1876, and the actor was John Clayton, son-in-law of Dion Boucicault. ^ The revivals of Sir Henry Irving. The dramatic . . . is in a fever of expectation touching an important dramatic event which is to "come off" on Saturday, the Eighteenth instant. . . when the "legendary" drama of "The Corsican Brothers" is to be revived at the Lyceum, with, of course, Mr. Henry Irving in the characters of Fabien and Louis de' Franchi. 31 With these words the "Playhouses" column of the Illustrated London News heralded Irving's revival of the original Kean script in the fall of 1880. From the time Irving went to the Lyceum in 1871, through his management of that theatre, which began in 1878 and finally ended in 1898, his figure dominated the London stage as no other could. His sharp character definition, the almost overpowering intensity of his acting, and the unprecedented magnificence with which he mounted his productions served to free the legitimate theatre of any stigma which had been held against it since puritan times, provided him with a unique and powerful position during the

SOsherson, pp. cit., pp. 165-166. 33-The Illustrated London News. September 18, 1880, p. 279. 33 close of the Victorian period, and won for him the first Imighthood ever conferred upon an actor. Henry Irving (1838-1905) had acted on the British stage since he was eighteen, spending the first nine years of his career in the hard school of the provinces. During the two and a half working years that he appeared in Edinburgh, records indicate that he played some four-hundred and twenty-eight characters, among which were Giordini and Meynard in The Corsican Brothers. 33 At the Prince of Wales Theatre, in Birmingham, he even played Laertes to Charles Fechter's Hamlet. 33 Success on the London stage had first come with a role given him by Dion Boucicault in 1866, and that success continued throughout the century. There were few in the London audiences who stood on middle ground in their opinion of Irving. Most either hailed him as a great artist or decried him for his faults. Henry James said of him that "he has at least the power of inspiring violent enthusiasms, and this faculty is almost always accompanied by a liability to excite protests. w34

3 ^Austin Br ere ton. Henrv Irving (London: David Bogue, 1883), p. 32. 33Sherson, op. cit., p. 153.

34Henry James, The Scenic Art. Notes on Acting and the Drama (New York: Hill and Wang, Inc., 1957), p. 139. 34 Perhaps one of the most humorous and revealing incidents dealing with the relative merits of Irving's talent occurred one evening when J. H. Corbett attended a performance of The Corsican ■ Brothers at the Lyceum. Seated in the pit next to a Cockney, he commented that he didn't think very much of Mr. Irving. But the Cockney cautioned: "Just wite a mo, young fellah. " I "wited" until the scene of the duel in the snow. Irving was writing to his twin by the light of a single candle. He looked up, and in a vision saw his brother fall-pierced by his adversary's sword. The expression on Irving's features and his horror-stricken cry, caused me to stiffen on my seat and groan: "My God.*" "Yayss," said my Cockney, "that's 'Enery Hirving hall ovah. 'E bores yer for twenty minutes and 'e paraloises yer for foive. "35 Most observers of the day agreed that his presence on the stage was magnetic, dynamic, and in many ways almost overwhelming, so much so, in fact, that the quality of the play seemed to have little to do with the success of the production. In terms of his acting, Irving's physical portrayal, with its carefully defined gesture, body movement, and facial expression, would seem to have been

35h. A. Saintbury and Cecil Palmer (eds.), We Saw Him Act A Symposium on the Art of Sir Henry Irving (London: Hurst & Blackett, 1959), pp. 189-190. 35

WBW i

Fig. 7. —Henry Irving as the brothers. The Theatre. October 1, 1880, p. 237. 36 more effective than his control and manipulation of the spoken word. Henry James wrote that: Mr. Irving’s peculiarities and eccentricities of speech are so strange, so numerous, so personal to himself, his vices of pronunciation, of modulation, of elocution so highly developed, the trills he plays with the divine mother-tongue so audacious and fantastic, that the spectator who desires to be in sympathy with him finds himself confronted with a bristling hedge of difficulties. 36 Disher has suggested that the real quality of Irving’s art was the application of patina to the enduring, tried and true " masterpieces" of the stage—the application of a fine gloss to old plays. The selection of tested works turned the focus of the patron or critic from the plot and dialogue to the wonder of Irving's creation. Better, almost a dead play in order that discerning eyes should measure how miraculously he brought it to life. The greater the effort needed, the more greatly his power could manifest itself. 37 It was not surprising then, that Irving began his autumn season of 1880 with a magnificently mounted revival of the Kean version of The Corsican Brothers, in which he appeared as the twins (Fig. 7). The play had its first performance on September 18th with Queen

36james, loc. cit.

37Disher, o£. c it., p. 148. 37

Victoria in attendance. 38 The reviewer from the Illustrated London News noted that the text apparently was the same as that which he had seen at the Princess's, with the exception of a woodcutter's song which had been omitted in the third act. Generally the reviews praised the sumptuousness of the production, with nearly unanimous comment on the spectacular opera and ball scene, as well as the magnificently painted and intensely acted final scene in the Forest of Fontainbleau. As usual, many of the critics who applauded the production were critical of Mr. Irving. Henry James, who acclaimed the brilliant mounting as "the great achievement of the contemporary stage, " commented: "It contains a little of everything except acting. "39 As might be expected, however, the literary merit of the play itself also came under some heavy fire. Such descriptive adjectives as "absurd, " "hackneyed, " and "preposterous" were in evidence. Even so, the reviewer for The Illustrated London News could not deny Irving his popular acclaim: The revival achieved an immense success; and Mr. Irving has added another to his list of dramatic triumphs. ... It seems to me to

38rhis was one of fourteen first performances at the Lyceum which she marked as having attended between 1871 and 1901. Saints- bury and Palmer, op. cit., p. 15.

39james, op. cit., p. 160. 38 possess a wonderfully ingenious scenario, or scheme of action and incident; and it is a very telling spec­ tacle. 40 The writer of The Theatre's review presented one of the most tolerant views of the piece: Here then is a fine field for such an actor as Mr. Irving. The melodrama may be one of stage mechanism, but it is also one of study and thought. 41 Perhaps the general consensus of opinion was summed up by William Telbins, the younger, who in 1889 wrote in the Magazine of Art: In Mr. Irving's mounting of "The Corsican Brothers1* you have an example of what first- class cooking will do for comparatively speaking poor dramatic meat. 42 Obvious comparisons have been made contrasting the per­ formances of Kean, Fechter, and Irving. Generally, Kean was noted for his intense and earnest portrayal of the brothers in one of his most effective and dynamic performances. Fechter earned praise for his sensitive delineation of the differences between the two brothers and for the grace and ease with which he acted. Irving

40The Illustrated London News. September 25, 1880, p. 303. 4lThe Theatre (London), October 1, 1880, p. 236. 42Quoted in Richard Southern, Changeable Scenery (London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1952), p. 384. 39 seemed to combine elements of both his predecessors, presenting Louis as gentle, chivalrous, and charming with polished manners, clearly contrasted with the "noble savage" Fabian whose "deadly northern calm," Baker indicates was not convincing "after Fechter, who threw all the fierce Corsican nature into the last act. . . "43 Nevertheless, Irving found many staunch defenders who cheered the recreation of Kean’s powerful and intense character. The Theatre recorded the production as a "tremendous financial success" with the second performance drawing the largest house that the Lyceum had ever known.44 By the first of November it was further reported that: For the first time, we believe in the annals of the stage in this country, at a legitimate theatre, eight performances a week are announced for the beginning of the month; Mr. Irving having been compelled, owing to the demand for places, to give extra performances on Wednesday mornings. 4& The prosperous venture at the Lyceum prompted other managers to tempt the public with some of the same "bait. " At least one performance of The Corsican Brothers was given at the Brittannia Theatre with Mr. W. James as the brothers and Mr.

43Baker, o£. cit., p. 300. 44The Theatre (London). October 1, 1880, p. 215. 45Ibid., p. 318. 40

J. B. Howe as Chateau Renaud.By far the most popular of the other versions, however, was a burlesque by the "Rajade Troupe, " which opened in October at the Gaiety Theatre, under the title of The Corsican Brothers and Co. , Limited. Written by Mr. Stephen and Mr. Burnand, the parody of Irving and his production provided a highly successful vehicle for Mr. Royce. The Graphic reported that: . . . the new piece, which is very cleverly written in rhymed couplets, affords great amusement; and some of its not-by-any-means ill-natured satire are directed against little exaggerations and trifling solecisms in the Lyceum performance which seem to offer fair mark for this sort of treatment. Mr. Irving's occasional displays of unnecessary energy—his rather violent mode of taking off a Corsican sash or placing a chair . . . may be cited as examples. Mr. Royce has more­ over caught very cleverly those peculiarities which lie on the mere surface of Mr. Irving's impersona­ tions, all which awaken instant recognition and loud laughter. . . . the piece . . . is beyond question a success. 47 Indeed, the success of the parody proved so great that within three weeks the following notice appeared in The Graphic: —The great popularity of the new burlesque of The Corsican Brothers has induced Mr. Hollingshead to give two representations daily by the same performers

^Advertised for the evening of October 6. The Graphic (London), October 2, 1880, p. 318. 47Ibid., October 30, 1880, p. 427. 41 —a very unusual, probably, indeed, an unprecedented event. The day performance is at the IMPERIAL Theatre, the evening performance at the GAIETY Theatre. 4° The Gaiety parody followed in the tradition of The Corsican Brothers; or, The Troublesome Twins, a burlesque extravaganza which H. J. Byron had presented at the Globe beginning May 17, 1869, just over ten years before, and just ten years after Kean’s last performance at the Princess's. Either of these parodies may have prompted still another bit of satire which opened in the spring of 1881 (March 19). This musical extravaganza by G. R. Sims, at the Hull Theatre Royal, was titled Corsican Brother-Babes-in-the- Wood. 49 Two other productions which would precede Irving's next revival were an operatic version with an original libretto by Charles Bradberry and music by George Fox which was presented at the Crystal Palace, September 25, 1888, and a standard revival at the Novelty Theatre on August 4, 1890. 50 According to Brereton, by the end of the run, Irving's first revival had played for one-hundred and ninety nights. 51

4%bid. , November 20, 1880, p. 510. ^Clarence, op. cit., p. 91. 50Ibid.

51-Brereton, 0£. cit., p. 68. 42

Irving made eight trips to America during his management at the Lyceum, first appearing in New York at the Star Theatre, October 29, 1883. His receptions in America were always enthu­ siastic. Audiences were remarkably constant and affectionate, and never seemed to tire of him or his plays. Irving was to revive The Corsican Brothers twice more during his management, the second revival opening on May 12, 1891. Percy Fitzgerald, who had witnessed the original Irving production in 1880, said that as magnificent and attractive as the piece had been mounted then: . . . it was far excelled in sumptuousness on its later revival in 1891. The experience of ten years had made the manager feel a certainty in the results of his own efforts; his touch had become sure; the beautiful and striking effects were developed natu­ rally, without that undue emphasis which often disturbs the onward course of a piece. 53 An observer, writing in The Theatre, exclaimed that "a more realistic and brilliant coup d'oeil has never been seen" than that presented in the opera house scene. He went on to predict that while the melodrama was by then somewhat old-fashioned, "the

52percy Fitzgerald, Sir Henry Irvincr. A Biography (Phila­ delphia: George W. Jacobs & Co., n. d.), p. 264. 53Ibid., p. 114. 43

splendid mounting will doubtless attract crowds to the Lyceum for a considerable time. “54 Irving's third and final revival of the play came in 1893 as he was preparing for the exhausting revival of eleven plays within the space of a few weeks. Fitzgerald said that "these were virtually convenient rehearsals for the coming A merican Tour, “55 which would indicate the possibility of additional performances of the play by the Lyceum company in the United States. Sir Henry Irving's final performance at the Lyceum was in July of 1903, and he died in Bedford in October of 1905, following a performance at the Theatre Royale. It is interesting to note the worldly success of the major figures connected with The Corsican Brothers. Kean and Fechter both died at the age of fifty-seven, Irving lived ten years longer, to the age of sixty-seven, and Boucicault lived to be eighty. Fechter, the originator of the roles, died in obscurity, having gone through a considerable fortune. Boucicault left an estate of 8,322 Pounds, having spent several fortunes. Irving left 20,527 Pounds. Kean, who had brought the play to life on the English

^^The Theatre (London), June 1, 1891, p. 309.

55Fitzgerald, op. cit., pp. 236-237. 44

stage left the largest sum of all, 35,000 Pounds, most of which had been made in Australia, the provinces, and America after he had discontinued his costly productions at the relatively small Prin­ cess^. Other British productions. —The Corsican Brothers continued to be revived at regular intervals until the first World War. An example of the wide production the play received geographically was the touring company of Signor and Signora Majeroni who travelled with the play in Victoria, Queensland, and New Zealand. For two years, probably 1887 and 1888, Henry Jewett toured with their company playing the role of Chateau Renaud. ^ Sir John Martin-Harvey. —The final important actor- manager to revive the play in London was John Martin-Harvey (1863-1944), an actor who had joined the company at the Lyceum in 1882. Martin-Harvey played in London and with the touring company, appearing in the plays of Irving's repertory which included The Corsican Brothers. In 1899 he assumed the manage­ ment of the Lyceum from Irving. Clarence recorded a revival of the play at the Adelphi on June 17, 1906, ^ but other sources have

56Lewis C. Strang, Famous Actors of ttie Day in America (Boston: L. C. Page and Company, 1900), p. 218. ^^Clarence, o£. cit., p. 91. 45 indicated that it was a year later, on June 17, 1907 that Martin- Harvey began his revival at the Adelphi which proved so successful that he brought it back again the following year, on September 9, 1908. In spite of the feet that the-play had now been on the stage for over fifty-eight years, on September 26, 1908, Max Beerbohm wrote of the Martin-Harvey production: I had never seen this play, and had supposed it would appeal only to the antiquarian in me, and was sur­ prised to find the simple playgoer in me really thrilled by it. Not that it didn't delight me as a curiosity, too. . . . The solid fact remains that "The Corsican Brothers" really thrilled me, even moved me. On the 18th of November, 1908 the John Martin-Harvey company presented a Command Performance of the play at Windsor Castle for King Edward VH Harvey's final revival of The Corsican Brothers was on June 14, 1915, at the New Theatre, the house which served as residence for both the Old Vic and the Sadler*s Wells companies following the bombings of World War Two. Martin-Harvey*s finest role was that of Oedipus Hex in the Reinhardt production at Covent Garden in 1912. Pearson has called him "the last eminent specimen of a rapidly disappearing class, " an actor- manager who always seemed to be playing a role wherever he

58Mac Beerbohm, Around Theatres (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954), pp. 523-524, 527. 46 went, and a man who could hardly have been mistaken for anything but an actor. This was in some degree due to his lifelong reverence for Sir Henry Irving, who, whatever he may have been as an actor, was an outstanding personality whose mere presence could be felt in a crowd of notabilities. Harvey liked to think that the mantle of Elijah-Irving had fallen on the shoulders of Elisha-Harvey, and this gave him a continuous consciousness of his own deportment. ^9 It was probably quite gratifying to him that in 1921 he, too, was knighted, becoming Sir John Martin-Harvey.

The Productions in America There is a considerable body of information related to the production of The Corsican Brothers in the United States which would indicate that for fifty years or more the play was revived regularly in nearly every major city in the country. It also achieved considerable success on the road with touring companies in spite of Boucicault's "Combination” system which was inaugu­ rated in 1860 and by 1870 had already begun to weaken the Stock Company system. New York productions. —An indication of the play's accept­ ance in the New York metropolitan area is found in Odell's Annals

50Hesketh Pearson, The Last Actor-Manaqers (London: Methuen and Company, Ltd., 1950), p. 47. 47

Fig. 8. —The Bowery Theatre as it appeared in the 1850's. Iconography of New York Theatres, courtesy The Harvard Theatre Collection. QSUTC film No. 1449*. 48 of the New York Stage, which records productions in thirty-five major houses in New York and Brooklyn during the first forty years of its existence, 1852-92. The actor who probably found, the greatest success playing the brothers in America was Edward Eddy (1822-75), who created the roles for the play's New York opening at the Bowery Theatre (Fig. 8) on April 21, 1852, nearly two months after Kean's pre­ miere. During the next twenty-two years, 1852-74, he was to appear in twenty or more revivals at some six different theatres in the New York area, although most of his appearances were at the Bowery, and later the New Bowery. Odell wrote of the first production: The really notable success at the Bowery for 1851-52, was the much discussed foreign novelty, The Corsican Brothers, with its trick ghost or spirit effects, its magnificent scenery, its exciting episodes, etc. . . . The Corsican Brothers ran till May 29th—forty nights in all.60 While Eddy never became a highly renowned artist, he was energetic, versatile, capable, tall, and quite handsome. His first appearance on the stage had been at the Bowery just a little more than a year earlier, on March 13, 1851. During that season his

SOGeorge C. D. Odell, Annals of the New York Stage. Vol. 1850-57 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1931), pp. 137-138. 49 most noteworthy role had been in the Count of Monte Cristo. Eddy was the idol of the Bowery for many years, even though his attempts in some of the more fashionable theatres never seemed to meet with much popular acceptance. The original Bowery had been associated with another popular idol, Edwin Forrest. Four Boweries had burned by 1845, but the fifth Bowery which was built in that year, and the theatre where The Corsican Brothers scored its major success in New York, did not finally burn until 1929. The New Bowery opened for the fall season of 1859, and during the Civil War years Eddy appeared there. One of the most unusual productions of the play was given by Eddy at the New Bowery on September 4, 1863, when he appeared with an unprecedented "twenty ghosts." In later years his popularity began to diminish, and he was seen briefly at such theatres as the Globe, Tony Pastor's, Wood's Museum, The Brooklyn Opera House, and the Academy of Music in Brooklyn. He appeared as the brothers at the New Bowery in September of 1866, just three months before it finally burned. One of his last performances in the play was at the Bowery in the spring of 1874, the year before his death. 50 It is of some interest that in 1853, the year following the opening of The Corsican Brothers, and possibly due to its success, the Bowery presented Dumas‘s classic of the thirties, La Tour de Nesle: or The Chamber of Death. Probably the second American to play the twin roles in New York was G. V. Brooke, who, on May 19, 1852, opened his manage­ ment at the Astor Place Opera House with the melodrama, which was referred to bv The Albion as his "trump card.,f The Astor Place had been the scene, just three years earlier, of the Forrest- inspired Astor Place Riot which took the lives of twenty-two. An account in The Albion noted that: Mr. Brooke has taken infinite pains to do justice to his undertaking, which, it may be added, borders dangerously close upon the absurd, but which he contrives to render very striking and effective. . . . He is still perhaps too much given to pompous declamation; but we like him better now than formerly . . . "The Corsican Brothers" ought to draw crowded houses. 61 Odell records that "this piece duplicated its success at the Bowery, at which theatre, indeed, it was still running, "62 but after its transfer to Niblo's Garden for a few performances,

6lThe Albion (New York), May 22, 1852, p. 248.

62odell, ojd . cit., p . 160. 51 beginning June 5th, its demise was sounded in a "Drama” column of the 12th: Mr. Brooke and his "Corsican Brothers" not having met with pecuniary success, a new troupe has been brought upon the stage. 63 Before the War, other names, including C. W. Clarke, J. R. Scott, George Jordan, J. A. J. Neafie, and Otto Hoym were added to the roster of those who had played the brothers in New York. Hoym was the unrivaled leading actor of the German- American stage, and appeared regularly at the Stadt-Theatre, which, from 1854 until the building of the New Stadt-Theatre in 1864, mirrored the contemporary state of the German Theatre. The German adaptation of the play, by Theodor West, called Die korsikanischen Briider. probably was the version used both at the Stadt-Theatre and the New-Yorker Volks-Theatre. In 1864 and 1865, the closing years of the Civil War, Mr. Wheatley produced The Corsican Brothers at Niblo's Garden.

63The Albion (New York), June 12, 1852, p. 284.

^W heatley's management was then on the verge of making theatrical history, for the following year, on September 12, 1866 at Niblo's, he presented the first performance of The Black Crook, a piece sometimes referred to as New York's first "leg show, " but most often heralded as the beginning of musical comedy in America. The Black Crook ran for four-hundred and seventy-five performances at Niblo's Garden, and was revived on three other occasions. 52

On May 30 and June 11, 1866, one year after the end of the war, the Broadway Theatre saw what was perhaps the most unique of all The Corsican Brothers performances. The unique feature was that the brothers were not played by a man, but by a woman, Helen Western (1844-68). Helen was from a well-known theatrical family, and the sister of the even better-known Lucille Western. They were a precocious pair. The future looked bright for both of them. Unfortunately, Helen died in her early twenties, just two years after her performance at the Broadway. Lucille died in her early thirties, at the height of a most successful career. May 23, 1870 marked the debut of the renowned Charles Fechter as the brothers at the Theatre Frangaise. Fechter had been welcomed by New York audiences with open arms, and for the first few years he commanded a large and enthusiastic follow­ ing. Another performance, indicated by Odell, was at the Grand Opera House on June 2, 1873. September 11th of that year he renamed the Theatre Frangaise the "Lyceum, " but by 1873 his popularity had already begun its decline, and within three years he retired from the stage. Irving’s revival came in 1880, but the big year for the play in New York was 1883. During the winter and spring of that year, preceding Irving’s first New York appearance in the fall, there 53

9* —Robert Mantell la The CorslffinB rn iftar a, Strang, famous Actors of tbs Day to America, p. ZbS^ 54 were eleven revivals within four months, featuring five actors who appeared in seven different houses. It might be noted that Charles R. Thorne, J r ., J. Clinton Hall, and F. C. Bangs all played the role at Booth's theatre within the same week. Bangs was remem­ bered for having played Mark Antony in Edwin Booth's Julius Caesar. On September 8, 1884, a year after Irving's first appearance at the Star Theatre, the Moore and Holmes British Burlesque Company opened at the New Park Theatre with the highly successful parody, The Corsican Brothers & Co.. Limited. E. J. Henley led the cast of this humorous Henry Irving burlesque. Other actors who were featured in the piece in the 1880's included W. J. Fleming, F. de Belleville, J. B. Studley, and George Learock. The "Gay Nineties" marked a new surge of interest in the play with still another star to portray the dual roles of the brothers. Robert Mantell (1854-1928, Fig. 9) had begun his career in Scotland, toured with Modjeska in America, and finally left the English stage in 1884 to appear with Fanny Davenport's company in New York. A year later he starred in Tangled Lives at the Fifth Avenue Theatre, and later toured with the play across the country for a season. Fol­ lowing his next production, Manbars, Mantell began a long association 55 with The Corsican Brothers. 65 On January 30, 1890 he began a two week run of the play at the Fourteenth Street Theatre, which was followed almost immediately by a week at the People's Theatre during the first week of February, a week at the Grand Opera House in April, and a week at the Amphion Academy in May. Within two years he had appeared as the brothers in at least seven different New York theatres, including Miner's People’s, The Harlem Opera House, and the Columbus Theatre. The Corsican Brothers was always one of his best roles, and Mason has noted that on December 14, 1903, nearly fourteen years after his original production at the Fourteenth Street Theatre, Mantell returned to that house with a run of seventeen performances in the play. 66 In later years the dashing and romantic actor lost a great deal of his fire, but he still maintained his popularity on the road and in cities other than New York. Mason has recorded four performances at the Star Theatre with Harrison J. Wolfe in September of 1899, and twelve perform­ ances at the Murray Hill Theatre, with William Bramwell and the Henry V. Donnelly Stock Company, which opened on February 3,

65strang, ojd . cit., p. 288. ^Hamilton Mason, French Theatre in New York (New York: Columbia University Press, 1940), p. 117. 56

Fig. 10. —The Walnut Street Theatre, Philadelphia,, probably the first theatre in America to stacre The Cforstean Brothers. Original in the Huntington Library, OStlTC £ujmT^7 o26. 57

1902. 67 i^ason aiso credited such stock companies, which were still a significant theatrical force during the early years of the twentieth century, with keeping alive many plays from the French, including The Corsican Brothers. Productions outside of New York. —In America, as in Britain, the widespread popularity and extensive production of The Corsican Brothers would render a detailed study of its pre­ sentation a monumental and, in many respects, quite impossible task; however, some indication of the extent of its production outside New York is in order. Arthur Wilson has listed thirty-six performances of the play in Philadelphia before the end of 1855 at the Walnut Street (Fig. 10), Chestnut Street, and Arch Street theatres. His date of April 5, 1851 for the first performance of the play at the Walnut Street Theatre would indicate a performance in Philadelphia sixteen days before Edward Eddy*s first performance in the play at the Bowery Theatre in New York. In fact, the dates of April 5-10 and 12-17 would indicate a full two weeks, or twelve performances,

67Ibid., pp. 48 and 90.

6% id ., P. 23. 6^Arthur Herman Wilson, A History of the Philadelphia Thea­ tre. 1835 to 1855 (published Ph.D. dissertation; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1935), pp. 460-541, 562. 58 prior to the New York opening. It is probable, therefore, that the first performance of the play in America was not in New York, but at the Walnut Street Theatre in Philadelphia. Many miles from the sphere of the eastern metropolitan theatres, New Orleans, southern terminal of the showboat circuit at the foot of the Mississippi, demonstrated an interest in the play. Kendall has referred to the production at the St. Charles from Christmas time, 1855, to about January 13, 1856. The star, who also appeared in Don Caesar de Bazan during that period, was J. A. Neafie, 70 an actor listed by Odell as having been featured in the piece at the New Bowery, in New York, on November 30, 1859, nearly four years later. The season following Neafie fs appearance in New York, the New Bowery sent its most popular actor to appear in The Corsican Brothers and The Dead Heart at the St. Charles, for in February of 1861 Edward Eddy was the star attraction at that theatre. 71 The Civil War and the fact that the North had captured the city in 1862 did not seriously retard interest in the play. It was

70John S. Kendall, The Golden Age of the New Orleans Theatre (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1952), p. 304.

71lbid.. p. 319. 59 presented at the Varieties Theatre by the John Lewis Baker Stock Company in December of 1862. ?2 Joseph Barrett appeared as the brothers at the Varieties during the seasons of 1863-647^ and also during the season of 1864-65. 7^ In March of 1869 Mr. Gladstane also played the dei Franchis at the Varieties. 7^ Another actor who was to acquire some measure of note in the play, Charles Pope, left New Orleans in 1864. After appearing for a time in Buffalo, he made his first New York appearance in The Corsican Brothers at Niblo's Garden about 1864 or 1865, play­ ing the role of Chateau Renaud to William Wheatley's twins. 7® Although Chateau Renaud was one of Pope's better roles, Odell noted that on October 7, 1878 Pope also played the brothers at the same theatre. Continued success of the play in New Orleans was indicated by the feet that, as late as 1901, the Charles Fourton Stock Com­ pany included The Corsican Brothers in its repertory of old-fashioned but well acted plays which it "played to an uninterrupted succession

72Ibid.. p. 393. 73Ibid., p. 397. 74Ibid., p. 402. 75Ibid., p. 413. 76Ibid.. p. 460. of crowded houses” at the Academy (later the Audubon) Thea­ tre. 77

An indication of the play’s popularity in the western United States has been given by Gagey who lists Boucicault as the most popular playwright on the San Francisco stage during the period from 1864 to 1872, with The Corsican Brothers ranking among his successes. 78

Another well known and versatile American actor who toured with the play in England, and the United States, but who never achieved much success in New York, was the distinguished and hard working E. L. Davenport (1815-77). An interesting touch of Americana is found in one of his broadsides, which has been included with some other pertinent advertising matter at the end of John Moore's prompt book for the original Bowery production. 78 in the cast list the names of the brothers were changed from Fabian and Louis to Fabian and Oscar.

77ibid. , p. 567.

78Edmond M. Gagey, The San Francisco Stage. A History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1950), pp. 121, 122. 7®From the prompt book used by John Moore for Edward Eddy's first production at the Bowery Theatre, New York. Original in the Harvard University Theatre Collection. OSUTC film No. P20. 61

True stock companies, i. e. permanent, resident groups which played a rotating schedule of repertory, were nearly out of business in America by the 1880's. However, a few managed to carry on into the next century, and numerous travelling groups still flourished the title of "stock" companies for years afterwards. The road was a hard life, and there was no guarantee that any company would meet with success. This prompted players to travel with the most successful plays they could acquire. Even so, many fell by the wayside. Such a group was the Daly Company which toured New England with The Corsican Brothers and False Shame in the spring of 1887. Lewis Strang tells us that the experi­ ment ended in financial disaster.

Toy Theatre Productions A study of The Corsican Brothers would not be complete without some reference to the toy theatre, that singular British phenomenon which provided young and old theatrical enthusiasts with inexpensive printed sheets on which were reproduced, in black and white or in hand-tinted color, the characters, costumes, proper­ ties, and settings of a sizeable proportion of the theatrical works

®^Lewis C. Strang, Famous Actresses of the Dav hi America (First Series; Boston: L. C. Page and Company, 1899), p. 131. 62 presented in London during the nineteenth century. Certain of the sheets are still available today, including those for The Corsican Brothers, although the cost runs somewhat more than their once advertised price of "penny plain, twopence colored. " A set of sheets could be purchased for any given play together with a script which had been adapted especially for toy theatre per­ formances. These editions were printed as "juvenile drama” and since have been gathered by collectors. Tiny theatres, also printed on paper, were backed with cardboard and thin strips or blocks of wood. In more recent years the sheets have been re-printed, but plastics have come into common use for backing, and tiny sets of operating electrical footlights have been made available for the ”toy" productions. The particular value of these sheets to the researcher has been in the fact that they were executed by artists of the day who reproduced, more or less carefully, the settings, costumes, properties, make-up, and favored postures and gestures of the important actors. Several houses further claimed to have faithfully recorded the colors of those settings and costumes "according to the traditional recipes. " How authentic these colors are, in terms of the original productions, however, is open to some question. Never' theless, the study of large number of these sheets has revealed a 63

Fig. 11. —Cover sheet for The Cprsican Brothers, from Green’s toy theatre sheets. This series, published August 11, 1854, was sold wholesale by J. King, 1. Redington, and J. T. Wood.

\ 64 considerable amount of detail related to the original staging of the plays. George Speaight, who has done a great deal of study in the area of toy theatres, inherited a toy stage from his brothers, and from the age of ten to fourteen engaged in presenting toy theatre productions, one of his two favorites being The Corsican Brothers. He also engaged in a highly successful two performance per day exhibition of toy theatres in London in 1932, which opened with The Corsican Brothers and ran for a five week "season” playing before audiences of up to fifty persons per showing. 81 Among the companies printing The Corsican Brothers sheets, according to Speaight, was J. K. Green (1846-57, Fig. 11) and his agent, John Redington (1850-76), both of whom were succeeded by Benjamin Pollock (1876-1937) who continued to republish the same play lists. After 1875 a set of The Corsican Brothers sheets were also printed by the Penny Theatre Royal, Yates and Co., Notting­ ham. After World War* n Pollock gathered up as many of the old plates and original sheets as could be found and made them available again. As of 1963, The Corsican Brothers sheets were still avail­ able, and have been considered later in the study.

SlGeorge Speaight, Juvenile Drama (London: MacDonald and Company, Ltd., 1946), pp. 204-205. 65 One of the traps called for in the play, the vampire trap, was originally designed for use in J. Planche!s The Vampire, which was presented at the English Opera in 1820. Among the companies printing sheets for The Vampire were J. H. Jameson, William West, and Hodgson and Company. West was one of the pioneers of the Toy theatre, publishing as early as 1811. Disher has supplied the date of 1757 for the opening of J. Redingtonfs "Theatrical Print Warehouse" in Hoxton. 83 Disher also observed from Redingtonfs sheets for The Corsican Brothers that the artist, in keeping faith with the integrity of the original Kean performance, found himself compelled to show the back of one of the brothers when both appeared at the same time, just as it was necessary for the double to stand with his face upstage in the actual performance when the two brothers appeared together. However, he also noted that in the final duel scene the swords of the opponents remain unbroken, possibly in deference to the small boys who "heartily disliked" having to withdraw a cut-out figure in order to replace it with another. 83

^The Times Literary Supplement (London). February 26, 1944, p. 108. 83Ibid. CHAPTER HI

THE PLAY

About the middle of the nineteenth century, melodrama, which had been developing for seventy years or more, began to assume a stature which appealed to the upper levels of English society--even to royalty. The cause of this new interest was the introduction of a strain of romantic Gallic drama, which had been imported from Paris. To be sure, these new entries included the standard elements of melodrama: the heavy hand of fate, highly emotional situations, romance and sensation, as well as the occasional introduction of vocal or instrumental music. But the Gallic melodrama turned toward sophistication and away from burlesque, the direction in which melodrama, generally, had been tending to lean. It was in this environment that The Corsican Brothers first appeared. Pauline, with its heroine and its oily-mannered murderer, had opened at the Theatre Historique in 1850, and the following year Kean's introduction of the play at the Princess's was a

66 67 resounding success. It was hardly surprising, then, that the next year, 1852, he would import still another sensation based on a story by the same author, Dumas pere. Thus, The Corsican Brothers, in Dion Boucicaultfs translation, burst upon the English- speaking stage, to be followed almost immediately by other translations or imitations. Critical reaction. --The immediate reaction of the London press ran the gamut from high praise to shocked censure. Inter­ estingly enough, some of the writers with sharpest criticisms were also those with the loftiest praise. For example, G. H. Lewes, one of the better known critics of the day, was appalled by the violent manner in which Fabian, the rugged Corsican from the wilds of the mountains was portrayed by Kean. He wrote of the duel with sword points: This does not read as horrible; perhaps; but to see it on the stage, represented with minute ferocity of detail, and with a truth on the part of the actors, which enhances the terror, the effect is so intense, so horrible, so startling, that one gentleman indignantly exclaimed un-English! It was, indeed, gratuitously shocking, and Charles Kean will damage himself in public estimation by such moral mistakes, showing a vulgar lust for the lowest sources of excitement—the tragedy of the shambles!

lG. H. Lewes, review of The Corsican Brothers. The Albion (New York), March 20, 1852, pp. 141-142. 68

Lewes then continued with a general observation on the excesses generally associated with the melodrama: But it is the fhtality of the melodrama to know no limit. The tendency of the senses is downwards. To gratify them stimulants must be added and added, chili upon cayenne, butchery upon murder, "horrors on horrors' head accumulated! " And herein lies the secret weak­ ness and inevitable failure of Melodrame . . . the fact that Melodrame appeals to the lowest faculties, the avenues of which are very limited, consequently the influence is soon exhausted; whereas drama appeals to the highest faculties, and their avenues are infinite. 2 In spite of his reservations, however, Lewes could not hold back his admiration for some of the scenes which leaned most heavily upon these same elements, and later in the same review he went as far as to declare that The Corsican Brothers was "the most daring, ingenious, and exciting melodrama" that he could remember ever having seen. As previously noted, others, such as the critic in The Illustrated London News, withheld their approval of the play as a conventional drama, and relegated it to the top of the heap of melodramatic ghost plays. A few months after Kean*s opening, a review of Boucicault's The Vampire, quoted from the London Times, appeared in New

2Ibid. , p. 142. e9

York. The piece offered a tempered defense of The Corsican Brothers. Some critics who have wished to take a high ground with respect to drama, have been especially severe on pieces of the Corsican Brothers1 school. We doubt whether they have hit the right nail on the head. The Corsican Brothers pretended to excite the shudder produced by a ghost story, and as the ghost-effects were well managed, it answered its purpose. They were, at any rate, new of their kind; the ghostly personnages were not a whit more unreal than the chevaliers, gallant peasants, nobles, knights, and what not, who so often in modern plays pretend to represent humanity, and the sympathy between the two brothers gave something like a political tone to the whole. A melodrama, in which an idea is definitely worked out, is, after all, if well managed, a very respectable affair. 3 Even Lewes, who sharply decried the excesses of melo­ drama as appealing to the lowest faculties, could not help but admit that the play was: . . . full of invention, riveting in interest, put on the stage with immense variety and splendour, and very finely acted. Leave the aesthetic question aside, and consider the Melodrame as a Melodrame and, short of the horrible termination, I say we have had nothing so effective for a long while.4 Nevertheless, the "horrible termination" seems to have had much the same effect on the critic as it did on the public, since,

3Review of The Vampire. The Albion (New York), July 3, 1852, p. 320. Quoted from the Times (London). 4Lewes, op. cit., p. 142. further on in the review, Lewes observed of Kean's performance that: . . . nothing can be more impressive than his appear­ ance in the third act as the avenger of his brother. The duel between him and Wigan was a masterpiece on both sides: the Bois de Boulogne itself has scarcely seen a duel more real or more exciting. 5 Perhaps the best summary of contemporary reaction to the play was that which appeared in the review of the 1852 season, printed in The Illustrated London News. In part, it noted that: . . . the career of the Princess' during the last season was signalised by the production of an extraordinary piece, entitled "The Corsican Brothers," a melodramatic ghost-story, which has called forth as much praise as censure. . . . though the performance was not classical in kind, it was in degree; . . . in short, the piece was one of the best, perhaps, the very best of its class ever pro­ duced. There was an aim at excellence which demanded the deserved appreciation, and which ultimately com­ manded it. The indisputable merits of "The Corsican Brothers" justify a strong plea in its favour, although they constitute rather an apology than a defence. ® By the time Irving revived the play, there had been three decades in which to develop new staging techniques, and nearly thirty years for audiences to become more sophisticated. Henry James greeted the opening with these words of welcome: Mr. Irving, desiring to open his winter brilliantly at the Lyceum, can invent nothing better than a

Slbid.

^End of the season review, The Illustrated London News. July 31, 1852, p. 86. 71 revival of that hackneyed and preposterous drama, The Corsican Brothers—a piece of which the prin­ cipal feature is a gentleman of supernatural antecedents, in a blood-stained shirt, moving obliquely along a groove in the stage, under a shower of electric light. 7 Although critics granted Irving his popular success, they had little praise for the "old-fashioned” play, itself. The reviewer in The Illustrated London News observed that the general attitude of other critics was negative: . . . so far as the characters and the dialogue go, I cannot help thinking the dramatic critics (who pos­ sibly were not born or were in petticoats when Mr. Boucicault's drama was originally produced at the Princess's) seem to think the drama a very worth­ less one, all round. ° Even in Irving's era, however, there were those who staunchly defended the merit of the play as an effective entertainment. . . . to class the "Corsican Brothers" with all its taste and interest, its fine feeling and evidences of culture, with the so-called "show pieces," that have gradually turned melodrama into ridicule, and set up a dramatic god for the worship of vulgar minds, is to do a grave injustice to a very brilliant and wholesome entertainment. ®

^Henry James, The Scenic Art. Notes on Acting and the Drama, ed. Allan Wade (New York: Hill and Wang, Inc., 1957), p. 160. Review of Irving's revival, The Illustrated London News. September 25, 1880, p. 303. ^Review of Irving's production, The Theatre (London), October 1, 1880, p. 236. By 1908 Boucicault's dialogue, which had weathered fifty- six years on the stage, was definitely showing signs of age. Max Beerbohm, who was surprised to find how much he liked and was moved by the play, had this to say of the writing: /The style of the dialogue/ in "The Corsican Brothers" . . . has an agreeable quaintness, the aroma of a past age—an age for which we are not responsible. Of course, human beings never talked like that; but that was how the dramatist used to write, thirty years or so ago; and we are interested and touched .... But come.1 I am writing as though I had not been thrilled by the play itself. ^ Almost no one will argue that The Corsican Brothers should be classed as a great play. However, it was filled with elements which caught and held the imagination of its audiences, and satis­ fied the public's appetite for a particular type of sensational, romantic drama. During the more than three score years in which it was produced throughout Britain and America, it established itself as a classic of its type. A note on Boucicault's contribution. —In the realm of melo­ drama, Dion Boucicault will always be remembered as a giant. Not only was he prolific, having produced some one-hundred and fifty plays, but his sure sense of what the public wanted to see proved to be exceptionally reliable. Further, the construction

i^Max Beerbohm, Around Theatres (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954), pp. 524-525. Around Theatres was first published in England in 1924 and later, in New York, in 1930. 73 of his plays was excellent, whether they were translated and adapted from foreign plays and novels, or of his own invention. In his own way he was merciless with any plot or dialogue which he felt would not go directly to the heart of his audience. As Watson so clearly observed: While Fechter was at work, with the zeal of a French missionary, Boucicault was as busily engaged—but without one touch of fanaticism—in naturalizing French Art. . . . This same spirit of irreverence for any standards of art, except those he thought would appeal to the popular taste, characterized without exception, I believe, his long and brilliant career as a playwright, actor and manager. Whatever his sins, we must grant him the unques­ tioned distinction of being the most open-minded experimenter--also the most indefatigable one— that appeared from 1800 to 1865. ^ His translations of French plays, of which The Corsican Brothers was the first, and of French novels, became the standard for romantic melodrama on the English speaking stage. Boucicault's name does not appear in the printed text of Kean's promptbook. There is little doubt, however, that much of the play's original success was due to Boucicault's "trick of the theatre, " his ability to feed the taste of the fashionable, and his

^-Ernest Bradlee Watson, Sheridan to Robertson, a Study of the Nineteenth-Centurv London Stage, foreword by George Pierce Baker (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926), pp. 240-241. 74 keenly observant eye which he used to gather the detail needed for the realistically conceived scenes he crammed with the excitement of melodrama. Boucicault's first acting effort was at the Haymarket, London, in 1838. His first major appearance was not until 1852, when he acted in his own version of The Vampire at the Princess's, with Kean, closely following the opening of The Corsican Brothers. While critics did not like The Vampire, they did look favorably on Boucicault's acting. He went on performing throughout the remain­ der of his career. Boucicault also proved to be an outstanding manager, and eventually was able to instigate the practice of fashioning the com­ pany to the play, rather than the play to the company—the method used by the old stock companies. His methods led the way to the end of the star system which had fostered the use of weak or miscast supporting characters He also invented a great number of devices for use on the stage and in the theatre, and led the way to financial security and profit sharing for authors, assuring a substantial living

* for that group, which had been taken advantage of for many years. His contributions toward the shaping of the modern theatre were considerable, but his service to the name of melodrama was unrivalled, both in England and in America. 75 Structure of Jhe play. —A unique feature of The Corsican Brothers is that while the first and second acts represent different geographic locations, Corsica and Paris, they are supposed to occur simultaneously in time. This made it possible for either act to be presented first without damage to the production. Vision scenes at the end of each act "blend" the two acts together, one by showing the forest outside Paris "through the wall" of the Corsican chateau, the other by showing the Corsican chateau in the middle of the Forest of Fontainebleau. This construction was considered a "daring novelty" at the time of the play's first performance. As The Illustrated London News phrased it: The two acts, therefore, are supposed to represent two different actions in space, but not in time. This is a boldness in construction which makes the structure of the drama a subject of attentive inquiry, and, at any rate lends the interest of singularity to its treat­ ment. I*

The original French version of the play, in which Fechter appeared, presented the acts in the reverse order to that which was used by Kean and which was to become conventional on both English and American stages. Nearly all printed versions in English place the chateau scene first and the Paris scene second,

■^Review of Kean's production, The Illustrated London News. February 28, 1852, p. 182. 76 although the popular series of Dick's Standard Plays published an adaptation of the play by F. Cooper, shortly after Fechter's 1863 production at the Lyceum, which used the Paris scenes as the first act. 13 Numerous other productions reversed the order of the acts simply by changing the act numbers in the script. Sedley Brown's prompt script, from the Folger collection, was changed in this manner. 14

Fitzgerald and others have related a story of the Kean translation in which the two acts were sent to London from Paris in separate parcels, the acts becoming transposed on the way, and the reversed order being used in the production "with some benefit to the play. This may be a legend; but the fact is that either act could come first without making any serious difference. "15

13The Corsican Brothers, adapted to the English stage by F. Cooper, Dick's Standard Plays, No. 752. Original in the Enthoven Collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum, OSU Theatre Collection Film No. 1360. l^Promptbook of The Corsican Brothers. W. H. Sedley Brown, prompter, apparently from French's Standard Plays No. XCIH, Original in the Folger Shakespeare Library, OSU Theatre Collection film No. P204.

l ^ P e r c y Fitzgerald, Sir Henry Irvincr. a Biography (Phila­ delphia: George W Jacobs & Co., n. d.), pp. 113-114. 77 The first act primarily serves as exposition of the antecedent action, provides an understanding of the deep-rooted Corsican traditions including that of the vendetta, and reveals little more than Fabian’s premonition of the catastrophe occurring in Paris, Louis's ghostly appearance, and the vision of the duel scene. The single scene and one tableau take place in Corsica. The four scenes of the second act take place in Paris, and relate those immediate events leading up to Louis’ untimely demise. Act three, a single scene in the Forest of Fontainebleau, is hardly more than the arrival of the avenger and the satisfaction of the vendetta’s revenge. The plot. —In spite of its simple structure, the play has a rather complicated plot. Only the major crises actually appear as part of the action. However, in the plot analysis which follows, it should be noted that most of the plot is revealed through exposition, while the on-stage action accounts for less than half of the incidents. The portions of the plot which actually occur on stage have been indicated by asterisks (*) as an aid in clarifying this aspect of the play’s structure. The form of the following plot outline is one suggested by Marian Gallaway, 1® which the author has found extremely useful

■ ^ M arian Gallaway, Constructing a Play (New York: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1950), pp. 116-140. 78 in making analyses of this type, and which, in the case of The Corsican Brothers, reveals a very strong cause and effect relation­ ship throughout the script. The version analyzed is, of course, that used by Kean, and essentially the same as that used later by Irving.

Louis and Fabien lived with their widowed mother, the Countess Savillia dei Franchi, and their two servants, Marie and Griffo, in the ancient family chateau at Sullacaro, Corsica. AND Louis and Fabien are identical twin brothers. AND They have extrasensory perception by which each knows the feelings of the other, even when they are apart. AND There is an ancestral history of the same type of perception which includes a legend of the vow of twin brothers never to be separated, even by death; the appearance after his murder of one brother to the other; and a visionary revelation of the murderers, which led to their capture. AND 79 There is a strong adherence in the family to that Corsican tradition which includes the vendetta, or feud for blood revenge. BUT Both brothers fell in love with the same girl, Emilie, who was visiting Corsica with her father, a general. BUT They each respected the feelings of the other. THEREFORE Each resolved to suppress his love in favor of the other. BUT Louis finally became convinced that Fabian no longer loved Emilie. THEREFORE Louis decided to ask her to marry him. BUT Her father was re-called from Corsica to Paris. THEREFORE Louis wanted to go to Paris to be with her. BUT The brothers had vowed never to leave their mother alone. THEREFORE Fabian declared he had no desire to leave Corsica, where he reveled in the sense of liberty and boundless space. THEREFORE Louis went to Paris to be with Emilie. BUT She had become involved romantically with Chateau Renaud. BUT Chateau Renaud reminded her father of a man who had previously ruined the life of another daughter, Louise. THEREFORE Her father forced Emilie to marry elderly Admiral de L'Esparre, whom she did not love. BUT Out of respect for her father, the admiral and the covenant of marriage, she resolved to be a faithful wife in a marriage free from scandal. BUT Louis chanced to meet the Admiral, and was invited to his house, as a friend. THEREFORE Louis resolved to honor the marriage and to suppress his feelings for Emilie. BUT His love for Emilie was too great.

THEREFORE He ceased Ms visits to the house. BUT The Admiral was called to Mexico. THEREFORE Emilie lived in seclusion. BUT Chateau Renaud took advantage of the Admiral*s absence, and boasted among his friends that, even though Emilie was married, having once been an accepted lover, he still retained that character. AND He showed letters from her as proof, even though the letters had been written to Mm before Emilie's marriage to the admiral. BUT Louis, by gossip, heard of the boast. THEREFORE He wrote to Emilie, warMng her of her compromised position, and suggested that she regain the letters. BUT Chateau Renaud placed a condition on the return of the letters. THEREFORE Emilie agreed to meet Chateau Renaud at the opera, risking public misinterpretation of her motives, in order to regain the letters. BUT Louis received an anonymous letter warning that Emilie would be at the opera. THEREFORE ♦Louis goes to the opera to find her. BUT Louis fails to recognize her behind her mask. AND ♦Chateau Renaud secretes her in an adjoining saloon. AND ♦Chateau Renaud is accused by Montgiron of creating his own reputa­ tion for success with the ladies. THEREFORE ♦Chateau Renaud challenges Montgiron to name a lady with whom he was reputed to have been "successful,11 but with whom he was not, in fact. THEREFORE ♦Montgiron names Emilie de L*Esparre. THEREFORE ♦Chateau Renaud, knowing Emilie is there, wagers a thousand francs that he will appear with her at Montgiron's bachelor supper before four a. m. BUT 83

♦Louis, who has also been invited to the party, overhears the wager and the threatened blot on Emilie’s name. THEREFORE ♦Louis accepts the invitation to the supper, in an effort to try to protect Emilie’s honor. BUT ♦Chateau Renaud tells Emilie that while she has accused him of ulterior motives, he has been busy finding Emilie’s poor lost sister. THEREFORE ♦Under the ruse of escorting Emilie to see her sister, Chateau Renaud leaves to take her to Montgiron’s party. THEREFORE ♦Chateau Renaud arrives with Emilie just in time to declare himself winner of the wager. BUT ♦Emilie, realizing she has been duped, unmasks and proclaims Chateau Renaud as false and treacherous, and throws herself on the protection and honor of the gentlemen. AND ♦Emilie asks Louis, as a friend, to escort her to her home. THEREFORE ♦Chateau Renaud challenges Louis to a duel. AND 84 ♦Louis accepts the challenge. AND *In the duel Louis is killed.

BUT For the preceding three days, during Louis1 anguish, melancholy and pain which had been brought on by his worry over Emilie and the crisis with the letters, Fabian, in Corsica, had felt the same emotions. AND At ten after nine, the moment of the duel, Fabian felt a sharp, stabbing pain which gave him a premonition of Louis’s wound. AND The clock in the chateau, which had been wound, mysteriously stopped at ten after nine. AND ’•The ghost of Louis appears to Fabian. AND ♦The fatal duel in the Forest of Fontainebleau is revealed to Fabian in a vision. THEREFORE Fabian, accompanied by Louisrs friend Alfred Meynard, journeyed with haste to Paris to serve the blood-letting vendetta. BUT 85 Chateau Renaud, fearing police inquiries about the duel, has left Paris. BUT ♦The carriage bearing Chateau Renaud and Montgiron breaks down at the same spot in the Forest of Fontainebleau where Louis was killed. THEREFORE ♦They pay Boissec to have the carriage repaired. BUT Fabian has learned of Chateau's departure and his route. AND ♦Fabian overtakes Chateau before the carriage can be repaired. THEREFORE ♦Fabian demands satisfaction for the death of Louis. BUT ♦Montgiron protests that the duel cannot proceed for lack of wit­ nesses and arms. BUT ♦Fabian summons Maynard, who is carrying swords.

THEREFORE ♦The duel begins.

BUT 86

♦Chateau Renaud!s sword is broken. THEREFORE ♦Montgiron declares the contest unequal. BUT ♦Fabian breaks his sword. THEREFORE ♦The duel is continued using only the points. AND ♦At ten minutes after nine, Chateau Renaud is dispatched by Fabian. THEREFORE ♦The vendetta is avenged AND ♦The ghost of Louis appears to console Fabian with the promise that they will meet "above. "

The sub-plot. —Besides the main plot, there is a sub-plot which appears only in Act I, and which has no integral connection with the main plot other than clearly to establish the nature of the vendetta. Its inclusion was immediately recognized by Lewes in the 1852 Kean production, and he wrote: An excellent scene is that of the reconciliation of the Orlandos and the Collonas and their relinquishment of the vendetta, —a scene both fresh and effective, and capitally played by Ryder; but it has nothing to do with the piece, and surprises by its presence in a French drama, where construction is always so care­ ful. Its only office is to bring visibly before us the Corsican feeling about la vendetta. 17 The sub-plot begins with an unstable situation, and develops a complication, but in the end both are satisfied. In the sub-plot, however, nearly all of the action is presented as exposition, and only the final crisis is enacted on the stage. The sub-plot essen­ tially is written as follows:

A hen escaped from the farmyard of the Orlandos to that of the Collonas. THEREFORE The Orlandos demanded the return of the hen. BUT The Collonas swore that the hen was theirs. AND The grandmother of the Collonas, who was holding the hen, wrung its neck and threw it in the face of the mother of the Orlandos.

THEREFORE One of the Orlandos picked up the hen and was about to throw it back at the Collonas. BUT

l^Lewes, op. cit., pp. 141-142. 88

One of the Collonas, with a loaded carbine, fired and killed the Orlando with the hen. THEREFORE A vendetta began. THEREFORE For eleven years the peasantry of the district has been divided into two factions, who hate each other mortally. AND The feud has taken nine lives and wounded five. THEREFORE The families were threatened with extermination. BUT The local prefect wrote to Louis, urging him that his brother, Fabian, might intervene successfully to end the vendetta. THEREFORE Louis, a gentle soul, pledged his word that Fabian would try. THEREFORE Fabian, according to traditional honor, was bound by his brother*s word. THEREFORE Fabian made arrangements for the principal parties to come together for a settlement. 89 THEREFORE

♦At the appointed hour, both parties appear for the preliminaries. BUT ♦Both Orlando and Collona try to avoid the treaty on technicalities. BUT ♦Fabian holds them to the terms of their agreement. THEREFORE ♦The Judge and the company are admitted. AND ♦Orlando and Collona begrudgingly accept the olive branches and shake hands. AND ♦The judge reads the agreement ending the eleven-year-old vendetta, which both parties begrudgingly sign. AND ♦The hen is returned. THEREFORE ♦The vendetta is ended.

THEREFORE ♦Fabian's pledge to Louis has been redeemed. END 90

It is obvious that this sub-plot is not interwoven with the main plot, nor is it in any way integral with the play. The main plot also indicates the weak nature of the character of Louis who becomes nothing beyond a pawn for Chateau Renaud. Even Fabian, whose nature appears considerably stronger, is swept away by the progress of the action rather than by any strong points or flaws within his own character. But this could hardly be a melodrama if such were not the case, and the final outcome were dependent upon character strengths or weaknesses of the protagonist. Variations from Boucicault’s version. —French’s and the Modem Standard Drama follow the Kean script very closely, with the exception that the somewhat elevated English of the Kean version has been lowered a notch toward the American vernacular, or to the vernacular of a somewhat less sophisticated English society. Other translations or adaptations vary slightly in relation to plot or dramatic sequence, but generally they all relate to the original English version. Probably the greatest departure from the original version appears in scenes which were written in later by actors or managers. Some were quite short, and appear to have had a mechanical utility in the staging, i. e. designed to cover what would otherwise be a lengthy scene change. 91 Sedley Brown's prompt script, from the Folger collection, includes such a scene which was inserted between the supper in Montgiron's saloon (H, iii) and the Tableau in the Forest of Fontainebleau (H, iv). ^ its content deals with nothing more serious than Montgiron trying to steal a kiss from Estelle. A similar short scene, played in the first grooves, is found in Procter's script for the Pittsburgh Theatre, 1® and is quite obviously introduced only to cover the same scene change. The content is a brief monologue by Louis's servant, Jose (invented), who tells of his master's premonition of disaster, and of the servant's very much out-of-breath efforts to catch the carriage in order to persuade Louis to avoid the terrible encounter. The same script also added two other more extensive "original'1 scenes, one of which was written in before the beginning of the printed text, and the other written in following the end of the printed text. The first takes place in Louis's apartment in Paris, as Alfred Maynard is preparing to leave on his visit to Corsica,

H. Sedley Brown's Prompt Script for The Corsican Brothers. Original in the Folger Shakespeare Library, OSXJ Theatre Collection film No. P204, p. 49. ■^John Procter's prompt script for The Corsican Brothers. Original in the Folger Shakespeare Library, OSU Theatre Collection film No. P156, ff. p. 48. and concludes with a vision of the last scene in the play (also written in) which gives Louis a foreboding of the calamity that is about to befall. The second is written in after the final duel in the Forest of Fontainebleau, and takes place in the Corsican chateau. It tells of the exhumed Louis being returned to Corsica for burial and of Fabian*s premonition that he, too, will die and join his brother, leaving Emilie to remind Mme. dei Franchi of her sons. Louis1 body arrives, the ghost of Louis appears to Fabian, and Fabian dies. As the assembled gathering kneels around him, the stage directions read: The vision of the Two Brothers rises C. Clouds work up, and scene opens, discovers funeral.. Sepulchre of the Franchi.. Dirge. .Bell. Dirge continued all the time through scene, till the Curtain is down. Bell tolls all the time. When the pall covers the Body of Fabian Light Fire R. &L.2.E. Picture & Curtain. 20 Apparently a final scene, such as this one, which featured the death of Fabian and a magnificent Corsican funeral, was a popular addition, since it is to be found in playbill descriptions for several different productions. The elaborate scene which was

20Ibid., ff. p. 60. 93 used at the end of J. B. Wright's prompt script, and which employed numerous mechanical effects and traps, in a funeral scene similar to that added to the Procter production, has been described in detail at the end of Chapter Six. To see how much the script could be elaborated on the the sake of sensation, one needs only to look at a playbill that was found attached to the end of Eddy's prompt script, from the Bowery. The program was for a performance featuring Mr. E. L. Tilton as the brothers, on Thursday Evening, December 15, 1853, more than a year and a half after the New York opening. The name of Mr. Tilton's theatre is not recorded. The description of the scenes reads, in part: The changes are really wonderful, and partake some­ what, in fact, of the supernatural. The apparition of Louis, after the duel, and again just before the death of Fabien, is startling in the extreme, but more so after the death of Fabien, which corroborates the vision seen by Louis in Paris, at the early stage of the Drama, and as soon as the spirit of Fabien departs from the body—now both being dead—the re-union of the twin brothers, Louis and Fabien, is seen, and as the spirits of the brothers disappear, a most beautiful picture of a Corsican Funeral is discovered, and the family vault is about to receive the earthly remains of the Corsican Brothers. The Tableaux are most exquisite and replete with mystic arrangements, to the uninitiated, incomprehensible 94

—leaving the audience deeply impressed with its extraordinary effects. . . *1 The normal order of the scenes, as presented by Kean, Eddy, and Irving reads simply: Act I Scene 1: The Corsican chateau of the dei Franchi Tableau A ctn Scene i: The interior of the Opera House, Paris Scene 2: The lobby of the Opera Scene 3: A Saloon in the house of Montgiron Scene 4: The Forest of Fontainebleau Tableau Act HI Scene 1: The glade where Louis was killed Tableau Mr. Tilton’s scene description, however, is somewhat more elaborate: ACT 1 PAJRIS. SCENE 1 THE APARTMENT OF LOUIS* FIRST TABLEAU—WARNING DREAM & VISION OF FABIAN’S LAST MOMENTS AT CORSICA. ACT 2. CORSICA. SCENE 1 ROOM IN THE CHATEAU OF THE FRANCHI FAMILY. THE RECONCILIATION. THE WARNING. STRANGE SPECTRE of Louis. The Vision. Duel in the Forest of Fontainebleau between Chateau Renaud and Louis.

21 John Moore's prompt book of The Corsican Brothers, used for the 1852 production at the Bowery. Original in the New York Public Library, OSU Theatre Collection film No. P20. ACT THIRD - PARIS SCENE 1—INTERIOR OF THE OPERA HOUSE AT PARIS. THIRD TABLEAU— SCENE 2 Lobby of the Opera House SCENE 3 MONTGIRON'S HOUSE. SCENE 4 CHAMBER OF LOUIS SCENE 5 STREET IN PARIS SCENE 6 CLEARING AT FONTAINEBLEAU.*! FOURTH TABLEAU— THE DUEL BETWEEN CHATEAU RENAUD AND LOUIS?> And Appearance of Fabien and his Mother. ACT 4 NEAR PARIS SCENE 1 — THE FOREST AT FONTAINBLEAU FIFTH TABLEAU— The Warning Clock, The Dreadful Combat between Fabien and Chateau Renaud, Vendetta of Fabian, and RE-APPEARANCE OF LOUIS! ACT 5—CORSICA SCENE 1. An Ancient Studio in the Chateau of Fabien. SIXTH TABLEAU THE INVALID. THE CATASTROPHE. SEVENTH TABLEAU THE APPARITION OF LOUIS* DEATH OF FABIEN* .* APPARITION OF THE TWINS EIGHTH TABLEAU BEAUTIFUL PICTURE OF THE CORSICAN FUNERAL.*22 While a simple listing can hardly do justice to the circus type of lettering used in the playbill, it still is possible to ascertain that at least four scenes and several tableaux had been added for this performance. Another playbill from the same source, for a production featuring the well known American actor, Mr. E. L. Davenport,

22Ibid. 96 modestly announces, at the end of its most sensational description, that the beautiful picture of the Corsican Funeral presents "one of the most thrilling and effective Tableaux ever witnessed on the American Stage." Undoubtedly even greater violence was done to the play, in the name of sensation, by other companies. But the fact remains that in spite of additions, tampering, and abuse, the play managed to hold the imagination of British and American audiences for over half a century. Perhaps Willson Disher perceived some of the play’s natural capacity for capturing an audience when, in a discussion of Irving’s productions, he wrote: Of his plays from the Boulevard by way of the Prin­ cess’s, The Corsican Brothers had the richest tinge of romance. The bare, leafless trees of the silent forest, the frozen pond, the slowly descending snow, the deep orange and red bars of the setting winter sun, echoed his own melancholy. Here is the unmistakable flash of Dumas in a romance not to be bracketed with any others. It dispenses with all the paraphernalia of last-minute rescues, love interest, happy or unhappy ending; it also has no heroine to speak of; yet playgoers could not shake off their nostalgia over that silence, broken as the red light fades on the snow by the sharp notes of steel upon steel till the last gasp of death. 23

23m . Willson Disher, Melodrama. Plots That Thrilled (London: Rockliff, 1954), p. 148. CHAPTER IV

STAGING THE PLAY ON THE ENGLISH STAGE

The English stage. —During the second half of the nineteenth century, the English stage became a stage of transition. Several of the most prominent names associated with The Corsican Brothers belonged to leaders of the movement to do away with the older, more conventional methods of staging through the introduction of new and more realistic scenery and effects. Of special importance were Charles Kean, Charles Fechter, and Sir Henry Irving, all of whom were responsible, in varying degrees, for the introduction of advanced methods of lighting, three-dimensional scenery, historically accurate scene and costume design, and the use of scene and act curtains. Several things about the English stage stood out in marked contrast to the methods and conventions of the continental stages and influenced the mechanical approach of the British designer. One of the most obvious differences was the fact that while the continental stages placed primary importance on the use of space above and below the stage floor, the English stage depended much more on the 97 FI®. House. Moynet, Trues et Beanes. p. ifl}; wooden stage during the nineteenth centur; Edwin Sachs, jag magazine, Peoniary 28, 1806, p. 272 100 use of the space In the wings at the sides of the stage. Continental stages, such, as the Paris Opera House (Fig. 12), often had as many as four or five operating stories below the stage floor. Here were rigged the chariots for changing the side wings, the large traps, bridges, slotes and other devices which were required to raise majestic fences, tableaux and other scenic units of consid­ erable height. In contrast, the English houses employed a series of wooden grooves in which the scenery was slid on and off the stage, with the ^clicking flats" coming together at the middle of the stage. This required that the side wings of the theatres be large enough to extend the stage width to twice that of the proscenium opening, or wider if access around the off-stage flats was to be made available (see Fig. 13). The English stage proscenium averaged about 28 to 3Q feet in width, and prosceniums were at least as tall, or taller, than their width. This would mean that to sink a 25 foot scenic unit below the stage would require a cellar at least 2b to 30 feet deep. Unfortunately, in London a 30 foot cellar invariably came below the level of the Thames River, and was continually subjected to condi­ tions of river seepage, or of flooding. As a result, Instead of four or five working levels, the stage In England usually had but one working mezzanine floor just below the stage floor, and employed a Fig. 14. -C ross-section of the cellar of a typical English wooden, stage, showing the mezzanine fleer and details of bridges and adders built in the center "well. * Edwin Sachs, Engineering magazine. February 28, 1896, p. 273. 102

"well" under the middle part of the stage to house the base of the bridges and traps, as well as the drums, shafts, and lines required to operate them (Fig. 14). All of the machines below the stage were operated from the mezzanine floor, and all traps were loaded and unloaded from the same level. The sub-structure of the stage was similar in many respects to the continental style, with the floor supported by wooden uprights which rested on the bottom of the "well," and connected by wooden joists. Any of these vertical sections could be removed to allow for wider bridges to be inserted for more spectacular effects The remaining vertical units were held in position by the "hook-and- eye" method using iron shutter-bars. The traditional "rake" of the stage, from which the terms "upstage" and "downstage" originated, still remained on the English wooden stage into the twentieth century, with the level of the stage floor rising from front to back one-half inch in height for each foot of depth. For complicated mechanical units, such as the Corsican trap, this rake would have to have been taken into account. Theatres varied in size, depending on the area of the land which was.available. Stage depths ranged from about thirty feet 103 to as much as eighty feet. A thirty foot wide proscenium usually would dictate a stage width of at least sixty feet. The English “groove" system of sliding scenery on and off stage from the sides was little known anywhere else in the world, except in America, where it persisted until the end of the century. One of the first significant attempts to eliminate it was made in 1803 when Charles Fechter had the groove system removed from the Lyceum and replaced with the continental method. Fechter then tried to work with a new method, using hinged flats which were set up in the manner of a box set, and with spectacular three-dimensional outdoor settings. His success, however, seems to have been something less spectacular, and to cover the lengthy and cumbersome scene changes, he introduced the dropping of a curtain. The critic in The Albion was one of the voices raised against the new delays when he observed that: . . . it seems to be a result of Mr. Fechter’s new manner of setting side scenes so that they cannot be shifted easily during the flow of the story, that upon almost every scene the curtain falls for a long pause, making an act of it ...1

^Reviewer of Fechter *s production of Bel Demonio. The Albion. November 28, 1863, p. 574. 104 Fechter's new style of scene changing as well as his innova­ tion of dropping scene curtains were doomed to be short lived as criticism of the delays continued. If there is nothing in a play but action and scenery, let us, at least, have them on good terms together. At every descent of the curtain, and long pause for a mere change of scene in the course of an act, the play may be said to have entangled its legs among the scenes, to be tripped up, and to have come down on its nose. If Mr. Fechter cannot work his new bent and hinged side scenes that enclose the stage, so that the scenes may change as the story runs, without visible effort and delay, the alteration he has made in this respect is no improvement. 2 While Fechter's attempt to do away with the grooves was an honest one, the old-fashioned system returned to the Lyceum. Southern has indicated that the groove system was replaced at Covent Garden with the continental method of staging, as early as 1857.3 Even so, this was a somewhat unique innovation, and the first really substantial influence in doing away with the grooves and in establishing the successful use of the scene curtain was by Irving at the Lyceum.

2fi?ld. ^Richard Southern, "English Playhouse,11 Oxford Companion to the Theatre, ed. Phyllis Hartnoll (London: Oxford University Press, Second Edition, 1957), p. 241. 105

In 1880 Irving introduced the extensive use of scenery supported by stage braces, which was destined to become the "modem” method of staging. As his successful use of the new method was proven, Irving4s influence became significant in changing the method of staging not only in England, but in America as well. It should be remembered that the use of a scene curtain simply did not exist in general practice before Irving's success. The usual changing of scenes in the English theatre was, until about the 1880s, a visible affair, taking place in sight of the audience, and arranged as part of the action of the show. No proper estimate of the drama of those times can be made unless this characteristic of visible scene-change, with all that it means for continuous and vividly pursued action, is appreciated. ’ Even with the new innovations, however, Irving's stage still functioned above and below the stage floor in much the same way it had nearly a century earlier. The striking contrast between Irving's magnificent attention to scenic detail and the crude stage on which he presented his productions was pointed out by Sachs near the end of the century: As an example of contrast, I would only mention that Sir Henry Irving—whose mounting is second to none in the world—gives the most careful attention to every detail of his properties, and yet acts on perhaps the

4lbid. , p. 238. 106

most primitive stage I know of, whilst there are several German playhouses with perfect stages of a recent date on which every set is a most pitiable sight from an artist's point of view. ® Staging of the original Kean production. —Charles Kean made much of his mark on mid-nineteenth century staging by his care­ fully researched, antiquarian approach to scene design. To accomplish his ends, he hired a staff which was made up of some of the most outstanding scene designers and painters of the period. Their primary attention was paid to the Shakespearean revivals for which Kean became so well known, but their talents were also directed to other types of drama and melodrama. Among the principal artists were William Telbin—whose family carried his scene painting tradition into the next century—F. Lloyds, T.Grieve, W. Gordon, H. Cuthbert, and J. Day. A large portion of their collective works has been retained in the Kean Catalogue of Theatrical Scenery in the Enthoven Collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Included in that catalogue are the original designs for Kean's production of The Corsican Brothers. These finished drawings correspond very closely to the scene sketches which are to be found in the original prompt script in the Folger Library, and nearly all of the productions which were to follow

&Edwin Sachs, "The English Wooden Stage," Engineering. February 14, 1896, p. 205. QSUTC film Ho. 886. Keanes used settings that essentially were patterned after those at the Princess's. Act I, Scene 1 of the play is the Principal Saloon, or Hall, OfMme. del Franchi at Sullacaro, Corsica (Pig. 16). The scene plot indicates side flats with doors and locks on either side at the second grooves. Upstage, at the third grooves* were wings with a matching border. The Bight wing had a door which was backed by an "oak" scene piece. Upstage of the wings was a flat with folding doors that was mounted qn a sink which could lower it below the stage at the fourth grooves. Overhead, also at the fourth grooves, was hung a matching border which could be flown out simultaneously as the sink was lowered. Behind the fourth grooves was positioned a cut woods (forest) scene, in the fifth grooves, with tree wings to mask, positioned in the right and left fourth entrance. Just behind the sink, at the fourth grooves was positioned a transparent gauze with wood wings at either side. The upstage area was raised with a covered platform, and the extreme upstage scenic unit was a wood cloth. If the drawings are accurate, there would appear little doubt that the side walls of the downstage setting were raked, either as complete free-standing units or as plugs between the grooves. 109

Pig; 10. •—Kearu Act I* T&bl&aii (p. Lloyds). From thfiKean ^ta^e^he& tric^ S cen ery in the Enthoyea GollecUca. OSXJTC

X

The Tableau scene of Act I is seen in Fig. 1$. While the scale of the figures in the drawing .is obviously out of proportion, there seems to be a more important discrepancy here between the sketch and the instructions in the prompt book. When Louis is in place for the tableau, the prompter calls for pulling above and below to raise and lower the flats to reveal the final scene through the gauze. The drawing would indicate, however, that the door Wings, in the third grooves, were also drawn to the sides, opening nearly the entire upstage area to view. This is most apparent when the shift in the relative positions of the large clock and the sideboard is noted. Although it is not shown, the sliding trap was located upstage, just below the wings in the third grooves. The chairs, table, and Marie Ts spinning wheel were all functional properties. Special lighting was provided behind the gauze for the tableau. Act n r Scene 1, the Masked Ball at the Opera (Fig. 17) appears to be much more elaborate than it really was. While the set was quite deep, it was made up of only three major elements. The large arch was positioned in the third grooves. The large staircase set piece was marked to be located In the entrance just downstage of the fifth grooves. At the extreme back was located the painted "Theatre Cloth, * on which was represented all of the boxes, arches, celling, chandeliers, and crowds of people.

Ftg, 19* —Eean: Act H, Scene 3 (P. Lloyds). From the Kean Catalog of Theatrical Scenery la the Enthoven COdectioa. OSUTC film No. 396. 114

Fig; 20. —Kean: Act H, Tableau (W. Gordon)* From the Kean Catalog' of Theatrical Scenery In the Eathoven Collection. OSUTC film No. m . m The second scene of Act H (Fig* 18) represented the Lobby of the Opera, and was the simplest of all the scenes. This setting was done entirely with paint on two "LobbyFlats" which came together in the first grooves* and were joined at either side by Proscenium wings. The simplicity and location of the setting clearly indicates that it was used to cover the striking of the opera set* and the setting of the next scene in Montgiron’s house. Act II, Scene 3 represents the Saloon in the House of Montgiron (Fig. 19). This nEandsome Chamber" was set in the third grooves* with a painted chamber flat in the fourth grooves* to back the center door. A side flat on the left contained a fire­ place. The side fiat at the stage right included a folding door which was backed by a chamber fiat. Further Indication that the side flats were raked is found in the fact that whenever the term *side flat" is used in the scene plot* ng groove location is listed. This method of listing is uniform in all interior scenes. The plot for Scene 3 also specifies that the side fiats were masked by the proscenium wings. The curtain was lowered between the third and fourth

scenes of A c i n to cover the scene change. -t' Scene 4, the final short scene of the second act (Fig. 20) is nearly the exact reverse of the first act and its tableau. The scene 1 ► V « w —------117 is the Forest of Fontainebleau, as seen in the first act Tableau. The cut wood wings with wood borders were located in the third grooves, with cut trees in the right and left third entrance. The scene was backed by wood flats rigged to sink at the first slider of the fourth grooves, and with a matching border to rise. A gauze was mounted across the fourth entrance, and the interior scene of Act I was placed on a platform at the back of the stage. The scene opened to discover Louis lying on the ground (a double), and at the prompter's cues The back of the scene opens and discovers the exact scene of the first act. The clock pointing to ten minutes after nine. Madame La Contessa Savillia Dei Franchi and Fabien Dei Franchi in the same positions as before.6 Act 3 (Fig. 21) represented the same Glade in the Forest of Fontainebleau where Louis was kiEed. By necessity, however, it required a new set of scenery, since the forest was now covered with snow. For this scene the Cut Woods were placed at the fourth grooves and were backed by a snow covered woods flat which was placed on a platform at the back of the stage. A cut tree was placed in the third right entrance, and a tree on the left side of

^The Corsican Brothers. "Marked and corrected for Charles Kean, Esq. by T. W. Edmonds, Prompter, Princess's Theatre, London, 1850 to 1859,w p. 33. Original in the Folger Shakespeare Library, OSU Theatre Collection film No. P78. the stage. The floor above the tree was open with steps leading down to the Mezzanine. A large stump was set in the entrance of the first right hand grooves. It must be assumed that the sliding trap was still located just below the third grooves, and was set to move from stage right to stage left. There is little question that the painting and the use of light combined to make these reasonably simple scenic units blend to produce a most satisfying visual effect. Critical reaction to gean!s staging. —The success of Kean*s staging was indicated clearly by critical comments which the spectacle evoked. There were, of course, numerous references, such as those found in The Illustrated London News, which reflected the effectiveness of the settings and the decor. The interior of the Opera-House, with the masqued ball and carnival, was magnificently placed on the stage; scenery and accessories were perfect, bewildering in their gorgeousness and multitude. The visionary tableau were also fine, and the manner of introducing the ghost by a lateral ascent, instead of a perpendicular one, lent a supernatural appearance to the scene which was irresistibly effective.« Of, particular interest, however, were references to the duel and ghost scenes. Lewes wrote of his very vivid impression of

^Review of Keanfs production, The Illustrated London News.. February 28, 1852, p. 182. 119 the first ghost scene In Act I and the tableau which fol­ lowed: Fabian is now restless and uneasy, convinced that something has happened to his brother Louist and, while he writes to him, to learn the truth, the spectre of his brother, with blood on his breast, appears to him. Nothing can exceed the art with Which this is managed; with ghostly terror, height­ ened by the low tremolow of the violins, and the dim light upon the stage, the audience, breath- suspended, watches the alow apparition, and the vision of the duel which succeeds; a scenic effect more real and terrible than anything I remember. 8 John Coleman saw the original Kean production which, later, he was able to compare with both those of Fechter and of Irving. Writing near the end of the century he recalled: The ghastly and marvellous effect of the apparition, the splendour and gaiety of the Bal Masque at the Opera, and the spectral glades of Fontainebleau, are things never to be forgotten—and certainly have not been since eclipsed, not even by Mr. Irving^ recent splendid and artistic production. As for the acting, when Kean came on in the last scene, and fixed his eyes on Wigan, it was the old story of the basilisk over again, and from that moment it was evident that Chateau Renaud was a doomed man. ®

^Review of Kean's production by G. H. Lewes, The Leader (London), February 28, 1862. Reprinted in The AlbioiTfaew York), March 20, 1852 under the name of "Vivian. " ® John Coleman, Plavers and Playwrights I. Have Known (2nd e d .; Philadelphia: Gebbie & C o., 1890), p7 93 120 Coleman had produced The Corsican Brothers "in the country, with a lair share of success," . . . but until I saw Kean's production, I never realized how much the author was indebted to the genius of the actor and the skill of the stage-manager. I was con­ firmed in this opinion when I afterwards saw Fechter's production (it will be remembered that he was the original actor of the Dei Franchis in Paris) under the management of the late Mr. Harris, which certainly did not compare favorably with Keanrs. ^ Percy Fitzgerald, on the occasion of Irving's revival, also noted the grasp of the public's attention that was held by the Kean production: Some thirty years ago, when it was produced at the Princess's, the homy-voiced Charles Kean perform­ ing the B rothers, it took hold of the public with a sort of fascination—the strange music of stopel, and the mysterious, gliding progress of the murdered brother across the stage, enthralling every one. ^ An interesting point of disagreement arose over that "strange music of Stopel" to which Fitzgerald alluded, and which has usually been more commonly known as "the Ghost Melody.11 It was claimed for Mr. Stopel, who was acting as chef d'orchestre at the Theatre Historigue when the play was originally produced. Another claim was made for Varney, author of the stirring hymn, Mourir pour la patrie. . . . But there used to be a pianoforte piece by one Rosellen—a Reverie—

x9[bid., pp. 92-93. Upercy Fitzgerald, Sir Henry Irving. A Biography (Phila­ delphia: George W. Jacobs & Co., n. d.), p.~113. which certainly began and went on for many bars in the same fashion. However, a copy of the music of the Ghost Melody, arranged for the piano-forte, and published in 1852, was unearthed, which bore on its title the words: "Composed by M. Varney, of the Theatre Historique: arranged by R. Stopel, director of the music at the Princess's Theatre." We mimt assuredly give the credit of this air to Varney. 1* However, other sources still disputed the authorship. A writer in The Graphic took the available facts in hand and came up with a somewhat different answer: The question "Who was the composer of The Ghost Melody' in The Corsican Brothers" seems at last to be set at rest. Mr. Adolph Schloeper and other musical authorities having written to the writer of the Monday column on the theatres in the Daily News to point out that it is identical with that ofRoseHenTs "Reverie in G for the pianoforte"—a piece which was very popular in the salons of Paris long before the production of Les Freres Corses. 13 Regardless of the outcome of the controversy, the fact remained that the little melody, which in all likelihood was intro­ duced to cover some of the noise made by the Corsican trap, became strongly associated with Kean's production. Clement Scott, writing atthe end of the century, remembered his visits to the Princess's during both summer and winter

12Ibid., pp. 118-119.

13"Theatres," The Graphic (London), January 22, 1881, p. 79. 122 holidays, as a boy, and of sitting alone in some comfortable corner of the pit: . . . where I witnessed and pondered over . . . the entrancing "Corsican Brothers,11 whose weird ghost melody, composed by Stoepel, who was after­ wards the musical conductor at the Lyceum in the Bateman days, has haunted me ever since. Play me the ghost melody in "Corsican Brothers, " and I can instantly conjure up the whole scene of enchantment. ^ Staging of Sir Henry Irvlncr's productions. —When Irving revived the play at the Lyceum for the opening of the Fall Season, there was a flurry of excitement in the expectation of seeing the idol of the day in the dashing roles which had brought such success to Mr. Kean. There were several elements which might have engendered the publicrs enthusiasm, not the least of which was that 1880 was the year that Irving did away with the grooves at the Lyceum. Even so, much of Irving's scenic technique had its basis in a not-so-revolutionary history of tradition. As James Laver observed: The second half of the century showed little change in the methods of presentation, and under Irving at the Lyceum we find that Hawes Craven (1837-1910)

Inclement Scott, The Drama of Yesterday and Today (London: Macmillan and C o., L td ., 1899), I, p. 215. 123

employed the same transparencies, cut-out scenes, etc. which de Loutherbourg had used a hundred years before. 15

Despite his somewhat crude mechanical platform, and the natural dependence upon traditional ways, Irving was to bring a new flair, a new elaboration of detail, and a new largeness to his productions which, in many ways, overshadowed the staging prowess of Kean. A veritable little army of stagehands was hired to support the ponderous scenic elements of the play. "The economical but comparatively rude system of rwingsr and grooves is on this occasion entirely dispensed with, as in the best Parisian theatres; and scenes are constructed so solidly, and with so many details, that without minute division of the work, and almost military precision in the move­ ments of the workmen, rwaits' would become intolerably long. For these reasons no fewer than ninety carpenters, thirty gas-men, and fifteen property men, in all 135 persons, are permanently engaged in the mere task of arranging and conduct­ ing the scenes. "I® The eminent critic, Henry James, gave his impressions of the staging a few months after the opening: The Corsican Brothers is brilliantly mounted, with that perfection of detail, that science of the picturesque,

l^Laver, gg. cit., p. 714.

IQpercy Fitzgerald, quoting Mr. Moy Thomas1 "Causeries de Lundi" in The Daily News (London), The World Behind the Scenes (London: Chatto and Wind us, 1881), p. 49. ...naa&teSaAaaakjss^a^sxiiA which, In default of more pertinent triumphs, is the great achievement of the contemporary stage. Of particular note was the elaborate scene at the opera house. This was one of the scenes which Fitzgerald referred to when he emphasized that the hiring of such large numbers of stagehands was the only possible solution to the difficult problems which developed. Figure 22 represents the interior of the Paris Opera House with the orchestra seats removed for dancing. In order to achieve the correct perspective for this undertaking, the actors who crowded the boxes and the floor were carefully sized with the taller ones in the front, and the smaller ones placed progressively upstage. Even children were used to further the illusion, and costumes were proportionately reduced in size in the upstage areas. To complete the illusion, the occupants of the farthest Upstage boxes were merely painted on the scenery, but were reported to have "merged perfectly

l^Henry James, "The London Theatres, * Scrfensrfa Monthly. January, 1881. Reprinted in The Scenic Art,' ed. ' AllanWade (New York: Hill and Wang, In c., 19B7), p. I|0 . 18 FitzgeraM, S ir Henry Irving-, p. l i f .

128 A writer in Theatre and Stage has credited Irving*s final dueling scene in the Forest of Fontainebleau (Fig. 23 and Frontis­ piece) as one of the finest snow scenes ever staged. Unfortunately, he lists the scene as being in the second act rather than the third, but that is of little consequence. This is the duel between Fabian and Chateau Renaud, the fulfillment of the "vendetta. " Through the trees can be seen a frozen lake. Gigantic trees surround the glade which is covered with a thick blanket of "snow. " It is dawn and the rays of the rising sun cause the snow to sparkle and flitter in the frosty air. The duellists, preparing to fight, find their action Impeded. Much business was made of clearing away the deep snow from the dueling area so that they could obtain a firm foothold. The scene occupied the whole stage and required a small army of stage hands to set it. The snow was coarse common salt and tons of it were used. Small rubber wheeled trucks were employed to carry the sacks of salt, which after being deposited was spread evenly over the stage with wooden shovels. 22 From the moment the curtain went up on the first act, and the audience beheld the cool, dark hall of the old Corsican mansion pierced by a dazzling burst of sunlight pouring through the upstage doors, the importance of lighting to Irving!s production must have been obvious. For years Irving had been renowned for his artistic

22Downs, op. c it., n , p. 1048. purposes, but by the end of the year 1881, the Lyceum became the first theatre in England to be equipped with electric lighting throughout. Even before the introduction of electricity, however, he showed great mastery of the use of gas and limelight to create shadowed effects, or to blend or diffuse colors. Violet Vanbrugh declared that "no one ever realized more clearly than he did the power that lighting has upon the imagination of the audience. Fitzgerald reported that Irving's development of the use of greatly intensified lighting permitted him to paint the backdrop of the Corsican Chateau on a thick gauze, and to present the "vision” in the Forest of Fontainebleau through the gauze, rather than having the back wall drop on the sink while the border was lifted to reveal the scene. Fitzgerald's description tells that the effect through the thick gauze offered "something of a magic-lantern or phaatasmagorian air. "24 It was Irving's use of strong illumination which had prompted Henry James's description of the ghost of Louis moving along the groove in the stage "under a shower of electric light. "25

23violet Vanbrugh in Saintsbury and Palm er, op. cit., p. 185.

24Fitzgerald, Sir Henry Irving, p. 116. 130

*/

Fig. 24*—Tableau, Act E, Irving's 1801revivaL The r^tLondan), Juab 1, 1801, p. 301 If the artiste rendering is correct in. Fig. 24, it must be assumed that, at least for his 1891 revival, Irving did not follow Kean's precedent in using the Corsican mansion as a backing for the "vision1' of Fabian and his mother at the end of the second act. CHAPTER V

MECHANICAL DEVICES USED IN THE PRODUCTION

In order to accomplish the involved maneuvers required of the actor, who was b appear in two places on the stage at the same time, and to provide for the sudden appearance of "visions" and "tableaux" which filled the entire back of the stage, certain well planned mechanical devices were vital to any successful production of the play. Of particular importance were the various kinds of traps which were employed at one time or another. Many of the play's requirements called only for the use of standard stage equipment, such as flying borders and the sinks or slotes, which have been mentioned in connection with Sean's vision scenes. These methods are. well known, and it is not the purpose of this study to dwell needlessly upon them. Others, however, t required special rigging and should be noted or reviewed for a clear understanding of the complicated movements of the leading actor.

132 MOTflltlB rajjrjjnq * jo -y mpmjg s&mw~- *32 'But Visions and tableaux. —Two methods have been discussed previously for accomplishing the sudden appearance of "visions" at the back of the stage. One was that used by Kean in which flats were raised and lowered to reveal the scene which had been set behind them. The other was that used by Irving, which employed strong lighting to reveal the scene through a "wall* of heavy gauze. Many of the smaller theatres in which the play was per­ formed, however, did not have the extensive facilities of the major houses. In these theatres there is evidence that the stage managers resorted to less elaborate methods to produce their effects. One of the moat common devices known on the English stage was that of falling, or double-faced, flaps. This technique, shown In Figure 25, employed either a rigid flat piece or a loose cloth supported by a batten, which was fastened to the middle of the face of the main flat. When the flap was raised and fastened, one scene appeared on the face. When the flap was dropped, still another scene could be introduced. A common use for this device was in conflagration scenes when a building would be partially destroyed by ' fire, as in Figure 25 A. Another use was to provide a complete change of scene or transformation such as the cottage which was turned into a castle, as in Figure 25 B. Evidence that this might for ■ft *• nr Fig. 27. —Detail of ttUe page Qf areen^a SSfifeOI sheets Showing * trick* scene inplacefor ^vlSsn" scene,- endo^Actn. have been a device used in the vision scenes of The Corsican Brothers. both of which are labelled as "trick11 scenes. Both designs are carefully marked off with dotted lines to indicate where the scenes should be cut or folded to achieve the desired effect. One of the sheets shown is from Greenfs sheets, the other from Pollock's, and the exact dimensions of the two do not exactly coincide, but the location and principle for using the two scenes is quite apparent. The chateau "trick" scene was folded behind the forest scene, and at the proper moment, it was unfolded, or dropped, to reveal the Corsican mansion in the middle of the forest of Fontainebleau. Figure 27, a portion of Green's title page for The Corsican Brothers r clearly shows the "trick scene" in place for the Tableau at the end of Act n. On a full scale stage the lights at the rear of the scene need only have been lowered momentarily, the flap dropped, and the two characters quickly have taken their places beside the scene. The vampire trap. —At the end of the first act, the actor needed an escape route from the audience's view in order that he might re-appear in the "vision" scene upstage. Often he dropped through a small trap behind the table, and then entered the stage 138 further upstage through another small trap. An alternate method, however, eliminated the need for the floor trap. The first New York production, at the Bowery, was among those which employed a vampire trap in the upstage wall by means of which the actor on the stage could move through the upstage scene wall to the "vision" area behind the scenes. This trap traditionally has taken its name from J. R. Planchefs melodrama, The Vampire: or. the Bride of the Isles, which was produced in London in 1820. This date is generally accepted for the first use of the device. Two forms of the vampire trap came into common use: one in the floor, the other in a wall or vertical flat. The floor vampire has been described by Sachs as: . . . where the floor is in two parts, and hinged to fall downward, so that the acrobat, taking a "dive" down below the stage, opens the floor by the weight of his body, and the floor returns into position by means of strong springs. 1 Vampire traps were most widely used in pantomimes, although they were employed anywhere that the effect of an actor disappearing through a solid piece of scenery was desired. The basic form of the trap, whether it was in the floor or in the wall, was that of two "leaves" held shut by the use of some type of spring. Very

^•Edwin Sachs, "The English Wooden Stage," Engineering. February, 1896, p. 273. 139 often the leaves themselves were made of India rubber, in some ways similar to that used in automobile tire inner tubes. After the actor had passed through the slit, the leaves instantly closed behind him, as though there had never been an opening there at all. The technique of leaping through such traps without inflicting self-injury became a highly skilled art for the actor. Southern has said: The leap is the supreme test of the trick player. In essence, it is no more than an acrobat*s jumping through a trap in the scenery; but by the skillful inter­ playing of a group of highly trained players, and the clever multiplication and placing of types of traps, it can produce a notable piece of theatre, and one able to occupy on its own merits a place in a programme. 2 One of the finest records of an elaborate use of vampire type traps is found in a sketch for "Dumb Ballet" which has been reproduced in Theatre and Stage. 3 This design clearly indicates the "leap" openings in the drop and built-up units. Of particular interest are the vampire type traps in a painted barrel and in the lower portion of a "glass" house at stage right. The technique for leaping through these trap openings was developed to the

^Richard Southern, "Trickwork on the English Stage, " Oxford Companion to the Theatre, ed. Phyllis Hartnoll (2nd ed.; London: Oxford University Press, 1957), p. 802. 3Harold Downs (ed.), Theatre and Stage (London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd., n.d.), n, p. 1100, fig. 55. 140 extent that a good acrobat could dive headfirst through a trap, be caught in a blanket-like affair held by husky assistants, and almost instantly be hurled from the blanket back onto the stage through still another opening. There are numerous records of accidents which befell acrobats who did not maintain the good will of their assistants. Floor traps. --The primary purpose of a stage trap in the floor is for raising a character or scenic unit from below the stage. Traps of this nature vary in size from small one-man traps to large bridges and elevators covering a considerable portion of the stage. While technicians in other countries during the nineteenth century were turning to more durable materials, such as iron, for the construction of stage machines, those in England continued to hold to the traditional use of heavy wooden timbers. As Sachs put it: The whole construction of "traps'* and "sliders" and "bridges" in wooden stages is of the most clumsy and primitive character, which is not so much the fault of the stage carpenter as of the materials employed. That is to say, the carpenter makes the best of his traps considering his want of initiative in avoiding the adoption of other materials more suitable to the forms and requirement of stage machinery. It is, indeed, exceedingly strange . . . how persistent the English stage carpenter is in adhering to these old forms, whilst rapid Fig. 28. —details of sliding trap cowrs aad their rigging: A, lit tte position* B. la portion. EdLwin Sachs, "TteEkglishWoodsa Stag®, *JMB8&2s S magazine, February 28, p. 278. 142

H f. 28. —Plait of a typical English the arrange- meat of me mezzanine and the location, of the Edwitt Sachs, (r Febmry 28, 1890, p. 272. "A tr&D to. the AlberlA 144 strides have been made in the construction of other parts of a theatre during the past decades. * The "sliders* Sachs referred to were permanent sections of flooring built to cover the long, narrow trap and cut openings, which were rigged with a cam lever arrangement which allowed them to be lowered below the level of the stage floor and slid off to the side of the stage at the mezzanine level. This arrangement is clearly shown in Figure 28, just under the stage floor in the mezzanine. It should be noted that sliders varied from only a few inches across to several feet, depending on the size of the trap or cut to be covered. The plan of the mezzanine, seen In Figure 28, shows the normal location for large bridges and for the smaller traps. The small rectangular trap located in center of the downstage area was normally referred to as the “grave* trap, and was the one customarily used in the gravediggers scene in Hamlet. This trap was supported from below on a platform with sliding uprights in all four comers, such as that in Figure 30, which also shows the slider being removed manually on the mezzanine level. With this trap, as with the bridges, the opening in the floor is filled by the ascending trap.

%Lchs, ci£,, p. 275. 1%. SI. —A center rrstarw trap* eftea referred te as an "Eaa^trap*" Gearae M&yratr La *?*?*» e tBeeora. p. 110. 146 The two smaller traps to either side were called the "corner " trapse and the actorrs platform usually was supported by two uprights, instead of four. While both types of trap were operated with a counterweight system, the corner traps, such as that in Figure 31, were invariably high speed traps which propelled the actor onto the stage with considerable momentum. The corner traps were the most frequently used in pantomimes where sudden appearances were required, but were seldom used with any but experienced actors, since there was some danger present in their use. The openings over the corner traps could be of several kinds. The "star* trap opening made of pie-shaped pieces held in place with India rubber "springs" which immediately closed after the ejection of the actor was the most common for pantomime. A less obvious type was that of the "bristle trap" which had a round or oval opening large enough for the actor to pass through. To the edges of the opening were attached long, sturdy bristles which radiated inward towards the center, filling the hole, and were painted the same color as the stage floor. As the actor emerged, his body merely brushed aside the bristles which clung to him as he passed, and then closed again when he was through. This gave the Impression that no opening had existed at all. This was the type of opening which was universally used in the Corsican Trap. Fig. 32. —Rehearshtga pantomime at Covent Garden Theatre. The tttnatrat* 1 aw n a ' ; 148 Obviously a simple slider could also be used over the corner traps, if surprise or instantaneous appearance were not necessary. The slit rubber type of vampire trap was also used on occasion. Gener­ ally, corner trap openings were only large enough to permit the passage of the actor, or actress. Such is the case in Figure 32, where the young lady playing in a Covent Garden production, which ran concurrently with Irving's Corsican Brothers, examined the stage trap opening for her entrance. Needless to say, she was attired in some other costume for the performance. A few theatres had small traps permanently installed at other places in the stage, but most stages required special installa­ tion if a trap were needed anywhere other than in the conventional permanent locations. Such was usually the case with The Corsican Brothers. Scruto. —We have noted that a stage width twice that of the proscenium was made necessary both by the size of the flats, and by the length of the sliders, or sliding trap covers, which were withdrawn beneath the floor of the side wings. Occasionally, how­ ever, a theatre was built in a location which did not afford wing space of the required dimensions. To solve the problem of the "sliders" the scene technicians borrowed from a technique of 149 flexible scenery which had been In use for many years. Southern has described scruto In the following manner: Scruto is the name given to a surface made by attaching a number of narrow strips of thin wood side by side on a canvas backing, so as to form a continuous flexible sheet, like the cover of a roll-top desk. Upon the scruto a subject may be painted and the whole attached to a scene so as to roll down or up, at cue, and replace the old painting with the new. ® Utilizing this principle, but applying it to floor openings, rather than to vertical scene units, stage technicians constructed long, narrow sections of flooring, equal in size to the required sliders, but which would roll up on drums beneath the stage floor. ® This principle, too, was to be "borrowed" in the construction of the Corsican trap. The Corsican trap. —The trap, which took its name from the play, was designed especially for The Corsican Brothers. Its general design and operation are known, although there are numerous

^Southern, op. cit., p. 801. ®In his two volume work, Friedrich Kranich has included an excellent illustration of a geared platform designed to lay a section of scruto across the stage, filling a cut in the floor. This more recent design clearly shows the facility with which the narrow boards, fastened to the canvas, roll onto the drum below. Friedrich Kranich. Buhnentechnlk der Geqenwart (Miinchen und Berlin: Verlag VonR. Oldenbourg, 1932), I, p. 131. 150 details about its construction which have continued to puzzle modern day scholars. The trap functioned in such a manner that the actor not only rose slowly through the floor, where there was no apparent opening, but moved laterally across the stage as he was rising. The Illustrated London News wrote that: . . . the manner of introducing the ghost by a lateral ascent, instead of a perpendicular one, lent a super­ natural appearance to the scene which was irresistibly effective. ' Indeed, the device was to become one of the most successful and sensational elements of the Kean production. So effectively was this problem tackled in the original production . . . that the "Corsican effect" became a necessity for all aspiring theatre managers of the time. ® It was used in essentially the same way by Irving during his revivals in the 1880rs and 1890's. Perhaps some of the novelty had worn off by the time of Irving's revival in 1891, however, since a critic for The Theatre wrote: Some improvement was anticipated in the method of appearance of the ghost, but even modem science

^Review of Keanrs production, "The Theatres, " The Illustrated London News. February 28, 1852, p. 182.

^Richard Southern, "Interesting Matter," The Architectural Review (London), C, 596, August, 1946, p. 42. 151

&©«priatsd la Albert 152

does not seem able to better the solidity of the supposed disembodied apparition. ° Other theatres did not have the facilities to rig such, a complicated device) and numerous productions carried on without it. Nevertheless, its unique nature and its Importance hi the major productions makes an understanding of it necessary. The basic element of the trap was that of a for the actor which rode on two rails that formed an inclined plane, similar in construction to that shown In Figure 33, the well known illustration of Fontana descending into the sea. Xn this drawing the actress’s weight was all that was needed to operate the trap. For the Corsican tfcap, however, there were several additional complications. First: The ramp, which started approximately six feet, or the height of the actor, below the right side of the stage had to be designed to raise the actor upwards and across the stage for a distance of from fifteen to twenty-five feet Second: A moving floor had to be provided which could slide across the stage, but would allow the actOr to pass through, while keeping the remainder of the cut covered at all times.

9tfOur Plav Box. * The Theatre (London). June 1, 1891, pp. 307-308■ 153 Third; Some method was required to synchronize the move­ ment of the platform so that the actor standing on it was directly under the trap opening, since the platform which travelled up the ramp had farther to move than the covering for opening in the floor, which was drawn directly across the stage. Fourth: A trap cover was needed which would not reveal the size or location of the trap opening. Fifth: A motive force was required to operate the entire device. Fitzgerald recorded that the individual responsible for devising Irving's ^ingenious contrivance" was "one of the stage foremen. "I® Two primary sources have proven most worthwhile in reconstructing the dimensions and operation of the trap. Percy Fitzgerald, in his volume The World Behind the has given us a first hand description of the trap used by Irving for his 1830 revival. Richard Southern, the noted British theatrical scholar, has uncovered an excellent floor plan and description of the Corsican trap which was installed at the Theatre Royal, Tacket Street, Ipswich in 1858, and which was not removed

lOpercy Fitzgerald, Sir Henry Irvino. A Biography (Phila­ delphia: George W. Jacobs & C o T n .d X pp. 115-116 154

f

3 b « r -

*<'*?& mur^vs > 'iV* 1 !*»iA

Pig. 34. —Plan of toe stage at toe Theatre Royal, Tacket Street^ Ipswich; showing toe location of the Corsican trap ‘which existed frtijt 1S&S to 1677. RichardRichard Southern,Southern, Architectural Revi&y I, August, 1046, p. 41. 155 until 1877. Beyond these two remnants and the descriptions gleaned from the prompt books of various productions (which have been considered in the following chapter), almost no other information about the trap appears to be now in general knowledge. The plan of the Ipswich stage is shown in Figure 34. This was a reasonably small theatre with a proscenium only twenty- one and a half feet wide. The 174 page manuscript-scrapbook in which this plan was found was compiled by H. R. Eyre, and treated in detail many aspects of the physical theatre. The bridge, at the second grooves, was twenty-two inches wide and fourteen feet long. The sinks above and below the bridge were eight inches wide and seventeen feet long. The grave trap was twenty-five inches by fifty-one inches. The comer traps measured twenty-one inches by twenty-two and a half inches. According to Eyre, prior to 1858 the stage had been fitted with five traps, but in that year two small corner traps at the rear of the stage were joined to make the Corsican trap, which measured fifteen inches wide and seventeen feet long: It is to be supposed that the original five traps con­ sisted of two small, square, comer traps in the familiar position towards the front of the stage, an oblong, central grave trap behind, and then two more small corner traps at the back. These latter are unusual but it may well be that they mark an 156 old-fashioned arrangement belonging to the eighteenth century in which corner traps were used well up-stage. H Eyre*s notes further described the Corsican trap as having a two foot platform for the actor to stand on, two lengths of jointed flooring which slid along on either side of the trap opening, and a bristle trap for the opening, itself. Complete to a mention of the rails which rose upward to the stage from one side to the other, this description essentially agrees with that which was later published by Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald *s description of Irving^ trap in 1880 clearly indicated the solution to all but one of the problems raised in designing the trap: At the extreme end on the left side begins an inclined plane of two ledges or rails, starting from the ground and stretching at a gentle slope to the opposite side. A level circular stand is inserted at the bottom between the ledges, and on this the Corsican brother, or his double, when they go below the actual stage, take their stand. Overhead there is an oval opening suffi­ cient to let a figure pass through, the edges of which are lined with black bristles or brushes, which makes the opening, as it were, fit close to the figure. This opening, however, is fixed in a sort of travelling plank or strip duly jointed, on the principle of those wooden shutters which roll up and down in front of shop windows. This flexible strip, for the time appearing to be part of the stage, is wound on the same windlass or drum to which the rope that draws the stand up the inclined

llSouthem, "Interesting Matter," p. 42. 157 plane is attached, so that both the aperture and the stand advance together, and by the time the journey is completed, both have been wound round the drum. Simple as this appears, much ingenuity is required to make all work smoothly, and a hitch or jambing would be serious.12 The solution to the first problem, that of the ramp, is clearly indicated. The fact that it started at "the extreme end” would set the length of the trap across nearly the full width of the stage. The reference to the "left side, " by all other informa­ tion, would mean the stage right side, since Fitzgerald was writing for a popular audience. His reference to the "round" platform and to the "rope that draws the stand up the inclined plane," are also clear. The moving floor is described as "a sort of travelling plank, or strip duly jointed," and compared to wooden roll- shutters on shop fronts, obviously a reference to a form of scruto. The trap cover, like that at Ipswich, is plainly a bristle trap. The motive force which operated the device was recorded as a "windlass or drum" to which both the scruto and the rope

l 2Percy Fitzgerald, The World Behind the Scenes (London; Chatto and Windus, 1881), pp, 46-47.

159 from the actor's platform were attached "so that both the aperture and the stand advance together, and by the time the journey is completed, both have been wound round the drum. One problem, however, is not answered. Since the actorfs platform has to travel up an inclined plane while remaining directly under the trap opening, then it was necessary for the dolly to move farther than the opening which was above it. Figure 35 shows that with a rise of just six feet, the difference would be eight inches far- ther at twenty-five feet, ten inches farther at twenty feet, and thirteen and a half inches farther at fifteen feet. While the problem presented may appear somewhat academic, it could hardly have been considered academic by the actor who would have found his trap opening a foot or more beyond the platform on which he was standing when he reached the top of the ramp. This problem is further emphasized by the very exact positioning of the actor required by use of the bristle trap. There are several possible solutions to the problem, not the least plausible of which might be for the actor to have shuffled his fbet sidew&ys as he rose. But since no mention is made of this anywhere in the literature, it must be assumed that some other mechanical solution was evolved for the actor's convenience. Fitzgerald's dear description of the same windlass being used to operate both the actor's platform and the scruto essentially eliminates the possibility that two operators with two counterweight • u t f top

•Uti futtud

Fig. 30* —Methods of mounttng scruto; A. traditional; 5 . alterttate. Sketch by author. Fig. 37. -^Alternate methods ofrigging a line to theactor** PWCTil A. outrigger method; B. center line method. Sketch by 162 systems might have worked the trap units simultaneously using a method such as marked ropes to keep the two moving units together. Traditionally the slats in the scruto were fastened to the top of the canvas, as in Figure 30A. Any stretching of the canvas or irreg­ ularities in the slats themselves would have tended to compromise the effect, however, making visible the location of the trap from any vantage point above the level of-the stage floor. An alternate method would have been to glue the canvas to the top of the slats, as in Fig­ ure 30B, with the slats bevelled on either side. This would have given the scruto considerably more flexibility, and permitted it to be rolled in either direction as It was taken up under the stage. This also would have covered any cracks that might have existed between the slats. This type of scruto also would have been needed for one of the following possible solutions to the problem of synchronizing the two units. One possible solution for solving the problem is seen in Figure 37A. Here two lines are attached to outriggers fastened to either side of the moving platform, the outriggers extending out beyond the trap area. The lines from the outriggers are run up to and over pul­ leys at the top of the ramp, and then down to take-up drums at either aid of the central drum on which the scruto was to be wound. Two Obvious disadvantages of this method are readily visible; (1) not only would the use of a take-up drum on both sides of the machine have 183

• l« t « •ts g e le v e l

m^0$0kk^mmmmmrnSmm

A. rolliaglines of the scruto. Sketch by author enlarged the space needed in the mezzanine, hut the outriggers would have been Impractical with the normal structure of the sub-stage area which had vertical tqpcrights supporting the sides of the cut; and (2} any variation in the strain* or unequal stretching of the lines would have tended to cause a jambing or wedging of the platform. Figure 37 B depicts a second alternative method, which would have involved a central line attached to the middle of the actor's truck. Here the Hne runS up to a centrally located pulley at the top of the ramp* over to anotheispuHey at the side of the ramp, and down to a graduated drum at the side. This method is probably the sim­ plest and most practical of all those considered. A third method* which is shown in Figure 38 A* uses two or more parallel lines from the platform which are attached directly to the same drum as die cohventionai type of scruto* and wound up with it. With this rigging* however* the scruto would move faster t o i the actor's platformysad the problem woUld be only more compli­ cated. Therefore, the use of this method would have been most

.ahllk^r? The fourth method, seen in Flgure SSB, involves the same ; principle as that used in the third type* but involves the reverse winding of the scruto with the lines to the bej^g taken up onthe outside of the growing drum. Baptodtncr on the

Itg. 40. of Ccrisicajitrap, MCffi a. fcon- structiso. «£ t^aQto%|Oatfora} b. scrufcd and bri$J*tpaj> dafcailj c. rlgglag ^ plaifom #ne putisfrs and scNtb sad lias takMp drums. Sk^Mhss by aftthor. thickness of the scrutO and fines* end the diameter of the drum* such an arrangement would haye compensated for the difftteince in the length crftravel, and for the speed of the taro Moving units. Considering the reluctance of stage carpenters to try novel or untried techniques, the method probably used was the simplest and most conv'eiitioiial“-sdmething similar to the second method, Figure m The motive power probably was a simple counterweight secured to a graduated take-up drum, and the machine operated by releasing the counterweight. & simple windlass on the other end of the scrulo was all that was needed to re-set the trap, once the counterweight had been raised. Therefore, the Corsican trap probably appeared much as shown in Figure 59. Bare the mechanism is supported by a standard narrow bridge. The trap would have varied from fifteen to twenty-five feet In length, .and from fifteen to eighteen inches in width. The vertical rise was about six feet. The scruto and act©r*s platform were pro­ pelled by the same graduated drum which operated by a counterweight controlled from the stagelefi memardne. For the ported of the ttfbfte tnstailatimi the bridge would have been firmly secured. The trap was located atapproniiBatedy the telffth grooves. While actmfi construe- tion varied, depending on the stage and the ability of the individual carpenter, probable details for the rigging a** shewn in Figure 40* c m j *t e r v i

METHODS OF TJSCN& THE MECHANICAL DEVICES

The ingenuity of the leading actor, hie timing, and well planned use of the mechanical devices avallablewere all impor tant *■»» to the iHualott of one man becomlng two brothers on the same stage at the sh a e tim e. by Which these traps and machines were need to accomplish this deception is found only ihroughn careful study of the prompt books that were marked for

the toiI ous productions. Prompters often were inconsistent in marking these scripts, and the blocking of the actors and the technics operation of the performance were recorded with varying degrees ef completeness. The scripts used ifer both the i4ndon and the New York Openings of The CQrsicaaf BJ&theriB are gulte explicit in regard to the technical problems involved. Gfthe six promptseripts consulted in this sthdy* iwo others ajso eptofcmd considerable detail, ~ A *bte«a some ef the abbreviations used by prompters l|r|»ij$#r the reader who ndfftnetb* famjOtewlihthe ccmventional markings.

m *; Sketch by fcuUior, 170 Figure 41 shows the location on the stage of most of the abbreviations used in marking various stage positions. The center of the stage (C) was considered anywhere on an imaginary centerline drawn down the middle of the stage. The stage being raked, the area farthest from the audience was referred to as upstage (TJ), while the area nearest the audience was downstage CD). The area nearest the footlights was the front of the stage, and the area nearest the upstage wall, or behind it, was the back of the stage. In common use, any area not seen by the audience was known as the backstage. Directions on the stage were given as the actor faced the audience, and were usually abbreviated L and R, or LH and RH meaning left hand and right hand. The left side of the stage (audience’s right) was also referred to as the prompt side (P. S.) since the prompter usually kept the prompt book on a small stand mounted against the stage left proscenium wall. Usually any controls for lighting were also found on the prompt side. The stage right side was then referred to as the O. P. or opposite prompt side. The normal stage had at least five sets of grooves which were numbered from front to back. Settings were usually described by the location of the piece of scenery which was farthest upstage, 171 and yet visible to the audience, exclusive of small door or window backings. If the upstage drop or flat was located in the fourth grooves or just behind them, the scene was said to be set in four. Likewise, a carpenter's scene in the first grooves was referred to as being set in one. Entrances in the upstage scenery were referred to as: C.D., center door; U .E ., upper entrance (center); K U .K ., left upper entrance; orR. U.K , right upper entrance. These designations were the same regardless of the groove in which the scene was set. Entrances made from the sides of the stage were indicated as being from the right or left, and by the location of the entrance between specific grooves. If the actor entered from just below the second grooves on the left side, he was said to enter L. 2.K Any combination of abbreviations can be found for these entrances, and several abbreviations can refer to the same location. For example, R.3.E. (right third entrance), O.P. 3.E. (opposite prompter, third entrance), or R, H. D. 3. E. (right hand door, third entrance) all refer to the same entrance at stage right. Even after the intro­ duction of box seats, prompters occasionally referred to side door locations by groove numbers. 172

When scenery was to be raised above the stage, or lowered on a sink below the stage, the usual notation was to pull above or pull below. Likewise, scenes which were divided and slid off to either side in the grooves were either said to open or close, and the prompter's note called for the scene to draw off or close in. As in the contemporary theatre, exit meant for the actor to leave the stage, enter for the actor to come on to the stage from the wings, and any movement from one place on the stage to another was called a cross. Above indicated the location upstage of an actor or piece of scenery, and below the area downstage. While cues from the prompter to the orchestra conductor, the fLy men, the lighting men, or to the technicians who operated machines or sound effects occasionally were given by means of whistles, they most often were given by tiny bells located at each of those positions. The prompter could ring the bells by a system of cords which ran to the prompter fs stand. Script notations for many cues are listed as bells to be rung. The cue for the conductor to start a given section of the music was usually R.M .B., or ring music bell. Besides operating the suspended scene pieces, the flyman also controlled the front curtain, and from such notations came the popular phrase of "ring up the curtain,w or "ring down the curtain. " Other cues were simply written out, such as "ring trap bell. " Usually the script was inter leafed with alternating blank pages, and the prompter made production notes on the blank page opposite the section of the printed script where cues or action occurred. When exact timing was necessary, or where the prompter needed additional space beyond that which was directly opposite, he would either number critical places in both the script and his notes, or would devise a symbol which he would enter at the appropriate place, both in his notes and in the script. Each prompter made up his own symbols, and no standard for them exists, but the mere knowledge that these symbols for coordina­ tion were used serves to eliminate much confusion. Act L —The first place in the production where the use of the double, and, consequently, the use of special mechanical devices, occurred was the end of the first act and into the Tableau. This is the most complicated transposition in the play, and, there­ fore, the most difficult to follow. Although there were many variations, the sequence of this episode progressed generally as follows: Fabian has felt a strange fear for his brother’s life, and has decided to write to Louis. After hurrying Griffo to get a horse ready to carry his letter to the Paris mail, Fabian then sat down to write. On the pretext of obtaining a light or writing materials, 174 he stepped momentarily into the next room, continuing to read his lines from offstage as his double entered and sat in his place. The actor, now assuming the role of Louis, quickly put on a blood­ stained shirt, and dropped through a trap to the mezzanine. Taking his place on the Corsican trap, he then slowly rose, gliding across the stage from right to left, until he stopped just upstage of the double playing Fabian, who was writing. Louis reached out and touched "Fabian" on the shoulder. "Fabian" turned and cried out, "My brother*! —dead.*" Mme. dei Franchi, hearing the cry, rushed in, whereupon Louis either dropped through a small trap just behind Fabian or was "spirited away" through the vampire trap in the upper left entrance. Louis then rushed to take his place on the ground in the forest glade, just as the Tableau appeared behind "Fabian" and Mme. dei Franchi, who were in the downstage setting, and the curtain slowly fell. To carry this intricate manouevre off smoothly, careful rehearsal was required on the part of both the actors and techni­ cians. In Kean*s script the exact moment when Kean was replaced by his double is not indicated, but several other very clear direc­ tions may be noted.

176 The scene plot listed two traps: "Sliding Trap to wrk from RH to LH. Small Trap to sink LC at back of sliding trap. No floor plan for the scene was provided, but there are these prompt­ er's noted: O Put all the Lights down gradually and Pull Below to work sliding Tran across from RH to LH. X Pull Belowf to sink small Trap LC when Louis is on the trap. Piill Below and Above to sink* and raise flats, when Louis in his place behind. Lights u p at Back for Vision. 2 An especially interesting incongruity is found in an artist's representation of the scene, Figure 42, which was reproduced in The British Theatre. While the tableau is strikingly similar to that in F. Lloyd's original drawing, Fig. 16, ® it will be noted that there are two brothers shown in the foreground, one part way up in the

^-Prompt book for The Corsican Brothers. As First Performed at the Princess's Theatre, "Marked and corrected for Charles Kean Esq. byT. W. Edmonds, Prompter, Princess's Theatre, London, 1850 to 1859. " Original in the Folger Shakespeare Library, OSTJTC film No. P78. %bld., pp. 19-20. ^Edmonds' prompt book for the Kean production identifies the characters in the tableau as L. to R .: Louis's second, Giordano, Louis, the surgeon, Chateau Renaud, Montgiron, and Vemer. 177 trap, and still another shown lying at right in the rear. It is reasonably certain that even a man of Mr. Kean's ability never attempted to portray three brothers at the same time in this play which 1ms but two. John Moore's prompt book, which A. N. Vardac of the Yale Theatre Collection has marked as that used for Eddy's produc­ tion at the Bowery, includes several relevant notations. At the beginning of Act I: Vampire L. E. with Black back. Working slote from R. to L. Trap open in 3d E. to get to slote quick.4 At the end of Act I a line is added: 0 Marie give me the light. Exits L2E. The Double re-enters immediately, back to audience with a candle. Sits at table L. and appears to write while Fab, speaks the lines from wing . . whilst he is changing his dress— When Louis is through Vampire draw Flats Slowly. Lights kept down in front Strong light on Tableau large set tree L. C. Trap open

4Prompt book for The Corsican Brothers or La Vendetta? .*, "This prompt copy was that used by J. Moore, prompter at the Bowery at time of its production there April 21, 1852. " Original in the Harvard Theatre Collection, OSUTC film No. P20. 178

behind for Fab to get quickly to slote. Slow Curtain 5 The term "slote11 mentioned in the notes usually is used in reference to the slotted vertical sliding supports on which scenery was raised from below the stage. However, in general practice it has been used to indicate almost any cut or sink in the floor. In this case it refers to the bridge cut in which the Corsican trap was located, and therefore becomes a reference to the trap, itself. From Moore's directions it is obvious that when Eddy stepped offstage to get a candle, he changed costume as his double was onstage writing, and at the last moment Eddy dropped through the small trap at the third left entrance, and took his place on the Corsican trap. This setting did not use a small trap onstage, since the vampire was used, instead. Still another prompt book, prepared by a prompter named J. B. Wright and found at the New York Public Library, includes a reasonably complete description of the operation. Note that

forbid.. p. 28. even after the leading actor assumes the character of Louis's ghost, Wright still refers to him as Fabian: Ready to work Scruto Trap. . takes off jacket hangs it on back of chair L. throws neck tie across his shoulder. Fabien. M«£«»2825 Sealing wax and paper Good Griffo? Ah. They are in this room I will get them myself, exit D. L. 2. E. Fabien (outside) ah! they are here. Throws neck tie over Doubles shoulder who enters with sealing wax and paper. Double sits at table with his back to audience as Fabien did. When seated the double writes and Fabien speaks outside (3) very slow—while changing, at the end of speech double very slowly seals letter. Fabien goes rapidly to trap, which he starts as soon as he is on it. When up touches double on shoulder who starts back in chair leaving his back to audience. Fabien says "Dead” and passes thro* Vampire. Savilia enter D.R. 2. E. (4) kneels R of double—Fabien behind flat. Speaks "Silence Look. " Discover Tableau. Medium on. —■ Slow Drop=» 6

From Wright's notes we find that Fabian's excuse to leave the stage was to get sealing wax and paper, that the substitution was made at the door in the second left entrance, that the double

^Prompt book for The Corsican Brothers, prepared by I. B. Wright, prompter, from French's Standard Drama, No. XCIH. Original in the New York Public Library, OSUTC film No. P107, pp. 27-28. 180 had business of very slowly sealing the letter after the actor off­ stage finished speaking to cover the actor rs move to the trap, that the actor, himself, cued the Corsican trap to start up, and that a vampire trap was used in this version. Still another prompt book was prepared by T. R. Victoria for a production featuring F. Thomas in the leading roles. This printed version apparently was designed for companies of modest means since it did away with the Corsican trap altogether, stating in the introduction that the author had; . . . chiefly relied on the novelty of the incidents, and the startling tableaux, that he has so ingeniously enterwoven with the plot. We have no trap-door, barn-door goblins, as clumsy as they are comical;... 7 While there is no indication of how the substitution was made, there is some indication of the use of a vampire trap, and of flats which drew off to reveal the Tableau: (He folds the letter, is about to seal it, when Louis del Franchi without coat or waistcoat, and his shirt stained with a spot of blood, appears—he

^Prompt book for The Corsican Brothers, prepared by T,. JR. Victoria, prompter, "Translated and Adapted to the English dtage by Charles Webb, Esq. As performed at the Theatres Royal, London. " Original in the Enthoven Collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum, OSUTC film No. P598, p. 3. Fig. 43. —Floor plan for Act I. John Moore's prompt book for the Bowery, 1852. Original in the Harvard Theatre Collection. OSUTC film No. P20.

Fig. 44.—Floor plan for Act I. J. B. Wright's prompt book. Original in the New York Public Library. OSUTC film No. P107.

uC /.o * _____ *

Fig. 45. —Floor plan for Act I. John Procter's prompt book for the Pittsburgh, 1852. Original in the Folger Shakespeare Library. OSUTC film No. P156. 182

glides gradually towards his brother Fabien, and touches him lightly on the shoulder. Fab. (turning round, awe-stricken and speaking in a thrilling whisper.) My brother—dead! (Madame Savilia re-appearing at door, R ., she advances towards Fabien, as if anxiously watching him—Louis gradually disappears—at the same time the back opens, showing a glade in the forest of Fontainebleau. . . 8 Figures 43, 44, and 45 show the first act floor plans for Moore, Wright, and a third prompter, John Procter, who was prompter at the Pittsburgh Theatre in 1852. The plans of the first two show the placement of the vampire trap in the up left position. The Procter plan shows the use of a small trap above the left table, such as was used by Kean. The latter plan also has the exact position of the Corsican trap clearly marked, including the trap opening just above one of the chairs, at right. It is also interesting that both Moore’s and Procter's plans indicate box sets, and that Procter's also indicates the position of the grooves. A final prompt script, from the Folger Shakespeare Library, which was marked by W. H. Sedley Brown, the prompter,

8jbid., p. 22. 183 includes an interesting notation at the end of Act I as the ghost of Louis sinks on the trap: When picture/ formed behind/ Chance Scene/ without whistle/ Then Drop Curtain/Jgitjrout Bell. In Brown’s production we note that a small trap was used for the shade of Louis to get to the Tableau, that a bell was used to signal the curtain, and that a whistle was normally used to signal a scene change. This production also presented the first and second acts in reverse of the normal order. Act H. scene 4. --Scene four of the second act represents the scene just after the duel in the glade of the Forest of Fontainebleau, at the end of which, as Louis lies dying, the hall of the chateau appears as a vision, upstage, with Fabian and Mme. Dei Franchi as they were at the end of Act I. Normally this substitution was made as follows: Louis lay dying on a small trap at the foot of a tree or stump. As he said his last line, he fell back. All rushed forward in con­ sternation, and covered his quick departure through the trap with

^Prompt book for The Corsican Brothers, W. H. Sedley Brown, prompter, using the same printed script as French's Standard Drama, No. XCIH. Original in the Folger Shakespeare Library, OSU Theatre Collection film No. P204, p. 28. 184 their cloaks. The double hastened through the trap to take Louis' place at the foot of the tree, and all then rose, revealing the "new” Louis dead, and the fast-moving "old” Louis, now as Fabian, in the "vision” scene which appeared upstage. Fabian uttered, "Pray for Louis, my mother~for me—I go to avenge him.1", and the curtain fell on the tableau. Several variations on the ending of this scene have been found, one of the most significant being that in Edmond’s book for Keanrs production, where there may have been no substitution at all. The scene plot reveals no provision for a trap in this scene, there is no indication in the notes at the end of the scene that any substitution was made, and the final curtain slowly fell on the vision scene without Fabian having any lines to read. Mr. Kean may have preferred to die gloriously downstage allowing his double to appear momentarily in the upstage tableau behind a gauze. Just as Louis dies there are these notes: 0 Put all the Lights down, and Pull Below to sink flats Puil Above to raise Border Turn on back lights for Vision. ^ There is also a note at the end of Act n to "sweep the trap. " This could refer to re-setting the Corsican trap in preparation for Act m,

lOEdmonds, op. c£t., p. 33. 185 but most likely it calls for actually sweeping it of any "snow" or "dirt" which, might have been spilled on the scruto. Eddy's production seems to have been more energetic, according to Moore's notations for this scene. Here apparently two traps were used to accomplish the switch of actors. In the New York version, the double stood waiting behind the tree. As Louis died, was covered by the gentlemen's cloaks, and disappeared down a trap in front of the tree, the double slid through a vampire trap in the foot of the tree to take Eddy's place. The beginning of the scene has the following notation: Large set tree C. with Vampire at foot. And trap ready to decend. in front Half darkT11 Then, at the end of the act the description continues: Lights dark in front up at back. Louis who is on the trap sinks back. Mont. stoops as if, to assist him. Spreading his cloak at the same time. Trap sinks with Louis who gets up at back of stage gulck for Tableau. The Double comes through foot of tree. Then Mont. rises.

llMoore, ££. clt., p. 49. 186 Flats off slowlv. and discover The Oak Chamber as at end of 1st Act. ~ We also discover from Moored notes that the vision was revealed in this production by drawing the split flats of the forest scene off, in the grooves, to either side. J. B. Wright’s script indicated the same use of sliding flats to reveal the vision, and the fact that Fabian had a final line to speak. No indication of a substitution, or of how that substitution might have been made was included, however. The Procter production employed a small trap in the stage floor for the switch, and the script also indicates some of the light­ ing cueing used: Ready Trap Bell. White Fire, and to Draw back flats. Trap bell A p ^au ick / & when Mr. Roberts ready behind flats draw off and light white fire Slow Music The term "White Fire" referred to a special lime-light or other chemical fire that was used to illuminate the vision scene.

12lbid.. p. 50. ISprocter, op. cit., pp. 49-50. 187 Act m. The final act used a method for substituting the double which probably required the most critical timing of all. This is the scene where, after Fabian has dispatched Chateau Renaud, the "shade” of Louis glides up the ramp, touches Fabian on the shoulder, and as Fabian falls on his knees with his face to the "figure, " Louis utters the line, "Why weep for me, my brother?—shall we not meet above?" Fitzgerald described Irving's substitution of the double, which was the traditional method used by most companies: The brother, after killing his enemy, walks up the stage leaning on his second, and for a moment passes behind a convenient tree, which conceals not only "the double" but a trap, down which the duellist brother speeds, hurrying to the ghost machine, up which he will ascend—the "double" meanwhile emerging from behind the tree, still leaning on his friend, but keeping his face covered. The old style of tree, it may be said, was a mere profile; on the new system, it is made round and hollow, like a real one. 14 From the description it is seen that a reasonably large tree was needed if the three men involved were to make the substitution successfully. Gordon's design for Kean's setting, Fig 21, shows two large trees together for masking the change, while Irving's tree, shown in Fig. 23 and the Frontispiece, was a very large one,

l 4Percy Fitzgerald, The World Behind the Scenes (London: Chatto and Windus, 1881), p. 47. 188 and certainly large enough for the double to hide in. The technique, to be sure, needed to be carefully timed with the double instantly assuming the place of the actor who dropped through the trap, and the imposter continuing on, apparently without a change of stride. In the third act Kean's scene plot called for: Tree LH Stage open behind tree - steps below Sliding Trap to work from RH to LH Curtain Slow^ Neither the prompter's notes for the scene, nor the script, mentioned Fabian passing behind the tree. However, the location of the trap opening with steps leading down, and the fact that Fabian threw himself into Meynard's arms (hiding his face), clearly lead to the assumption that the switch was made behind the tree moments before Kean's final entrance on the sliding trap. The John Moore script for Eddy's production is considerably more explicit, however. Notes at the beginning of Act HI call for: A set stump R. C. to conceal opening of traaT Big tree C. trap open behind Set fallenlree L. Jo

^Edmonds, op. cit., introduction. •^Moore, op. c it., p. 50. 189 During the light, Fabian hangs his coat on the left branch of the tree. After Fabian passes the tree the script is underlined through the section which reads, Irthen advances with his face covered by his hands.w Prompter’s instructions at the end of the scene read: Fab, passes behind treer descends into cellar to appear as Louis on slote. The Double corner from behind tree, and takes down the coat then kneels L.C. weeping-*- ’ Why the opening of the Corsican trap needed to be concealed by a set stump is not revealed, but the existence of an open trap behind the center tree is definitely established. Wright’s notes are similar, with the addition that the signal to start the Corsican trap came from the actor as soon as he could get into place. Double comes from behind tree and Kneels in the C of stage back to audience Fabien goes to trap -be&ad-tFeer When Fabien in C speaks "Why weep” &c. 18 In John Procter's production the leading actor, Mr. Roberts, apparently had to wait for a bell signal to be lowered on his trap behind the tree.

17Ibld., p. 60.

l®Wrlght, 22- S i t , p. 60. 190

Tragbe^tod Tree

Ring Trag Bell When Mr. Roberts on trap behind tree. 0 JjgnM r. Roberts speaks on Scruto trap, light White fireTTs In T. R. Victoria's production which had no "barn-door goblins," Mr. Thomas apparently didn't have to worry about a substitution in the third act. In that script the following section relating to the ghost was crossed out: The shade of Louis appears from the extreme right and advances to Fabien who kneels before it. The shade commences to disappear, as the Curtain Falls.20 Instead, as the fight ended and Chateau Renaud fell Fabien merely said,"—shall we not meet above?", and the curtain "rang" down. Fitzgerald, who apparently was permitted on the mezzanine for one of Irving's performances wrote: It was a curious feeling to find oneself in the cavernous regions below the stage, and see the manager rush down and hurriedly place himself on the trap to be worked slowly upwards.2^

l^Procter, op. cit., pp. 59-00. 20Victoria, pp. cit. ,pp. 41. 21Fitzgerald, op. cU., p. 115-116. 191

He also was able to shed some light 021 the mechanics involved in the breaking of the swords during the duel. It will be recollected that, in the duel scene in "The Corsican Brothers," one of the swords is broken by an accident, the other combatant breaking his across his knee that the duel may proceed on "equal terms. " It is not, of course, to be supposed that a sword is broken every night. They are made with a slight rivet and a little solder, the fitting being done every morning, so that the pieces are easily parted. But few note how artfully the performers change their weapons; for in the early stages of the duel the flourishings and passes would have soon caused the fragments to part. It is done during the intervals for rest, when the combattants lean on their seconds and gather strength for the second "round," one gets his new weapon from behind a tree, and the other from behind a prostrate log. 22 This substitution is clearly indicated in Moore's prompt script from the Bowery. In all likelihood this was the type of sword switch traditionally used in the majority of Corsican Brothers productions. Moore's notes read: Renaud thrusts and receives a head blow which causes him to recoil and stagger against 1st wlncr R for a moment during which he takes the opportunity to change Ms weapon for the trick sword. As he recovers himself he thrusts at Fab, who parries heavily breaking Renaud's sword

22Ibld.. p. 48. 192 Fab, goes to fallen tree L. as if to break bis sword over it. but failing he breaks it with his foot. 23 When the duellists pause to catch their breath, Kean's script describes the switch in the following manner: Fabien ■Retires up with Alfred to tree RE. and exchanges swords. Renaud sits on stump of tree LC. and exchanges his sword. %T In any event, one pair of swords traditionally was used to fight with every night and a separate pair was "broken" every night. It has been observed earlier in this study that numerous scenes were added to or deleted from various productions. This chapter should not end, therefore, without a glance at the final scene of the play, "Act 4th, Scene 1st," which was written in at the end of J. B. Wright's script, since the mechanical effects in that one scene probably outshone all of the effects which had gone before. Generally, the scene ran like this: Madam del Franchi, Fabien, Meynard, Emilie, Griffo, and Marie are discovered in the same gothic chamber as in Act I. Emilie mourns Louis' death. Fabien has had Louis exhumed at Fontainebleau to be placed in the tomb of the del Franchi with his

23Ibid., pp. 60-61. ^Edmonds, op. c it., p. 39 ancestors. As they await the arrival of Louis1 body, Fabien comes in, taken by the premonition that he must go to another world with Louis. The mother begs Fabien not to die, but Fabien says Emilie will remain behind to take bis place and be a constant reminder of the two brothers. Louis1 body arrives. Hidden from view by Fabien*s large robe, Louis (in the person of a double) appears to Fabien (via trap) and then disappears again (via trap). Fabien, overcome, falls to the floor, dead. The back of the stage opens and a large tomb moves slowly down stage, enclosing Fabien (who drops below the stage through a trap). The grave is drawn off and Louis and Fabien are discovered ascending to heaven in a cloud car, backed by a revolving sun and cloud effect, the scene ending in a tableau of strong light. ^ Doubtless Mr. Wrightfs leading actor received a standing ovation for his histrionic prowess, although no record of such acclaim for either the actor or his athletic double was uncovered for use in this study.

25Wright, op. cit. , ff. p 60. A detailed description of the graveyard, tomb, and cloud effects is found at the end of the scene. CHAPTER VH

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The introduction to the English-speaking world of the Gallic dramas Pauline and The Corsican Brothers, at the middle of the nineteenth century, was the beginning of an era of "gentlemanly melodrama" which shaped the style and direction of melodrama throughout the remainder of the century. Charles Kean became the unrivalled master of "gentlemanly melodrama" into which he incorporated his acting talent for "sudden" and "electric" bursts of passion. Renowned for his historically accurate staging, Keanrs claim to fame as an innovator has been pointed out as "his fearless introduction of French plays and the French romantic type of acting upon a footing of equality with the work of the older English school. Of the French romantic plays which Kean mounted, The Corsican Brothers was undoubtedly his most successful.

^Ernest Bradlee Watson, Sheridan tg Robertson (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926), p. 227. 194 195 The play also marked a significant moment in the career of Kean’s translator and adapter, Dion Boucicault, who, having been trained in the more conservative English tradition, broke with that tradition in his Corsican Brothers translation. From The Corsican Brothers he moved on into what was to be his finest and most successful period, an era marked by his sentimental, intensely realistic, and always sensational plays. 3 The Corsican Brothers and three other plays which were eminently successful with Kean’s audiences, The Lyons Mail, Louis XT. and Faust and Marguerite, were kept together by managers to serve as the nucleus of the melodrama for the next fifty years.3 Under Kean the play became a major factor in helping to establish melodrama as fashionable during the last half of the nineteenth century. Other actors, including Charles Fechter, Henry Irving, John Martln-Harvey, Edward Eddy, and Robert Mantell, became known for their association with various revivals, and for their interpretations of the brothers.

2Ibj.d. , p. 267. 3M. Willson Disher, Melodrama (London: Rockliff, 1945), p. 145. 196 Of all the revivals of Kean’s Gallic productions which were staged by Sir Henry Irving, The Corsican Brothers "had the richest tinge of romance," and proved itself "a romance not to be bracketed with any others.1,4 As a melodrama among melodramas the critics were quick to place it high among its contenders, although in terms of literary merit they gave it little outside the ranks of melodrama. Its popular success, however, was constant for more than half a century, and even the critics were willing to admit its effective­ ness as a sensational romance. At the time of Irving’s revival critics called the play preposterous and hackneyed. Even so, it set a new record of eight performances a week at the Lyceum. It was played by companies of every description, both professional and amateur, throughout the British Commonwealth and from coast to coast in America. Also it was always high on the list of English toy theatre favorites. The staging and effects employed for the play made each major revival a production landmark. The adjectives piled upon Kean’s and Irving’s productions were unqualified. Irving’s 1880 revival marked the beginning of the end for the English groove

, P* 148. system of staging, the beginning of a serious use of scene curtains, and ushered in the first regular use of electric light throughout any theatre. A "small army” of technicians was employed for what was one of the most spectacular productions ever mounted to that date. Irving^ 1880 revival was even surpassed in elaborate detail by those which he mounted in the nineties. Much of the sensational nature of various productions can be attributed to the skillful and imaginative use of mechanical devices which were employed to create the required "ghost" and "vision" effects. Standard theatrical machines were combined with specially installed small floor traps and vampire traps. The most sensational of all mechanical effects, however, was that made possible by the Corsican trap, which became a "necessity for all aspiring theatre managers of the time. " Essentially, the trap was a specially devised inclined railway beneath the stage with a sliding trap cover which made possible the illusion of an actor rising through the floor as he glided across the full width of the stage, in which there was apparently no open­ ing. The basic method of operation of this trap is known, but many details of its exact construction still must be relegated to "enlightened conjecture." 198

Through careful study of the prompt books which were assembled for certain productions of the play, including those of Kean and Eddy, it is possible to determine very specifically the exact methods that were used by different managers in using various combinations of mechanical devices to create desired effects. The contribution made possible by the study of these unique volumes is significant. Most of the salient information related to the history and staging of major productions of The Corsican Brothers has been determined from the materials which were examined for this study. Among the volumes and manuscripts which were not available are those, such as the manuscript-scrapbook from the Little Theatre Royal at Ipswich, which undoubtedly lie on dust-covered shelves of libraries and collections throughout Britain and America, the significance of their yellowing pages unrecognized. One thing is certain, however: The Corsican Brothers was successfully produced for such a long period of time, and over such a wide geographical area, that records now in existence must surely show the specific details related to the construction of the Corsican trap. Only time, financial support, and the opportunity are needed for researchers to peruse these ancient remnants. It is something of a paradox that a device so extensively used in so many theatres should have become so familiar that almost no one bothered to record its detail. Until such a time as detailed, historical documents become available, beyond those now at hand, the reconstruc tion of the Corsican trap outlined in chapter six stands as a reasonable composite estimate of contemporary scholarly thinking. BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books Anderson, John. The American Theatre. New York: The Dial Press, 1938. Baker, Henry Barton. History of the London Stage. London: George Routledge and Sons, Ltd., 1904. Beerbohm, Max. Around Theatres. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1954. (First published in London in 1924 and again in 1930: New York, alfred A. Knopf.) Brereton, Austin. Henry Irving. A Biographical Sketch. London David Bogue, 1883. Clarence, Reginald. "The Stage11 Cyclopaedia. A Bibliography of Plays. London: The Stage, " 16 York Street, Covent Garden, 1909. Cole, John William. The Life and Theatrical Times of Charles Kean. F. S. A .. including a summary of the English Stage for the Last Fifty Years, and a Detailed Account of the Manage­ ment of the Princess*s Theatre, from 1850 to~1859. 2 vol#. London: Richard Bentley, 1895. Coleman, John. Players and Playwrights I ..Have Known. A Review of the English Stage from 1840 to 1880. 2 vols. Second edition. Philadelphia: Gebbie & Co., 1890. Dibdin, James C. The Annals of the Edinburgh Stage. Edinburgh: Richard Cameron, 1888. Dubech, Lucien. Hlstolre Generate Illustree du Theatre. Paris: Librairie de France, 1934.

201 202 Downs, Harold (ed.). Theatre and Stage. London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, L ts., n. d. Disher, M. Willson. Melodrama. Plots That Thrilled. London: Rockliff, 1954. Enciclopedia dello Spettacolo. Vol. H. Rome: O&sa Editrice Le Maschere, 1954. Fitzgerald, Percy. Sir Henry Irving. A Biography. Philadelphia: George W. Jacobs & Co., n. d. ______. The World Behind the Scenes. London: Chatto and Windus, 1881. Gagey, Edmond M. The San Francisco Stage. A History. New York: Columbia University Press, 1950. Gamble, William Burt (ed.). The Development of Scenic Art and Stage Machinery. New York: New York Public Library, 1920. Gallaway, Marian. Constructing a Play. New York: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1950. Gosset, Alphonse. Traite de la Construction des Theatres. Paris: Librairie Polytechnique, Baudry et Cie., Editeurs, 1886. Granville, Wilfred. The Theatre Dictionary. New York: Philosophical Library, Inc., 1952. Hartnoll, Phyllis (ed.). The Oxford Companion tq the Theatre. Second edition. London: Oxford University Press, 1957. Hopkins, Albert A. (ed.). Magic. Stage Illusions and Scientific Diversions. New York; Munn & Company, Scientific American Office, 1898. Hughes, Glenn. A History of the American Theatre. 1700-1950. New York: Samuel French, 1951. 203 James, Henry. The Scenic Art. Notes on Acting & the Drama: 1872-1901. Edited with, an introduction and notes by Allan Wade. New York: Hill and Wang, Inc., 1957. (First published in 1948: New Brunswick, Rutgers University P ress.) Eaufmann, Jacques-A uguste. Architectonograohie des Theatres. Seconde Serie: Theatres Construits Depuls 1820. Paris: Chez L. Mathias (Augustin), 1840. Kendall, JohnS. The Golden Age of the New Orleans Theatre. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1952. Kranich,( Friedrich. Biihnentechnlk der Geqenwart. 2 vols. Miinehen & Berlin: Verlag Von R. Oldenbourg, 1932. Laumann, E. M. La Machinerie au Theatre Depuis les Grecs Jusqu'a Nos Jours. Paris: Madison Didot, Firmin-Didot et Cie., Editeurs, n. d.). Lewes, George Henry On Actors and the Art of Acting. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1892. Loewenberg, Alfred. The Theatre of the British Isles. London: Society for Theatre Research, 1950. Mander, Raymond, and Mitcheson, Joe. The British Theatre. London: Hulton Press, 1957. Mason, Hamilton. French Theatre In New York. New York: Columbia University Press, 1940.

Moynet, Georges. Lji Machinerie Theatrale; Trues et Decors. Paris: La Librairie Illustree, 1895. Moynet, M. J. L'Envers du Theatre: Machines et Decorations. Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie., 1873. Odell, George C. D. Annals of the New York Stage. Vols. VI-XV, 1850-1894. New York: Columbia University Press, 1931-49. 204 Parker, John (ed.). Whofs Who In the Theatre. A Biographical Record of the Contemporary Stage. 11th ed. revised. London: Sir Isaac Pittman & Sons, Ltd., 1952. Pearson, Hesketh. The Last Actor-Managers. London: Methuen and Company, Ltd., 1950. Saintsbury, H. A., and Palmer, Cecil (eds.). We Saw Him Act. A Symposium on the Art of Sir Henry Irving. London: Hurst & Blackett, 1939. Scott, Clement. The Drama of Yesterday and Today. 2 vols. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1899. Sherson, Erroll. Londons Lost Theatres of the 19th Century. London: John Lane, The Bodley Head, Ltd., 1925. Sobel, Bernard (ed.). The New Theatre Handbook. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1959. Sonrel, Pierre. Traite de Scenocrraphie. Paris: Odette Lieutier, 1943. Southern, Richard. Changeable Scenery. Its Origin and Develop­ ment jn the British Theatre. London: Faber and Faber, Limited, 1951. Speaight, George. Juvenile Drama. London: MacDonald and Company, Ltd., 1946. Strang, Lewis C. Famous Actors of toe Day in America. Boston: L. C. Page and Company, 1900. . Famous Actresses of the Day in America. First Series. Boston: L. C. Page and Company, 1899. Vaulabelle, Alfred de, and Hemardinquer, Ch. La Science au Theatre. Paris: Henry Paulin et Cie., Editeurs, 1908. Watson, Ernest Bradlee. Sheridan to Robertson. A Study of the Nineteenth-Century Londqn Stage. Foreword"by George Pierce Baker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926. 205 Wilson, Arthur Herman. A History of toe Philadelphia Theatre 1835 to 1855. Ph.D. dissertation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1935. Wyndham, Henry Saxe. The Annals of Covent Garden Theatre. Volume 2. London: Chatto and Windus, 1906.

Articles and Periodicals Albion. The. New York, 1852-1881. Graphic. The. London, 1880-1882. Illustrated London News. The. London, 1852-1859. Sachs, Edwin O. "The English Wooden Stage, "Engineering, Vols. LXI-LXH, Jan. to Dec., 1896. Southern, Richard. "Interesting Matter," The Architectural Review (London), Vol. C, No. 596, August, 1946, pp. 41-44. Theatre. The (London), A, Monthly Review of toe Drama. Music, and toe Fine Arts. 1877-1897. "Theatre Secrets," Scientific American Supplement (New York), Vol. XXI, No. 525, January 23, 1886.

Original Prompt Books Brown, Sedley (prompter). The Corsican Brothers. A Dramatic Romance in Three Acts and Five Tableauxr Adapted from the Romance of M. Dumas. (French's Standard Drama, No. XCm. ) New York: Samuel French, Publisher, n.d. Original script in toe Folger Shakespeare Library. Edmonds, T. W. (prompter). The Corsican Brothers. A Dramatic Romance in Three Acts, as First Performed at the’Princesses Theatre, under the Management of Charley Kean. F.S.A ., Tuesday. February £ 4 . 1852, London: John E. Chapman and Co., n.d. "Marked and corrected for Charles Kean, Esq. byT. W. Edmonds, Prompter, Princess's Theatre, 206 London, 1850 to 1859. " Original Boucicault version. Original script in the Folger Shakespeare Library. Moore, John (prompter). The Corsican Brothers. A Dramatic Romance, in Three Acts and Five Tableau.. Adapted from the Romance of M. Dumas. (Modem Standard Drama, No. XCIH, edited by F. C. Wemyss.) New York: Wm. Taylor & Co. (S. French General Agent), n.d. John Moore’s Script for Edward Eddyrs production at the Bowery Theatre, New York, 1852. Original script in the Harvard Theatre Collection. Roberts, J. B. (prompter). The Corsican Brothers. A Dramatic Romance in Three Acts and Five Tableaux. Adapted from the Romance of M. Dumas. (Modern Standard Drama, No. XCHI, edited by F. C. Wemyss.) Signed by J. B. Roberts, 1852. Title page crossed out to read: "In Five Acts & Eight Tableaux." "Marked as played at the Pittsburgh Theatre, by John Procter, Prompter, 1852." Original script in the Folger Shakespeare Library. Victoria, T. R. (prompter). The Corsican Brothers. A Legendary Drama in Three Acts. Dramatized from Alexander Dumas1 Popular Romance. Les Freres Corses. Translated and adapted to the English Stage by Charles Webb, Esq., Printed from the Acting Copy . . . As performed at the Theatres Royal, London. London: G. H. Davidson, n.d. Production book for F. Thomas. Original in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Wright, J. B. (prompter). The Corsican Brothers. A Dramatic Romance in Three Acts and Five Tableaux. Adapted from the Romance of M. Dumas. (French’s Standard Drama, No. XCIH.) New York: Samuel French, Publisher, n. d. Original in the New York Public Library.

Juvenile Drama and Play Scripts Corsican Brothers. The: A Drama in Three Acts. Written expressly for, and adapted only to Wood’s Characters & Scenes. (Wood’s Juvenile Cabinet Drama.) London: J. T. Wood, n.d. Corsican Brothers, or. the Fatal Duel; A Legendary Drama, in Three Acts. Adapted only for Pollock*s Characters and Scenes! (Pollock's Juvenile Drama.) London: B. Pollock, n. d. Grange, E ., and de Montepin, Xavier. The Corsican Brothers. A Dramatic Romance in Three Acts. Dramatised from the ■Romance of M. Dumas, and Adapted to the Encrlish Stage byF. Cooper. (No. 752, Dick's Standard Plays.) "Cfcst as Represented at the Lyceum Theatre, under the Manage­ ment of M. Fechter, 1863,11 n. d. APPENDIXES A.

CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR NEW YORK PRODUCTIONS

Major productions of The Corsican Brothers on the New York stage, based on the accounts of George C. D. Odell in his Annals of the New York Stage, Volumes VI through XV, 1850-1894:

DATE ACTOR THEATRE

Apr 21, 1852 Edward Eddy Bowery May 19, 1852 G. V. Brooke As tor Place transferred to after June 5 G.- V. Brooke Niblors Garden Aug 30, 1852 Edward Eddy Bowery Jan 12, 24, 1853 Edward Eddy Bowery Sep 7, 1853 Edward Eddy Bowery Sep 29, 1853 Edward Eddy Bowery Jul, 1854 C. W. Clarke * Old Brewery Nov 2, 1854 Edward Eddy Metropolitan Jan 1, 1855 J. R. Scott Bamum’s A merican Museum Mar 5, 1855 ♦Otto Hoym Stadt-Theatre 209 210 DATE ACTOR THEATRE

Mar 27, 1855 Edward Eddy Bowery Jan 11, 1856 *Otto Hoym Stadt-Theatre Mar 8, 18, 1856 ♦Otto Hoym (?) Stadt-Theatre JuL29& Aug 8, 1857 Edward Eddy (?) Bowery Nov 27, 1858 ♦Otto Hoym Stadt-Theatre Dec 21, 1858 George Jordan Laura Keene's Nov 30, 1859 J. A. J. Neafie New Bowery Dec 20, 1859 ♦Eustachi (?) New-Yorker Volks Theatre Jul 16 & Aug 31, 1860 Edward Eddy New Bowery

Apr 20, 1863 *(?> Stadt-Theatre Sep 4, 1863 Edward Eddy New Bowery with 20 ghosts Nov 21, 1864 Mr. Wheatley Niblo’s Garden 2 weeks

Apr, 1865 Mr. Wheatley Niblo's Garden May, 1865 Edward Eddy New Bowery Feb 10-17, 1866 Mr. Conway Park May 30, 1866 Helen Western Broadway Junll, 1866 Helen Western Broadway Sep 17, 1866 Edward Eddy (?) New Bowery DATE ACTOR THEATRE

Sep 19, 1866 Edward Eddy Academy of Music, Brooklyn

Mar 23, 26, Edward Eddy Brooklyn Opera House 28, 1868 Williamsburg Jul 12, 1869 Edward Eddy Wood*s Museum 6 perf. Dec 25, 1869 Edward Eddy Brooklyn Opera House, Williamsburg Mhy 23, 30, & Jun 4, 1870 Charles Fechter Theatre Frangaise Jun 6, 1870 Oliver Doud Byron Old Bowery

Aug 22, 1870 (?) Park Jul 1, 1871 Edward Eddy Globe Aug 21, 1872 Edward Eddy Tony Pastor *s

Oct 21, 1872 (?) Wood*s Museum Jun 2, 1873 Charles Fechter Grand Opera House Apr 27, 1874 ff. Edward Eddy Bowery Apr 12,1875 Louis Aldrich Wood*s Museum Oct 7, 1878 Charles Pope Niblo*s Garden Jan 8, 1883 Charles R. Thome, Boothfs Theatre Jr. Jan 11, 1883 J. Clinton Hall Booth*s Theatre Jan 13, 1883 to Feb 10, 1883 F. C. Bangs Booth*s Theatre DATE ACTOR THEATRE

Feb 12, 1883 F. C. Bangs Grand Opera House, Brooklyn Mar 5, 1883 Frank C. Bangs Niblo*s Garden Mar 5-10, 1883 W. J. Fleming National Mar 19-24, 1883 Frank C. Bangs Grand Opera House, Brooklyn Mar 26, 1883 Frank C. Bangs Windsor

Apr 16, 1883 ff. (?) Novelty Theatre, Williamsburg Apr 19, 1883 F. de Belleville Boothfs May 7-12, 1883 W. J. Fleming Aberle*s New Theatre Mar 27-29, 1884 W. J. Fleming Eighth Street Sep 8, 1884 #E. J. Henley & the New Park Theatre Moore & Holmes British Burlesque Company Apr 25, 1886 J. B. Studley Eighth Street Nov 15, 1886 Daniel E. Bandmann Standard Museum Apr 25-30, 1887 J. B. Studley Poole*s (late Aberle*s) Jun 4-9, 1888 George Learock Proctor *s Criterion Jan 13, 1890 Robert Mantell Fourteenth Street for 2 -weeks Feb 3-8, 1890 Robert Mantell People *s Theatre Apr 7-12, 1890 Robert Mantell Grand Opera House 213 DATE ACTOR THEATRE

May 5-10, 1890 Robert Mantell Amphion Academy, Williamsburg Jan 19, 1891 Robert Mantell Harlem Opera House Mar 30 to Apr 4, 1891 Robert Mantell Miner fs People's

Apr 20-25, 1891 Robert Mantell Amphion Academy, Williamsburg Apr 27 to Grand Opera House, May 2, 1891 Robert Mantell Brooklyn

Dec 28, 1891 to Robert Mantell Grand Opera House, Jan 2, 1892 Brooklyn

Jan 4, 7, 8, Robert Mantell 9, 1892 Columbus Theatre May 9-14, 1892 Robert Mantell Grand Opera House, Brooklyn ♦German version: Die korsikanischen Briider by Theodor West. #The Corsican Brothers & Co., Limited, the broad English burlesque of the play.

Mason's French Theatre In New York also lists the following productions: Sep 18, 19, 21, 23, 1899 Harrison J. Wolfe Star Feb 3, 1902 William Bramwell Murray Hill 12 perf. Dec 14, 1903 Robert Mantell Fourteenth Street 17 perf. B.

CAST LISTS OF MAJOR PRODUCTIONS

Theatre Historicue, Paris. 1850 Lyceum. 1863 Fabian dei Franchi Louis dei Franchi • . . M. M. Fechter M. M. Fechter Fabian dei Franchi Louis dei Franchi ■ . . M. Berthollet M. Chateau Renaud. . . M. Emmanuel Mr. Jordan M. Aldred Meynard . . M. Peupin Mr. Shore Le Baron Giordano M artelli...... M. Bounet Mr. Tapping

/ Le Baron Montgiron . . M. Ligne Mr. Raymond Gaetano Orlando. . . . . M. Georges Mr. F. Moreland Marco Collona...... M. Boutin Mr. H. Widdicomb Griffo (a domestic). . . M. Paul Mr. Clifford Antonio Sanola (Judge). . M. Videix Mr. Collet Blaize (a woodcutter) . . M. Barre Mr. Barnett Thomaso (a guide) . . . . M. Desire Mr. Regan A Surgeon...... M. Serres Mr. Humphrey Mme. Savilia dei F ranchi...... Mme. Letoumeur Mrs. C. Houseman 214 Emilie de Lesparre . . . Methilde Miss Leclercq Esther (Ladies of Marie Boutin Vivash Grain d*Or the Ballet) Ferranti Daly Pomponette Mar the Wilson Marie (an attendant) . . . Humblet Henrade Peasants, Ladies and Gentlemen, Dancers, Servants, etc.

Princess fs Bowery M. Fabien dei Franchi M. Louis dei Franchi' . Mr. C. Kean Mr. Eddy M. de Chateau-Renaud . Mr. Alfred Wigan Mr. Goodall M. Alfred Maynard. . . . Mr. G. Everett Mr. Glenn Le Baron de Montgiron . Mr. James Vining Mr. Hamilton Le Baron Giordano M artelli...... Mr. C. Wheatleigh Mr. Stevens Orlando...... Mr. Ryder Mr. Leffingwell Collona...... Mr. Meadows Mr. Griffiths M. Beauchamp...... Mr. Stacey Mr. Howland M. V eraer...... Rolleston Mr. Watson Griffo (a Domestic). . . . Mr. Paulo Mr. H. Seymour Antonio Sanola (Judge). .M r. F. Cooke Mr. Bowes Boissec (a Woodcutter) . Mr. J. Chester Mr. Moore* Tomaso (a Guide). . . . .Mr. Stoakes Mr. Reed A Surgeon...... Daly Mr. Browne 216

Servants...... Mr. Haines Mr. Wilson Mme. Savilia dei F ranchi...... Miss Phillips Mrs. Jordan Emilie de L'Esparre. . . Miss Murray Mrs. Yeomans Marie...... Miss Robertson Miss Hiffert Coralie (Ladies of . . Miss Leclercq Mrs. Grattan Celestine the Ballet) . . Miss Daly Miss Broadley Estelle . . Miss Vivash Miss Mason Ladies, Gentlemen, Masks, Dominos, Debardeurs, Grotesques, Servants, Male and Female Corsican Peasants, &c. ♦Also prompter for the Bowery production.

Lyceum. 1880 Theatres Royal Fabien dei Franchi w 0 Louis del Franchi' ' ' ' Mr> Irvtag F ‘ Thomas M. de Chateau-Renaud . Mr. W. Terriss Mr. H. Forrester M. Alfred Meynard. . . . Pinero Mr. Shelton Le Baron de Montgiron . Mr. Elwood Mr. Gresham Orlando ...... Mr. Mead Mr. Bradshaw C ollona...... Mr. Johnson Mr. Howard Antonio Sanola...... Mr. Tapping Mr. Fenton Giordano Martelli .... Mr. Tyars Mr. Merchant Griffo...... Mr. Archer Mr. Hall B oissec...... Mr. Carter Mr. Mathews M. V erner...... Mr. Hudson Tom aso...... Mr. Harwood M. Beauchamp...... Mr. Ferrand A Surgeon...... Mr. Louther Emilie de L'Esparre . . Miss Fowler Mrs. Monjam Mme. Savilia dei F ranchi...... Miss Pauncefort Mrs. Daly M a rie ...... Miss Harwood C o ralie...... Miss Alma Murray C elestine...... Miss Barnett Estelle...... Miss Houliston R o se...... Miss Coleridge Eugene...... Miss Moreley Ladies, Gentlemen, Masks, Dominos, Debardeurs, Grotesques, Servants, Male and Female Corsican Peasants, &c. c.

CRITICAL REVIEWS OF MAJOR PRODUCTIONS

Some of the more extensive reviews of the productions of Kean and Irving are listed below: The Illustrated London News. February 28, 1852, p. 182. The Albion. March 20, 1852, pp, 141-142. The Illustrated London News, July 31, 1852, pp, 482-483. (End of the Season Review.) The Illustrated London News. September 18, 1880, p. 279. (Preview.) The Illustrated London News. September 25, 1880, p. 303. The Saturday Review. September 25,1880, pp 396-397. The Theatre. October 1, 1880, p. 236. The Graphic. October 30, 1880, p. 427. (Review of the Burnand and Stephens burlesque.) The Theatre. June 1, 1891, pp. 307-309.

218 AUTOBIOGRAPHY

219 AUTOBIOGRAPHY

I, Jack Worth Hunter, was bom in Cheyenne, Wyoming, July 2, 1928. I received my secondary-school education in the Cheyenne public schools, and my undergraduate training at the College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio, which granted me the Bachelor of Arts degree in 1948. Following graduation, I worked a year for the Indianaplis (Indiana) News-Star, and for WMRI (FM) in Marion, Indiana. I received the Master of Arts degree from The Ohio State University in 1952. While in residence there, I served as assistant to Professor William E. Utterback, and as lighting technician and Production Supervisor for the University and Stadium Theatres. I received a commis­ sion in the U.S. Army Signal Corps, at Fort Benning, Georgia, in 1954, and served for two years as a motion picture Producer- Director at the Army Pictorial Center, in Long Island City, New York. During 1950-571 served as Instructor in Theatre Arts at Lake Erie College, Painesville, Ohio. The following year was spent in research at Ohio State University, where I was appointed as Research Assistant under Professor John H. McDowell. During

220 that period I served as editor of The Ohio State University Theatre CoUection Bulletin, and edited the second edition of The Ohio State University Theatre Collection Handbook, a guide to classification procedures in the Collection. From 1958 until 19601 served as a Producer-Director for the Ohio State University Telecommunica­ tions Center, WOSU-TV, under Professor Richard B. Hull. In 1960 I assumed the position of Producer-Director for WBNS-TV, in Columbus, Ohio, where my duties primarily have been con­ cerned with the production of special programs and documentary films. I have held this position for three years while completing the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree.