National Library Bibliothèque nationale H*m of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue WelIington OttawaON KIAON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Lib- of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1 reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la fome de microfiche/fih., de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The auîhor retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fkom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation.

TABLE of CONTENTS

Title Page Abstract Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Introduction Audiences and Theatres; Authors and Plays; Actors and Acting The Private Secretary: A Curate in Conflict The Farces of A. W. Pinero: Conflict at the Court Charley's Aunt: The Consummation of Conflict The Conclusion of Conflict Bibiiography Appendix LIST OF TAI3tES

1. The Prince's Theatre: Location and Prices of Seats 2. A cornparison of the two London casts of The Private Secretarv 3. The Cast of , Court Theatre, March 2 1, 1885 4. The Cast of The Schooimistress, Court Theatre, March 27, 1886 5. The Cast of Dandy Dick, Court Theatre, January 27, 1887 6. The Cast of The Amazons, Court Theatre, March 7, 1893 7. The Cast of CharleyysAunt, Bury St. Edmunds Theatre, February 29, 1892 8. The Cast of Charlef s Aunt, , December 2 1, 1892 LIST OF FIGUES

1. W. S. Penley as Rev. Robert Spalding and W. J. Hill as Mr. Cattermole The Prïvate Secretarv: Act 1 2. Mrs. Stephens, Miss Vane Featherstone, Miss Maud MiIIett and Charles Hawtrey, The Prïvate Secretary, Act 2 3. W. S. Penley as Rev. Robert Spalding in The Pnvate Secretary 4. H. Beerbohm Tree as Rev. Robert Spalding in The Private Secretarv 5. in The Maistrate, Act III 6. Messrs. Victor, Kerr & Clayton in The Schoolrnistress, Act EL 7.Miss Temss & Mr. EIIiott, The Amazons, Act II. INTRODUCTION

In his opening remarks to the [nternational Conference on Humour and Laughter at Cardiff, Wales, in 1976, the English cornedian Ken Dodd concluded wi-th a plea that "nobody should ever discover or disclose 'the key' to humour."' Such a discovery seems unlikely because there exists a large nmber of often contradictory theories of humour, laughter and the comic. These have emerged frorn various disciplines including philosophy, psychology, physiology and literary cnticism. Paul Lauter observes in his introduction to a collection of various writings on comedy and laughter, that the theories begin by observing that cornedies generally cause us to laugh. Having fixed on this phenornenon as a starting point, they diverge into physiology ... or into psychology .... Laughter theorists of a more literary tum... usually prefer to follow the track from laugh to cause. In the end they discover not comedy, in the course of which laughter is raised, but the "laughable" or "Iudicrous," generally identified with the ri di cul ou^.^

Sorne theorists brkfly mention that there are performance aspects present in the delivery of jokes and in the occurrence, observation, and retelling of humorous incidents. Unfortunately, the importance of the performer is often given little consideration, or completely disregarded, in the development and conclusions of their particular arguments. Generally, the theones pay Little attention to farce, or demean the genre's performance conventions, in their explanations of humour and the comic. Since the primary purpose of farce is to create laughter, this attitude and the neglect of the genre in theories of humour is problematical. Lauter comments that "artists have always recognized the need to get the audience to view their work in a particular ~a~."~The peculiar art of the farce actor is to portray the cornic so that audiences can perceive and respond to the humour. Farce actors employ their own vocal and physical artistry, control the rhythm and Pace of a performance, and exploit the moment-to-moment textual and staging situations. The actors' purpose is to present verbal and visual images that conflict with each other or with the audience's preconceived theatrical or social conventions. The images initiate a cornplex psychological process which obliges the audience to try to resolve the conflicts. At the same time, the actors manipulate the audience's ability to achieve a resolution in order to generate increasing Levels of mental energy. The decisive factor is the desire to stimulate the audience into a crescendo of response, which will culminate at the appropriate moment in a climax of uncontrotled laughter. Successful farce acting requires a complex combination of visual and verbaI techniques and an exceptional ability to react dynamically with the audience during performance. It is the skill and creativity involved in this process that defines the artistry of farce acting and the artistic ment of farce. By examining the performances of several plays in their conternporary contest I will determine those elements that characterise the process of laughter creation and show how the artistry of the farce actor is indispensable to this process. AIthough individual farces are generally written for and about the culture and society of a particular place and time, the humour of farce can cross temporal and cultural boundaries; for example, the plays of Aristophanes from classical Greece and of Plautus from early Rome are stilI funny in the twentieth century. However, cultural and social environrnents will affect the responses of audiences in different times and places and \vil1 influence aspects of performance, such as the style of acting. Writing in 1822 but refemng to eighteenth-century actor Jack Palmer, Charles Lamb noted that "a player with Jack's talents, if we had one now, woufd not dare do the part in the same mamer.-.- He must take his cue from the ~~ectators-''~ A discussion of the artistic qualities of farce acting requires an analysis of the performances of specific plays, in their historical context, in order to ascertain the techniques used by the actors to evoke laughter and to evaluate the effect on the contemporary audiences. I will examine the productions of several farces presented in London, Engiand in the late nineteenth century in order to determine and assess the effectiveness of the Iaughter-provoking elements used in the performance of farce during that period. It was during the latter half of the nineteenth century that the London theatre industry became one of the major suppliers of mass entertainment with the popuiarity of theatre extending to most social classes. At this time many established theatrical customs were changing and evolving, and several developments in twentieth-century theatre practice can be traced to innovations from the closing decades of the nineteenth century. In the next chapter i will examine some of the changes to the theatncal environment, with particuIar reference to those which had a significant influence on the acting of farce in the late-nineteenth century. In Late Victorian Farce, Jeffrey Huberman refers to the perïod 1884- 1893 as "the Golden Age of British Farce," and he devotes considerable time to a Iiterary analysis of many farces from this period.' I have chosen several of the plays that Huberman examines, and I have found his plot descriptions and character analyses helpful. However, his rnethodological approach and his terrninology are specifically based on the concept of drama as literature. While I fully support his attempt to privilege a generally marginalised genre, he pays little aîtention to those aspects of the actor's art, such as vocal inflections, facial expressions and the control of a play's rhythm and pace, that are critical to the performance of farce. In addition, his analysis does not include an examination of the farcicaI codes that wrïters conceal in their texts and that audiences rnust decipher with the active but circumspect facilitation of the actors. In the decade prior to Huberman's "Golden Age," adaptations from French plays were the main source of full-length farces for the London stage. The originak often used marital infidelity and sexual innuendo as sources for laughter. Although "deodorised" during adaptation to reduce the conflict with Victorian moral and family values, their content still caused significant adverse criticism and moral indignation. ln spite of this publicity, or, perhaps, because of it, the French farces were very popular. 1 will examine them more closely in the next chapter in order to ascertain their influence on the performance and reception of subsequent British farces. The Farces of the "Golden Age" that I will investigate contain considerable potential for moral and social controversy. They present young people in sexually ambiguous situations, socially prominent men in equivocal circumstances and characters of both sexes dressed in morally or socially inappropriate clothing. The contemporary evidence wîll demonstrate that the most popular farces combined the greatest potential for conflict with the best artistry and that, generally, the least pcpular farces failed because reduced artistic freedorn, cornmitment or ability hindered the catalytic presence of the actors. My performance analyses will focus on the productions of several plays; The Private Secretary by Charles Hawtrey, CharleyysAunt by and Arthur W. Pinero's series of five farces presented at the Court theatre. 1 will ascertain, and determine the effectiveness of, those characteristics pecul iar to the acting of farce during this period. The production histones of these plays contain several interesting coincidences and some significant differences that I will identiQ and examine in detail in the relevant chapters. Together they comprise some of the most popular farces presented on the London stage during the late nineteenth century. Coincidentally, The Private Secreta~,Charley's Aunt and Pinero's last "Court" farce, The Amazons, were a11 presented in London during the 1892/93 theatre season which is the final year of HubemanYs"Golden Age" that The Private Secretarv heralded in 1884. The first London production of Hawtrey's "farcical comedy" lasted only a few weeks at the Prince's Theatre but the author immediately remounted the play at the Globe theatre with W. S. Penley in the leading role of the Rev. Robert Spalding. Although the critics disparaged the original version, the revised Globe production becarne one of the longest running plays during the 1880s and it was remounted successfully in 1892 with W. S. Penley in his original role. in December 1892 Penley becarne the manager of the Royalty theatre and performed the leading comic role in Charley's Aunt, that, like The Private Secretaw, transferred to the Globe after a few weeks and ran continuously for four years. The play has retained its popularity throughout the twentieth century. The hazons opened in 1893 at the Court theatre and ran concurrently with Charley's Aunt for a few months. It was Pinero's last and least popular of a series of farces that comprised The Mapistrate, The Schoolmistress. Dandy Dick and The Cabinet Minister. I will examine al1 these plays in varying amounts of detail in order to assess the differences which may have led to the comparative failure of The Amazons. The production processes of Pineroys"Court" farces provide significant evidence for the changes that were taking place to the theatrical environment during this period. The omission or neglect of the performance of farce in philosophical, psychological and literary examinations of humour and in theories about the processes of laughter creation has influenced dramatic and theatrical criticism, has swayed discussions of aesthetics and the art of theatre, and has affected the discourses of theatre research and history. Nevertheless, sorne of these theones of humour and laughter identi@ elements that actors can manipulate dunng performance, indicate the environmental conditions most conducive for the presentation of farce, and explain the cognitive processes of an audience in its treatment of the images presented. A brief review ofthese theories will inform my analysis of the artistry of farce acting and illuminate the reasons for laughter dunng the performance of a farce. Anthony Caputi proposes that vulgar comedy, a category in which he includes farce, requires "the presence of a configuration of factors, a gestalt,7" which he identifies as "coarseness, distance, and the presence of the rnatenals and forma1 strategies of vulgar ~orned~."~According to this theory, "coarseness" helps to create distance and refers to "the tendency to simplification and reduction in vulgar comedy-to what rnight be cailed a coarseness of grain in the Writers achieve "distance" by portraying the characters "simply and boldly," with a fiequent use of asides, a freer use of the stage and other conventions that "impose theatrical dimensions on a dramatic surface." The acting style promotes the process of "distancing" and until the rniddle of the nineteenth century was always "exaggerated and larger than life. "' However, the vastness of many theatres built prior to the late nineteenth century required such "exaggerated" styles of acting. In addition, the "coarseness" of larger-than-life acting, that Caputi attributes to farce, was the accepted convention for al1 theatrical genres. By the end of the nineteenth century many theatres were comparatively smaller, as a result the acting styles were less exaggerated and visual or verbal "asides" were much less prevaient than in earlier decades. Although the presence of conflict and conflicting images in farce could "distance" an audience, 1 will show that the actors in late nineteenth-century farce used their artistry to reduce this effect and involve the audience with their characters and with the stage action. My analysis of the various performances will show that, for effectiveness, the actors had to integrate such technical devices as gestures, asides and mannensms into the habits, behaviour and business of their characters, reducing the distancing effect while retaining the humour. Caputi also believas that the audience's response to vulgar comedy is simple and uncomplicated, requinng no great range of sensitivity and no high order of intelligence.... our response to it [the buffu image] involves orders of emotion and intelligence neither better nor worse than those involved in other responses. 'O In the sense that the purpose of farce is to generate laughter, then the desired response is uncomplicated. However, a cornplex process is necessary to motivate laughter and i will show that actors must skillfully manipulate and integrate a vanety of factors into a seemingly simple image so that extraneous elements do cot hinder the process of laughter creation. The three traditional theories of Iaughter and humour- the Superiority Theory, the Relief Theory and the hcongruity ~heor$'- contain explanations of what is funny, why it is funny, and how and why people respond by laughing. Caputi's conclusion that "the dominant quality of vulgar comedy... consists in a sense of mastery, a tonic intuition that we are in control, invulnerable"" places his ideas in the category of superïority theories, the origins of which have been assigned to Aristotle based on the small number of remarks about comedy that he made in the Poetics.

Aristotle decIares that the effect of comedy was "to exhibit men as worse ...than those of the present day."I3 Cornedies achieved this goal by stressing the ridiculous, which he defines as "a mistake or deformity which produces no pain or harm in ~thers."'~ The result, according to Aristotle, is that "laughter is always directed at someone as a kind of ~corn."'~Apparently in disagreement with sorne of his contemporanes, Aristotle preferred a single story, or plot, and stated that subsidiary plots were only suitable for comedy. He argued thai this genre was "ranked as first only because audiences are weak; the poets simply follow their public, writing to suit its whirn."16 With such a censure of form, content, wrïters and audiences occurring at the beginning of western Iiterary and theatrical criticism it is hardly surprising that, "the activity of creating and enjoying humour was seen as somehow unworthy, [and sol there was little motivation to study it,m17

Aristotle's Superiority Theory of Humour was the most popular and prominent for a long period with additions and commentaiy by, for example, PIato and Cicero. It was revitalised dwing the Renaissance by writers such as Giovanni Georgio Trissino and Vincenzo ~a~~i.''Maggi questions and extends the theory, concluding that "the baseness that is capable of raising a laugh ought to be novel,... either through the base thing itsel f, or.. .through a novel rnanner of expressing and depicting the thing." Ig Nearly three hundred years later, William Hazlitt also stresses a need for newness, stating that laughter was "occasioned by mere surprise or contrast (in the absence of any more serious emotion), before it has time to reconcile its belief to contradictory appearances ."'O In his analysis, Hazlitt refers to the presence of contrast (conflict), the surprise of contradictory appearances (conflicting images) and the need to induce laughter before a reconciliation of the conflict can occur. There are many similarities between this theory and the Relief theory, developed later by Freud; in addition, Hazlitt seems to uniS. the Superionty theory and the [ncongniity theory, initially developed by Kant in 1790.~' HazIitt notes the existence in the ludicrous of a contradiction between the object of laughter and Our expectations of what is "customaiy or desirable," and in the ridiculous because it is "contrary not only to custom but to sense and reason, ...a voluntary depanure from what we have a right to expect from those who are conscious of absurdity and propriety in words, looks and actions."" This proposition confirms the existence of a conflict between the observers' expectations and the behaviour of the object observed. The inference is that laughter results from a conflict between the behaviour of the observed and the audience's expectations and not from some innate sense of superiority on the part of the observer. It is the conflict that causes the laughter, not a feeling of superiority, although the latter may occur either as a facilitatm of laughter or as a result of laughing. In the early years of the twentieth century two separate theones concerning humour developed. Expounded in Freud's Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious and Bergson's Lau~hter:An Essav on the Meaninn of the Comic, these are, respectiveiy, exarnples of the Relief and Inconçniity theories. Bergson's pnmary focus is to explain that the comic results from a perceived incongruity between mechanistic activities and the fluidiîy of real life. He states that "the attitudes, gestures and movernenfs ofthe h uman body are hughable in exact proportion as that body reminds us of a mere rn~chine."~Of the many theonsts, Bergson gives greater significance to performance, stating that the achievement of an outstanding comic effect results from "the art of the draughtsman" who can more exactly fit together the images of a person and of a machinea2' Bergson examines the humour found in the mechanistic qualities of certain professions and identifies the potential of speech defects and speech rhythms as sources of laughter. He believes actors will instinctively invent appropriate vocal mannerisms when an author does not make a suggestion.25 Bergson is mainly concemed with those properties inherent in the laughed-at, particularly the incongmity of specific laughter-provoking images. The existence of incongmity confirms the presence of conflict because the enacted visual or verbal images conflict with the spectator7spreconceived perceptions of appropriate behaviour or speech. In effect, Bergson confirms Hazlitt's theory that the conflict occurs because of a contrat between the expected behaviour and the actual behaviour of the observed. In rny analyses, 1 will assume that, in the context of performanceythe terms '-incongrnous" and "conflicting" are synonymous and interchangeable. Sirnilarly, the words "incongmity" and "incongruous," in contemporary reviews, confirm the presence of conflicting images which the spectator perceives as part of the laughter creation process. In a more recent uniQing theory, Norman Holland absorbs virtually al1 theories of humour into .tognitive," '.ethica~"'~and ccformal"in~on~niities.~~ Then he indicates the need for "a psychology of the comic," that "theorists have not been slow to provide," in order to "account for the variability of audience response under identical conditions of timing and playfutness."28 According to Holland, "al1 psycho1ogical theories locate the source of the laughable in some sort of transaction between the laugher and the laughed- at instead of in the laughed-at a~one,"~~confirming that a dynamic, two-way process occurs between the actors and the spectators. Such theories should provide the basis for identifying those elements which an actor manipulates in order to achieve the required audience response. Freud proposed the first primarily psychological theory of humour in Jokes and Their Relation to the Llnconscious. Unfortunatety, Freud is mainly concemed with the textual analysis of jokes. He pays liale attention to the performance of the joke tellers or to the cultural biases and other attributes of the audience. Freud's main objective, as summarised by J. Y. T. Greig, is to show that laughter is the result of escaping "psycho- physical energy, that has become momentarily surplus, through the disappearance of the obstacle to meet which this energy was mobilized in the first in~tance."~'Although Freud's teminology is no longer popular, his theory about the mental processes of the laugher confirms Hazlitt's observations. My examination of the plays will show that their underlying rhythmic structure and the actors' artistry in timing and pacing assumes the existence of similar reception processes in the spectators. When Freud attempts to merge the comic with his theories of jokes, he stresses the event of theatre and the audience's remembered laughter as the main reasons for laughing at farce. Anyone who ...g oes to theatre to see a farce owes to this intention his ability to laugh at things which would scarcely have provided him with a case of the cornic in ordinary life. In the last resort it is in the recollection of having laughed and in the expectation of laughing that he laughs when he sees the comic actor corne to the stage, before the latter can have made any anempt at making him laugh." Contemporary theatncal conventions for the performance and reception of farce no doubt influenced the spectators' individual and group behaviour. Bergson acknowledges that "our laughter is always the laughter of the group,"32 and Holland makes "playful conditions" an essential part of "feeling ~ornic.''~~The latter has been subject to expex-irnental testing from which Mary Rothbart concludes that, "for laughter to occur... visual incongruities should not be interpreted as problems to be solved. Instead they should be represented as something outside the probIem solving sphere, sornething for entertainment, play or fun."34 This places the responsibility for provoking laughter largely on the artistry and expertise of the actors, with the help of the audience's conventionalised expectation that farce is primanly entertainment. It is significant that, of the plays I will examine, those containing the more problematical subject matter and the less experienced farce actors were less successful. In effect, the words or images created a conflict and the actors alIowed the audience to attempt a resolution of the problern, instead of keeping the performance in the sphere of entertainment by stimulating the release of the mental energy as laughter. Freud's sweeping generalisation, that rernembered situations and behaviour are the main stimuli for laughing at farce, seems excessively simplistic. However he does recognize that the process of laughter initiation requires the existence of contradictory elements. These cause interna1 conflict in the spectator and a desire to achieve a compromise between thern." In addition, he draws attention to the comical aspects of a person who, when compared to oneself, uses excessive physical energy or insuficient mental energy to solve a problem. The Comic effect apparently depends, therefore, on the differeen between two cathetic expenditures - one's own and the other person's as estimated by empathy - and not on which of the two the difference fav~urs.'~ In effect, a conflict occurs between the image perceived by the spectator and the spectator's expectations. The farce actor must ensure that the energy generated to resolve this conflict is released as laughter. Those few studies that deal specifically with farce recognize the importance of conflict and violence in the themes and visual content of the genre. AIbert Bermel comments that "Farce deals with the unreal, with the worst one can dream or dread. Farce is cruel, ofien brutal, even rn~rderous."~'From a more literary standpoint, Jessica Davis says that: Tt is the form of comedy which depends upon visual acting out of its jokes and not upon their expression in distanced and witty dialogue. It is therefore the most directly aggressive comic form, using both physical violence and scatological joking. 38 However, Bermel refers to a clause in "an wiwritten contract between farceurs and their audiences" that requires any violence to leave the characters unhurt, "because the audience must be permitted to laugh." Any repudiation of this rule and the play is no longer a farce.3g The acceptance by audiences of such painless violence is due to the interaction of several traits apparently peculiar to the genre, "unreality ...bnitality, and objectivity." Specifically, unreality modifies any brutality in the presentation of slapstick and knockabout humour, both of which Bermel considers integral to farce.40 Berlyne identifies three classes of stimuli-psychophysical, ecological and collative-whose properties are capable of exciting the nervous system, in other words, they create the energy that causes iaughter, when expended as surplus. According to Berlyne, collative properties "depend on the collation, or cornparison, of information from different sources (Berlyne. 1963, p.290).'741Michael Godkewitsch provides examples of these properties that include "complexity, novelty, change, arnbiguity, incongniity, redundancy and ~ncertaint~.'~~~Several of the theories I have already examined use the same or similar words to illuminate the process of humour creation. Godkewitsch adds that the cornmon factor of these "collative stimulus properties" is that "they involve conflict between incompatible response tendencies. In humour, collative properties play a very important r~le.'*~ if these recent theories of cognition are correct, then, in a performance situation, the actors mut create mental obstacles for the audience through the presentation of conflicting verbal and visual images. This activates the production of energy in the spectators' nervous systems. The actors must monitor and manipulate the rate and level of arousai in the audience and stimulate the release of surplus energy at the appropriate moment in order to achieve the desired level of laughter. In an interview quoted by Paul Taylor at the International Conference on Humour and Laughter, two British actors stress the importance of the audience's presence: In a recent interview a popular husband and wife acting team talked about their relationship with the audience (John Alderton and Pauline Collins interviewed in the Radio Times, 19th April, 1975, p.7): "You embrace them into your moves and move with them ...you dance with them." Both partners agreed that, for them, it is nearly impossible to play comedy without a studio audience - ...44

From his research, Taylor also notes the importance that performers place on timing as a key eiement of successful comedy. He points out that, "timing is absolutely dependent on a reaction to any given joke or line.'*j Michael 07Mahonet, Robert Palmer and Jennifer King presented a paper at the same conference containing evidence fiom research into revue-style theatre at the Edinburgh Festival. They note that: the pace ...provides the actors with a high frequency of stimuli with which to manipulate audience response. Should audience response fa11 off it can be restored by speeding up the performance ....Throughout the revue actors are constantly vaiying their performance according to readily available audience feedback?

These researchers also provide evidence relating to the subject rnatter being presented. They noted that a change in the theme of the humour increases the response, and that "taboo" subjects can be presented successfully and safely if the audiences are misied in their reading of the subject This misdirection can be achieved when an actor is unknowingly at cross-purposes with another actor and with the audience, or if the "taboo" subject is presented by an innocent looking girl: "The more innocent the girl, the funnier the sketch.'747This aspect is particularly relevant to the audiences' reception of the equivocal subject matter and images that are present in several of the ptays that I wil1 examine. In his attempt to differentiate between farce and comedy, Benne1 stresses the importance of the actor. He contrasts the physical and visual humour resulting from the antics of the characters in farce with the textual humour in c~rned~.'~The impact of the latter depends on the actor's delivery; "if he says it in al1 seriousness (without meaning to be funny), it will be taken as humor. If he delivers it with a knowing srnile, it will be ~it.'"~This sornewhat forced cornparison between the physicality of farce and the vocalisation of cornedy assumes that farce actors will not apply their vocal artistry to the delivery of lines in order to achieve comparable results. Bermel concludes that it is the enactment that differentiates farce from comedy; "it is primarily a perfomer's art, not a writer's."jO Sirnilarly, Jessica Davis emphasizes the significance of the actors, and the difficulty of their work, in the performance of farce: any man of the theatre will tell you that it [farce] is characterized by extreme discipline, both in its construction and its acting. It is a very dificult genre in which to succeed. It is this aspect which has stmck me most forcibly in my studies of farce: that the most aggressive, and the most atavistic form of comedy is also the most rigid in its interna1 r~les.~'

My investigation will show that the actors in farce have a very difficult task. They must blend their physical business, facial expressions, gestures and vocal tones with the desired incongmities within the parameters of the characters being performed, and ensure that the spectators perceive the conflicting images. At the same tirne, they must monitor and controI the audience's reactions to ensure that the desired volume and length of laughter is achieved at the requisite moments. Notes

Anthony S. Chapman and Hugh C. Foof eds., It's A Funnv Thine. Humour: International Conference on Humour and Lau-&ter, Cardiff, Wales. 1976, (Oxford: Pergarnon Press, 1977) xi. 2 Paul Lauter, ed , Theones of Comedy, (Garden City, N.Y.:Doubleday & Company Inc 1964) wïi. Lauter, xxvi. ' Charles Lamb, "On the hificial Comedy of the Las Century," Theories of Comedy, ed. Paul Lauter, 299. Je* K. Huberman, Late Victonan Farce, Theater and Dramatic Studies Ser.. ed Oscar G. Brockett (Ann Arbor. Mich: UMI Research Press, 1986). The third chapter deals with the period 1884- 1893. 6 Anthony Caputi. Buffo: The Genius of Low Corndv, (Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1978) 175. 7 Caputi, 185. 8 Caputi, 18 1 9 Caputi, 1 77- 1 79. 'O Caputi, 18 1 . 11 John Morreall, ed. The Philoso~hyof Lauehter and Humour, (Albany: State University of New York, 1987) 5. 12 Caputi, 204. 13 Aristotle, Poetics, tram John Warrington, Aristotle's Poetics, Demetrius on Style, Longinus on the Sublime, (London: Dent; New York: Dutton; Everyman's Press, 1963) 5. 14 Aristotle, 1 1 . l5 Morreall, 3. l6 Anstotle, 22-23. l7 Morreall, 3. 18 Excerpts Çrom Cicero, "On the Character of the Orator," Book II, lviii, 235 to ki, 289 trans. George Bmes and I. S. Watson; Giovanni Georgio Trissino, "Poetics", Division VI, trans. revised by ed. fiom original work of Anita Grossvogel; Vincenzo Maggi (Madius), "On the RidiniIous," tram George Miltz, Theories of Comedy, ed. Paul Lauter. 19 Vincenzo Maggi (Madius), "On the Rïdiculous," (15SO), Theones of Comedv, ed Paul Lauter, 73. 20 William Hazlitt, "Lectures on the Comic Writers, etc. of Great Britain," (18 19). Theories of Corned~,ed. Paul Lauter, 73. " Thomas R Schultz, "A Cognitive-Developmental Analysis of Humour," Humour and Lau~hter: Theory. Research and Applications, eds. Anthony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, (London: John Wiley & Sons, 1976) 12. 22 Hazlitt, 266. 23 Bergson, Lau~hter:An es sa^ on the Meaninn of the Comic, trans. CloudesIey Brereton and Fred Rothwell, (London: MacMillan & Co. Ltd., 191 1) 29. 24-~ergson,3 1 25 Bergson, 56. 26 Norman N. Holland, Laughinn: A Pwcholo~yof Humor, (Ithaca and London: Cornell UP. 1982) 2 1-22. 27 Holland, 24. 28 Holland, 3 3. 29 Holland, 34. J. Y. T. Greig, The Psvchologv of laufiter and Cornedv, (1923; New York: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1969) 70. 3 1 Sigmund Freud, Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, trans- and ed. Janies Strachey. (New W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 1960) 2 19. 32 Bergson, 6. 33 HoIIand, 3 0-3 1. 34 Mary K. Rothbart, "Incongruity, Probfem-Solving and Laughter," Humour and Laughter: Theorv. Research and Axdications, eds. Anthony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, 52. 35 Freud, 109. 36 Freud, 195. 37 Aibert Bermel, Farce: A Kistow fiom Aristo~hanesto Woodv Allen, (New York: Simon and Schuster. 1982) 2 1. 38 Jessica R Milner Davis, "A Structural Approach to Humour in Farce," Humour: International Conferences. 1976, eds. Anthony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, 39 2. 39 Bermel, 23. Bermel, 22. " Michael Godkewitsçh, "Physiolo@cal and Verbal Indices of ArousaI in Rated Humour," quoting Berlyne, 1963, p.290, Humour and Launhter: Theorv. Research and A~plications,eds. Anthony 3. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, 1 19. " Godkewitsch, 1 19. 13 Godkewîtsch, 1 19. 45 Paul Taylor, "Laughter and Joking - The Structural Axis," [t's A Funnv Thine. Humour: International Conference on Humour and Lauahter Cardiff. Wales. 1976, eds. Anthony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot, 388. 4' Taylor, 388. 46 Michael O'Mahonet, Robert Palmer and Jennifer King. "The Art of Revue: Further Emphases for the Psychology of Humour," It's A FUMVThins. Humour: International Conference on Humour and Laughter. CardiK Wdes. 1976, eds. Anthony J. Chaprnan and Hugh C. Foot, 74. 47 O'Mahonet, et al, 75-79. 48 BermeI, 53. 49 Bermel, 54. 'O Bermel, 56. Davis, 39 1 . Audiences and Theatres; Authors and Plavs; Actors and Acting

During the nineteenth century, for a vanety of reasons, significant changes occurred to the writing and performance of farce. Social influences affected the composition of London audiences, there were major alterations to the structure of the theatre industry and other changes were the resuit of complex interactions between social, economic and artistic forces. In this chapter 1 will look at those developments which affected the witing and production of farces and shaped the evolution of late nineteenth-century audiences. In particular, I will examine those changes ta the accepted conventions of dramatic and comedic performance that influenced the acting of farce.

Audiences and Theatres In the opinion ofJoseph Knight, "the middle of the [nineteenth] century may be regarded as the nadir of the modem English stage."' blames the state of the theatre at that time on such managers as Buckstone and Webster who became careless, and allowed things to sfide into untidiness and a "go-as-you-please" system. The scenery at their theatres was poor, the wardrobes hopelessly inefficient, and the casting of a play a matter of apparent indifference.' Lynton Hudson identifies several other infhences on the composition of theatre audiences, inchding poor physical conditions and the condemnation of theatres by religious leaders as "rendezvous for lost sou~s."~There seems little doubt that a combination of some or al1 of these eIements influenced public opinion and reduced the populanty of theatre. The resulting financial climate, also affected by general economic cycIes, caused many theatre cIosures and bankruptcies and "desperate attempts to find new revenue by a general lowering of seat prices.. .designed not only to keep present audiences but also to attract new ones at a lower level of class and incorne.'" The 1860s are general Iy regarded as the crucial years when the principles governing theatrical production and performance in the earlier years of the century began to alter and when the character and size of theatre audiences began to change. During this decade some 15,000 people went to the theatre each day. Gradually al1 classes of society became theatre-conscious and, as a result, "In a decade and a half the number of playhouses in London nearly doub~ed."~It is not coincidental that this resurgence began with the opening of the Prince of Wales's Theatre by Marie Wilton in 1865. Several commentators from that and later periods acknowledge her influence, and that of her husband , on developments during the subsequent decades. Joseph Knight States: The breach with the traditions of an unarnbitious and irreverent pst began with the opening by Mr. and Mrs. Bancroft in 1865 of the Prince of Wales's Theatre in Toîtenharn Street, and the production of the early comedies of T. W. ~obertson.~ Between 185 1 and 190 1 the population of London doubled from three million to six million, increasing the size of the potential theatre audience. A significant and increasing proportion of this burgeoning population came from the recently enfranchised middle and professional classes, who had begun to receive political power, and therefore social prominence, with the 1832 Parliarnentary Reform Act. At the same time there were major improvements in public transportation. The expanding railway system increased the volume of provincial visitors to the capital and enabled audiences to reach the central London theatres quickly from the growing suburban areas. These changes allowed theatre managers to specialise in particular genres or styles of plays, creating an individual identity for their theatres that a large and loyal audience would recognize and support.' The Bancrofts specifically targeted the middle and upper classes, who had long been absent in large nurnbers From the theatres. The décor and comfort of the rehbished Prince of Wales's theatre and the stage settings of Robertson's dramas harmonised with the world of the audience. In the 1850's and 1860's the growth of music-halls in working-class areas and in central London created an alternative for "the rowdier elements who had made themselves heard in the early-Victon'an theatre,"%nd the atmosphere of theatre auditoria became more appealing to the middle classes. It is not surprising that the opening of the "COZ~" Prince of Wales's theatre coincided with 'the first spate of theatre-building since the passing of the [Theatre Regulation] Act of 1843," and resulted in "new, srnaller playhouses for a smaller more discriminating a~dience."~ One immediate effect of increased audiences from the wealthier classes was an increase in prices. The Bancrofts were the first to introduce the 10s. stall1° and "the dress circle (a socially significant new term) went from 5s. to 6s. and then 7s."" Nevertheless, theatres continued to charge a wide range of prices through to the end of the century. For exarnple, in 1900 the Criterion offered prices ranging from L/- for the gaIlery to 10/6 for the sta~ls,'~confirming that managers needed to attract spectators from al1 incorne levels to their theatres." Augustin Filon identifies three kinds of audience and categorizes them, not by social class, but by the type of entertainment they preferred. One group patronised the music halls, another "the great theatres in which Iiterary drama and light comedy are produced," and the third, an "uncul tured but respectable public," was responsible for "the peeisting, and even growing, popularity of farce and mel~drarna."'~The cornbined effect, as the century drew to a close, was for theatre managers to provide "middle-class drawing-room drama and comedy tinged with aristocratic and fashionable colouring to middle-class audiences with aristocratic and fashionable a~~irations."'~ The theatres at which The Private Secretaw, Pinero's farces and Charley's Aunt were performed present intriguing differences. The Prince's Theatre opened on Friday, January 18, 1884, in an outburst of praise for its location and design and The Private Secretary was only the third production in this new theatre. The site at the corner of Coventry and Oxendon streets,I6 also referred to as Piccadilly ~ast,"was considered very convenient The doorways, vestibule and foyers were vanously described as luxurious, imposing, grand, tasteful and elaborate. The gold, ivory white, red and bronze decor and the rnarble and rnosaic ernbellishments were bright and refined. '* Apart fiom these general impressions, which indicate an intention to attract and favourably influence an audience on its arriva1 at the new theatre, some specific aspects of the Prince's theatre may have affected the temperament of an audience. At1 areas of the house were cornfortable and provided an excellent view of the stage. There were only a few pillars in the pit, which, in keeping with the trend of the period, was placed at the rear of the stalls under the Iowest balcony. Electric lighting was used in the house, elirninating the audiences' discornfort caused by the excessive heat of gas Zarnps, although these were retained to provide light during a power failure.

Table I. The Prince's Theatre: Location and Prices of seatslg Seat Position Price Private Boxes £2 2s. and £3 3s. Stalls I Os. 6d. Balcony StaIIs 7s. 6d. Balcony First Circle Pit Gallery Table I shows the wide range of seat pnces, typical of the period, and indicates ihat the theatre management wanted to attract patrons €rom most levels of Victorian society. However, there is no doubt that the design of the Prince's public areas reflected the changes instigated by the Bancrofts to entice the higher classes. "The interior of the house, in short, is a model of snugness and elegance combined. It is not so much a temple as a boudoir of the drarna."" Nevertheless, the first London production of Private Secretarv lasted only a few weeks and success did not occur until Hawtrey remounted the play at the older Globe theatre. In contrat, the Royalty theatre, where the London premier of Charlefs Aunt occurred, was more than fi@ years old. Although it was reconstmcted in 1883, contemporary commentas. pior to the opening of Charlev's Aunt was not encouraging. Tmth called the Royalty "dingy" and a reporter from The Topical Times mentioned "a plentifül supply of curtains about the place to prevent draughts!" When interviewed for The Pal1 Mal1 Gazette, W. S. Penley, the theatre's lessee and star of Chariefs Aunt, agreed that the theatre's location on Dean street, some distance fiom the major London theatres, could be inconvenient, but he thought that peopie would be willing to seek out a good thing.2' Coincidentally, Brandon Thomas's play also transferred to the Globe theatre after a few weeks. However, unlike The Private Secretary, Charley's Aunt had to move because of its success. On January 15, 1893 in The Referee, Penley commented

17 that the Royalty theatre was too small for the crowds who wanted to see the play.-- In contrast, the venue for Pinero's farces rarely changed from the Court theatre. This theatre was iocated in Sloane Square, well to the West of the theatre district and in the heart of the upper-class residential areas of Belgravia, Kensington and Chelsea. [n December 1884, some months before The Madstrate opened, Pinero wrote to Augustin Daly in New York, intirnating that the Globe management wanted a play from him." It is possible that Pinero intended his first and most popular farce, The Magistrate, for Charles Hawtrey's Company at the Globe theatre, which was situated in Wych Street, on the eastern and less salubrious perimeter of London's West End. Pinero may have thought that the farcical devices, visual humour and content of The Magistrate were more appropriate for the Globe's, rather than the Court's, audiences because farce was not regularly perforrned at the latter theatre. The original Court theatre opened in 1870, closed in July 1887 prior to dernolition and was rebuilt on a nearby site as the . My examination of Pinero's "Court farces" will reveal that various factors influenced the popularity of these plays. However, it is interesting that the later farces produced at the new theatre were less popular than those presented in the older theatre. Similarly, The Private Secretam was unsuccessful at a newly-built theatre. There is insufficient evidence from the performances of these plays to prove that the age of the theatres had a major effect on the audience's reception of farce. However, some of the more recent theories examined in the introduction mention the importance of an audience's state of mind. Perhaps the atrnosphere or decor of the new theatres distracted the audiences from the performance or prevented them from relaxing sufficiently.

Authors and PIays The rapid expansion in the number of theatres increased competition between the new actor-managers, and Rowell detects "onginality in w-riting" as one of the ways chosen to satisfy an increasing but more discriminating theatrical public.'4 From the middle of the nineteenth century, the format of an evening's theatre program changed gradually. Instead of three items on an evening's bill, one of which was usually a one-act farce, the number of items and the length of an evening's entertainment contracted until only one play was presented. Earlier in the century, an evening's program often changed every few nights in order to continue attracting the same people to a theatre. With the increasing demand for theatrical entertainment from a rapidly expanding population, managers were able to retain successful plays for several weeks or months. The "long- run" becîme an important commercial objective and Charlefs Aunt, that lasted four years, is the consurnmate exampie of this trend in the late nineteenth century. The structure and characteristics of farce had to alter in order to satisQ the demands of an expanding entertainment-hungry audience and to meet the changing performance requirements. Booth attributes the lengthening of the West End farce to the popularity of adaptations fiom full-length French farces concemed with sexual peccadilloes and adulterousiy minded but thoroughly bourgeois husbands (and wives) plotting to consummate affairs, usually failing, and franticaliy trying to escape the consequences of discovery and domestic and social e~~osure.~~

It is evident that this popularity, together with the new format of an evening at the theatre, necessitated an increase in the length of farces but English dramatists were accustomed to wrîting one or two acts and were unpractised in the longer fom. In effect, they used the process of translation and adaptation to satisQ a demand and, simultaneously, to learn the appropnate techniques for the three act farce. The initial result was "the naturalization of the French school represented by Labiche, Hénnequin, Delacour, Feydeau, and others," and the dilution of the sexual innuendo to suit the tastes of an English a~dience.'~ Charles Wyndharn, a Bancroft alumnus and manager of the newly-built , "sensed the 'srnart' public's appetite for 'adult' comedy provided the sexuality... was converted to hamless flirtation, and the hotel bedroom ...replaced by the private roorn of an expensive resta~rant'"~He "offered his second-hand goods elegantl y displayed and impeccably packaged" for an audience whose physical and mental comfort was paramount; he provided "power-assisted ventilation ... coffee as well as stronger draughts, an illustrated programme instead of a playbill," and his plays were 'karefully insulated against ~hock."'~ There are conflicting contemporary opinions on the suitabiiity of the adapted French farce for Victorian theatre and the Victorian audience. En 1884, actor-manager Mrs. Kendal addressed the British National Association for the Promotion of Social Science. She commented on the painfulness of seeing "an innocent and unsuspecting wife, being hoodwinked and deceived by a graceless and profligate husband." Her derogatory opinion of the spectators of "elongated farce" indicates the audiences' attitudes and response to this genre: "The more outrageou the misconduct of the husband, the louder are the shrieks of laughter with which their misunderstandings are re~eived."~'Augustin Filon believes that The Snowball, 's 1879 adaptation of Oscar, ou le man qui trompe sa femme, introduced into the English farce qualities which were foreign to this species-clevemess and ingenuity, wit, some bits of comedy, and not a single pun....But if, in listening to or reading The Snowball, you look out for a single trait of English manners or character, you will do so in vain, for there is not one.)' Knight's opinion is that F. C. Bumand's Betsy. an adaptation of Bébé by Hennequin and de Najac, was "entitled to a high place" among the recently popular three-act farces: "hs action is ingenious and comic, its characters are clearly defined, and its dialogue is mirthful" even though everything "unsuited to English tastes" has been removed. Knîght also comrnents that the cast played with "admirable spirit and equal ensemb~e."" ln the last decades of the century the financial incentive to translate or adapt foreign plays disappeared with the enactment of copyright laws that gave foreign authors the same protection as English writers. At the same time a nurnber of actors, including A. W. Pinero, Charles Hawtrey and Brandon Thomas, became writers "with a craftman's eye to the practical staging of their pieces as a result of their own experience on the b~ards,''~~and with a background which enabled them to dramatise accurately the characters and settings of the English middle and upper classes.33 Farce actors had to be capable of representing such characters in their natural locations and the Bancrofts were responsible for initiating changes to accepted styles of acting that helped to achieve this objective.

Actors and Acting Marie Wilton chose Tom Robertson "to give light and life and co~our~~~'to her theatrical imovations, but his plays needed a new method of actingywith "muted effects" which required "reserved force" on the part of the actors. This style was "beyond the simple lines of business of stock companies offering as many as a dozen different plays in one ~eek,"~'which was the format that had characterised the preceding decades. George Taylor considers that the period L 864 to 1 874 was the watenhed of British theatre during the century because, "the differences between the stock Company and the permanent long-run Company not only effected [sic] the style of performances but the whole structure of the acting profession."36 I will shortly begin dealing with those changes that affected the acting of farce in the last twenty years of the century; however, the words of a contemporary actor, Frank Archer, confirm the importance of the Bancrofts to the theatre during this period: Besides what was accomplished on the stage for the delight of the public, their energy in the reform of many abuses should not be Iost sight of. ...the liberal scaIe of salaries, and the more graceful way of having them paid, the full remuneration for al1 employés [sic] for matinées, the business-iike and reliable habits observed in al1 matters connected with their work, the nice treatment of the members of their Company .... These were things unheard of when they began their

These improvements to the actors' working environment are a significant contrast ta earlier in the century when actors leamed their craft by perforrning up to two hundred different parts a year, in the "Protean drudgery of provinciai circuits and stock companies," with the majority "barely making a living out of their despised profession, the big names eaming perhaps a hundred pounds a ~eek."'~The provincial circuits had been the main training ground for new actors who relied on watching more experienced actors and receiving advice about technique and interpretation from them. The stage- manager guided the actors in their stage movements and provided the sides of lines and cues from which the actors could leam only their own parts.39 Rehearçals were virtually non-existent which resulted in a "traditional pattern of moves, and business" with the stock actor depending on "a repertoire of gestures and rnovements ... to give point and effect to the recitation of lines," that were hurriedly learned. The actor concentrated "on individual characterisation [rather] than on the relationship berneen characters," with the ernphasis on the "individual expression of feeling, through gesture and vocal technique.'y4o The actor who specialised in low-comic roles was the stock system's supplier of farcical characterisations and business. "The direct descendant of the Elizabethan clown," the low comedian played such parts as "countrymen, servants, street sellers, nouveau-riche landowners and working class eccentrics," in a style that was "energetically ludicrous or phlegmatically droll.'*' George Taylor defines the term "dr011,'~ a trait much esteemed by audiences in the nineteenth century, as "a self- awareness in the comedian, who consciously shared his amusement with the audience," and "was expressed by a chuckle and a steady gaze," but "did not involve nudging or

3 742 winking at the audience - that was being 'arch . Earlier in the century, Facial expression and direct interaction with the audience was an important aspect of Munden's comic art. Almost the whole force of his acting consists of two or three ludicrous gestures and an innumerable variety of as fanciful contortions of countenance as ever threw woman into hystencs: ... every emotion is attended by a grimace.. .. if it has not immediately its effect upon the spectators, he improves or continues it till it hasa4) Munden, Liston, Robson, Keeley, Buckstone and Toole were some of the leading Iow cornedians of the nineteenth centq. Keeley and Buckstone, farce actors in the middle of the century, presented opposite styles of comic acting, with Keeley7srestraint contrasting with Buckstone's fiamboyance. The latter called "attention to his humour by salient and very effective appeals to his audience, denionstrative, various, gesticulatory," whereas "Keeley.. .was usually phiegnatic, impassive, and patheticall y acquiescent in the droll inflictions which fate had in store for him.'*4 Like Munden, Buckstone used a variety of grimace and contortion to reach "aheight of absurdity... which delighted the public if not always the c~tic,'*~and "played with rather than for his audien~e?~ Joseph Knight thought Buckstone had the "drollest and most cherubic penonality in the world," even though his performances were "scarcely acting.'*' ln the 1850s, E. A Sothern created the part of Lord Dundreary in Our American Cousin by Tom Taylor. His performance combined the cclanguorouspersona1 foppishness" of a light comedian and the "inspired idiocy of speech, walk and stage business" of a low ~ornedian.~'As George Taylor points out: Although such 'drollery' has usually been associated with Low comedy, ...E. A Sothem proved that familiarity with an audience could be just as effective when playing the part of a peer of the rea~rn.'~ The last low comedian of the century, J. L. Toole, 'kombined something of Robson7sseriousness with the drollery of the low comedian." Clement Scott believes

that Toole was the embodiment of farce: "Not to Laugh, and laugh heartily, at.. .his comic characters ... was ever a matter of impossibility."sO One of his best liked roles was Paul Pry, originally a stock part in a comedy, made famous by Liston in the 1820s, "which Toole performed using the same style and costume as Liston, into the 1890s."" By the last decade of the century the low cornedians' style of farce acting, "based on the actor's own personality, projected straight to the audience, and exemplified on the legitimate stage in the nineties by [Shelton] and Toole - was already represented in the music halls.'752 In effect, the Iow comedians with their stock lines-of-business were anachronistic on the "legitimate" stage by the end af the century and they evolved through the music- and variety-halls into the stand-up comic of the twentieth century. The presentational style and farcical business became the slapstick comedy of the early rnovies. It is interesting that, in recent years, the "grimacing" comedians have returned to ensemble acting and have become ubiquitous in television situation comedies. The acting of Bill Cosby is a prime example and appears closely related to the style of the nineteenth-century low comedian. J. B. Buckstone managed and rnaintained traditional comedy at the Haymarket from 1853-1 879,53where he "always championed the gallery and pit against the boxes and orchestra stalls."" In contrast, when the Bancrofts succeecied him at that theatre, they aimed the style, content and ambiance of their productions at the potential occupiers of the boxes and stalls. They reconstructed the Haymarket by removing the pit and the proscenium, or fore-stage, and encasing the stage "in a gilt fiame like a picture."55 These changes influenced the preparation, presentation, performance and reception of plays, inciuding farces, in the last decades of the century. The changes to the proscenium arch created the "fourth-waH" behind which the audience could sit in cornfort, "safe from the winking, leering, button-holing humour of a Buckstone and Keeley, or a Bedford and Wright," and separated the stage from the auditorium, resulting in "a crucial change in the actor/audience re~ationshi~."~~ The new "rnoneyed and passive" audience required a different acting style; "the old points did not go down so well," and the presentational approach with the actor "facing front and addressing the audience rather than a feellow actorYy7was no longer acceptable, because an actor behind the proscenium arch could not "relate intimateiy to the a~dience.'"~Similady, after the Bancro fis, the public would no longer stand the manner in which a piece had been, so to speak, pitchforked on to the stage, and.. . the continued presence of Bœotian supernumaries staring with bovine stupidity directly away from the action which they were supposed to witness and in which they were supposed to participate became impossible.s8

The Bancrofts began the new style of presentation at their "modef drawing-room theatre in 1865, where a merry, smiling, courteous hostess cheerfully received her happy guests," and "the Young, good-looking, well-dressed actors and actresses on the stage were a change indeed after the 'Adelphi guests'."59 The new style was realistic ensemble acting and "the actor in the new and smaller theatres began to unleam the declamatory, stentorian, and gesticulatory methods," needed for effectiveness in the old patent theatres6' When comparing English, German and French styles of performance dunng a visit to Europe in 1867, George Henry Lewes expressed the opinion that the English actor knows "that the English public cares little for an ensemble," whereas in Gemany "the public expects and cares for an ensemble, and [the actor] desires the general success of the performance.'"' As a result, "at each theatre [in Germany] we see that striving after an ensernbk so essential to the maintenance of the art,. .. which everywhere else except at the Théâtre Français is sacrificed to the detestable star ~~stern.'~~In the 1870s and 1880s, European theatre companies, such as the Comédie Française in 1879 and the Meininger Company in 188 1, visited London and added support to the "humble and tentative" efforts of the Bancrofts, at the Prince of Wales7sand the English slowly grasped the value of ensemble acting, which spread to other London theatre~.~~By the time other French companies and the Rotterdam Dramatic Company had visited London, the question of ensemble was settled and even the sleepiest of "personally directed" companies was compelled to make some pretence to adequacy of rnounting and cast? The audience no longer accepted the representation of aristocracy by actors "who could scarcely be taken for the friendç of the dornestic~,'~~and the theatre managers had to find actors who could realistically represent the social conduct of the spectators seated in the more expensive seats of their theatres. If, as Taylor suggests, "throughout society, professionais were replacing aristocratic amateur^,"^ then these dispossessed aristocratic and upper rniddle-class people were replacing the usual sources of professional actors. They provided "an entirely new race of young actors and actresses, themselves of the nght social class and with the right mamers," to inhabit the drawing-rooms of the stage and replicate "the social surface of life and the behaviour of ordinary people in situations of stress or cornic entar~~lernent.'"' In his outline of the improving social status of actors and the theatre, Michael Baker States that "after 1860 recruits to the stage were themselves the sons of legal men, some of them eminent barristers, judges and solicit~rs."~~Of the men involved in the writing and performance of the plays that I will investigate in later chapters, A. W. Pinero's father was a solicitor; Charles Hawtrey was the son of a clergyman and housemaster at ~ton,6'where Charles was educated; Weedon Grossrnith was educated at a private school in London; and W. S. Penley7s father was a schoolmaster. In cornparison, the father of Mrs. John Wood, a regular actor in Pinero7s Court farces, was also an actor and Baker's research indicates that many women actors during this period çtill came from theatrical families." In the second half of the century no fonnal system developed to replace the traiiiing provided by the provincial circuits and stock cornpanies. Acting manuals were available and in his treatise, On Actors and the Art of Acting, Lewes stipuiated that an actor appearing on stage should be sufficiently good-looking without being insufferably conceited,.. .quiet without being absurdly insignificant,. .. lively without being vulgar, to look like a gentleman, to speak and move like a gentleman, and yet be as interesting as if this quietness were only the restraint of power, not the absence of individuality. And the more pronounced the individuality,. ..the greater is the dan er of becoming offensive by exaggeration and coarseness.f I

In addition, Lewes suggested that an actor should choose those typical expressions and gestures which were syrnbolically representative both of "our comrnon nature" and of the character being presented.72 In conbast to the styles of the low cornedians examined previously, the good actor must never "be conscious of the audience,... but always absorbed in the world of which they represent a part."73 The farce actor received his initial training while he was touring the United States with another new actor, Brandon Thomas. Rosina Vokes was manager of the company and she coached and taught these new actors without interfering with their individuality. Grossmith considers it a mistake for a producer to insist on specific intonation and action because such an imitation resulted in an unreal performance.7%owever, Taylor believes that such an approach was necessary in order "to achieve a particular style of playing...[ or] to assist in the correct ensernbIe balance between perfomers ...p articularly if some were newcomers to the profession.'?7s Increasingly the task of achieving an ensemble was the duty of the playwright and the Bancrofts apparently gave Robertson the responsibility for the rehearsals of his own plays,76which compnsed half the Bancrofts' repertoire. As a result, the Prince of Wales's theatre provided many of the actors, trained in the style required for Robertson's reaiism, for other London theatres such as the Globe and the ~ourt." Pinero, who no doubt leamed from his experiences with irving at the Lyceum and, after 188 1, with the Bancrofts' Haymarket company, "had the repuîation of a martinet for insisting that actors obey every movement, gesture, inflection, stress and pause he gave them."78 When he directed his own farces at the Court theatre in the 1880s and L890s, he "insisted on a rigid control over the interpretati~n."~~The result was that he inspired a "tearn of farceurs whose ensemble has been rivalled only by the Company which held the Aldwych in the 1920's."~~Pinero confirms die importance of the Bancrofis to Iate nineteenth-century theatre in a letter wrïtten on their retirement on 1885: It is my opinion, expressed here as it is elsewhere, that the present advanced condition of the English stage-throwing as it does a clear, naturai light upon the manner and life of the people, where a Few yean ago there was nothing but moulding and tinsel-is due to the crusade begun by Mn. Bancroft and yourseIf in your little Prince of Wales's Theatre. When the history of the stage and its progress is adequate Iy and faithfully written, Mrs. Bancroft's narne and your own must be recorded with honour and gratit~de."~'

The result of the Bancrofis' endeavours, succinctly expressed by Taylor, was a new generation of audiences who desired "to see elegant, urbane, and preferably witty middle-class characters, ...[reflecting] their own lives and concems," and "a new generation of actors, who knew from first-hand experience such lives and such con~erns."~~The result was that plays were "worth seeing if only for the beauty of the decorations, the ensemble, and the rythmic perfection of the acting."83 When cornparing the theatrical environment of 1893 with earlier periods, Knight drew attention to three important changes: ensemble acting, which was previously unknown; the delight of the artistic performances at the Lyceum, the Haymarket, the Garrick, the Criterioh the St. lames's and the Court; and the format of the program, in which "A single piece beginning at eight o'clock and ending at eleven constitutes now the entire evening's entertainrne~~t."~"He asserted that in 1893 the stage was in a better condition than at any time during the previous fifty years and that half-a-dozen theatres were comparable with the subsidised theatres on the continent.85 George Rowell states that the late nineteenth century, more than any other period, confims that "a play exists fully only in performance,"86 proposing that theatre was a collaboration by the playwights, actors and managers who interpreted the audiences' ~ishes.~'As 1stated in the introduction, farces are the product of, and are produced for, the audience of a particular time and place and, in late nineteenth-centtq London, these collaborators were more successful than in many previous or subsequent periods in the anticipation and satisfaction of their audiences' inclinations. In the following chapters 1 will examine performances of Hawtrey's The Private Secretarv, Pinero's Court farces and Thomas's Charley's Aunt. E will demonstrate how these farces incorporated ensemble acting that resulted in a new style of farce acting to satisQ the late-nineteenth century audience. I will focus my performance reconstructions on the interaction between the actors and their audiences in order to identiQ those elements of the plays and of the acting that combined successfully to create laughter during this period. Notes

1 Joseph Knight, A Historv of the Stage, (London, 190 1) rep~ntedin The Victorian Muse Ser., eds. William E. Fredernan, Ira Bruce Nadel, John F. Stasney (New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc.. 1986) 9. ' Clement Scott, The Drama of Yesterday & To-dav, 2 vols. (London and NewYork: Macmillan and Co. Ltd-, 1899) vol- 1 360. 3 Lynton Hudson, The Enelish Stage: 1850- 1950, (London: George Hanap & Co. Ltd., l95 1 ) 16- 17. ' Michaet R Booth, Theatre in the Victorian AQ~,(Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991) 7. 5 Hudson, 37. 6 Joseph Knight, 1893, Theatncal Notes, (London. L893; New York: Benjamin Biom, 1971) viii. Booth, 35. 8 George Rowell, Theatre in the Ane of kvin~~(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 198 1) 134. George R. Roweli, The Victorian Theatre 1792-19 14. A Survev, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1978) 83. l0 Booth, 53. " Booth, 40. l2Rowell. 198 1, 126. " Booth, 9. 14 Augustin Filon, The Enelish Stage: Beine an Account of the Victorian Drama, trans. Fredenc Whyte, (London: New York, 1897) 195. 'j Booth, 54. 16 The Illustrated London News, voi. 84, January 26, 1884, 94. " The Saturday Review, vol. 57, January 26, L884, 116. 18 The remarks and opinions about the structure, location and decor of the Prince's Theatre, in this and the next paragaph, have been obtained from The Times, January 19, 1884,8, The Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News, January 26, 1884,488, and bound volumes ofThe Saturday Review, vol. 57, January 26, 1884, 1 Id and The Illustrateci London News, vol. 84, Ianuary 26, 1884, 78. l9 The seat locations and prices are as advertised in The Times, Ianuary 15, 1884, 8. 20 The Times, January 19, 1884, 8. 21 levan Brandon-Thomas, Charlev's Aunt's Father: A Life of Brandon Thomas. (London: Douglas Saunders with Macgibbon & Kee, 1955) 175, quoting the various undated publications. 22 Brandon-Tho mas, 179. 23 J. P. Wearïng, ed. and intro., The Collecteci Letters of Sir Arthur Wine Pinero, (Minneapoiis: U of Mi~eSotaPress, 1974) 78. 24 Rowell, 198 1, 75. 25 Booth 191-192. 26 Rowell, 1978, 159. 27 George Rowell, "Criteria for comedy: Charles Wyndham at the Criterion Theatre," British Theatre in the 1890s: essavs on drarna and the stage, ed. Richard Foulkes (Cambridge: Cambridge WP, 1992) 37. 28 RowelI, 1981, 71. 29 Rowell, 198 1, 67-68, quoting fiom Darne Madee Kendal, 193. 'O Filon, 215. 3 1 Knight, 1893, 292. 32 Henry Barton Baker, Our Old Actors, (London, 1878). 168. I3 Rowell, 198 1, 100. 34 Scott, voI. 1, 487. 35 RowelI, 1981, 130. 36 George Taylor, Players and Performances in the Victorian Theatre, (Manchester and New York: Manchester üP, 1989) 5. 37 Frank Archer, An Actor's Notebooks, (London: Stanley Paul & Co.. n.d) 278. 38 Hudson, 14. 39 Taylor, 1. M Taylor, 20-2 1 4 1 Booth, 128. 42 Taylor, 64. 43 Michael R Booth, ed., Ennlish PIavs ofthe Nineteenth Centurv: IV. Farces, 5 vols. (Odord: Odord UP, 1973) 27, quoting Leigh Hunt, Criticaf Essavs on the Perfonners of London Theatres, (1 807) 82. 44 Westland Marston, Our Recent Actors, (London: Sarnpson, Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington. 1890) 300-30 1. 4s Marston, 247. 56 Taylor, 65. 47 ffiight, 1893, xii. " Booth, 1991, 129- 49 Taylor, 79. 50 Clement Scott, The Drama of Yesterday & Today, 2 vols. (London: Macmillan and Co. Limited. 1899) vol. 11, 370. 5 1 Taylor, 78-79. 52 Michael Read, "J. L. Toole's Theatre of Farce: Ancient and Modem," British Theatre in the 1890s: Essavs on Drama and the Stage, ed. Richard Foulkes, (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992) 2 1. " Taylor. 55. '' Taylor. 68-69. 55 Filon, 134-135. s6 Taylor, 107. j7 Booth, 1991, 125. 58 Knight, 1901, 21. s9 Scott, vot. 1, 485. 60 Hudson, 35. " Georse Henry Lewes, On Actors and the Art of Actins (1875; NewYork: Grove Press, nd.) 186- 62 Lewes, 185. Knight, 190 1, 23. 64 Knight, 1893, ix-x. " Knight, 1893, ix-x. 66 Taylor, 88. 67 Booth, 199 1, 132. 68 Michael Baker, The Rise of the Victonan Actor, (London: Croom Helrn; New Jersey: Rowman and LittIefield. 1978). 88. 69 M. ~akei,88. 70 M. Baker, Table 9; out of 23 actresses who made their debut between 1860 and 1890, the fathers of at lest ten had theatrical backgrounds. 7 1 Lewes, 6 1-62. 72 Lewes, 1 1 1. 73 Lewes, 202. 74 Weedon Grossmith, From Studio to Stage: Reminiscences of Weedon Grossmith, (London: John Lane, The Bodley Head; New York: John Lane Company; Toronto: Bell & Cockbum, 19 13) 152. '' Taylor, 104. 76 Booth, 199 1, 107. TI FiIon, 133. 78 Booth, 1991, 107. '' Taylor, 104. Rowell, 198 1, 72-73. 8 1 Filon, 136-137. Taylor, 96. 83 Knight, 1901, 177. " Knight, 1893, xiii. g5 Knight, 1893, xvi. Rowell, 1978, 2. g7 Rowell, 1978, 1 . The Private Secretam: A Curate in Confiict

During the 1 8707s,a steady Stream of adaptations from French farces entertained the London audiences. Successfùl productions included W. S. Gilbert's The Weddi ng Marck performed at the Court in 1873, The Pink Dominos by ( 1877), and Sidney Grundy's The Snowball(1879). Jeffrey Huberman points out that the reviews of Farce frorn this period by the English critics Clement Scott, E. A. Bendall, E. L. Blanchard, and Joseph Knight "constitute the first body of English cnticism not only to recognize but also to praise the pure entertainment, nondidactic purpose of farce."' Although the reviewers now recognized that the purpose of farce-to arouse Iaughter in an audience-was an acceptable element of critical comment, the "perceptive remarks" by Clement Scott, concerning Lankester's The Guv'nor ( 1880), indicate that the text was nevertheless the prirnary source for the reviewer's assessrnent of a performance's success: It is a play of complication and farcical mystification; and in the art of vigorous construction, so as to sustain the interest and keep up the fun, we have here a masterpiece ... Let no one believe that a three-act farce cannot produce art.2

Although the text is the main permanent element, it is possible to identie other elernents that comprised the wrïting, performance and reception of farces at the end of the nineteenth centur).. The analysis of these elements provides the evidence that proves the complexity of farce acting and the artistry of the farce actor. In the last chapter I examined the contemporary social background of the theatre industry and the physical environments of the theatres in which the presentations of my subject farces occurred. In this and the following chapters I will investigate the performances of these farces in order to understand the moods and expectations of the audiences and to reveal how the actors employed their artistic abilities to create laughter by combining the text, the characters, the stage design and the properties. The plays contain rnany characters and situations that could offend Victorian social and moral sensibilities, and the prime measure of the actors7 artistry was their ability to exploit these potential conflicts and provoke uncontrolled laughter from the audience. JefFrey Huberman chose The Pnvate Secretaw as the first play of his "Golden Age of British Farce" that I referred to in rny introduction. Like many full-length farces of this period, it is an adaptation fiom a foreign play (Der Bibliothekar by von Moser) but the characters are completely English in their manners and interactions. The record of the preparation of The Pnvate Secretaw for its London première contains several instances that reflect some of the older theatrkal traditions outlined in the previous chapter but the play's performance history contains innovations that influenced subsequent theatrical productions. As a result, The Private Secretarv is an excellent starting point for reconstructing the performances of farce in late nineteenth-century London. The adaptation and development of the script of The Private Secretaw is linked closely with the life of its writer, Charles Hawtrey. He was a younger son of the Rev. John Hawtrey, an ordained Anglican minister who had vacated his position as house- master at Eton to start a preparatory boarding school in Slough. Charles Hawtrey was raised as a member of the upper middle-classes and was quite practiced at socialising with young aristocrats. However, his position in the family meant that there was no money available for training in a profession and he was convinced that his first passion, horse racing, "could offer me no sound prospect in the way of in~orne."~ A few years before his stage debut, Hawtrey obtained a position as tutor at a country home in Cheshire for the sons of William Houldsworth, who, Iike Marsland in The Private Secretarv, was master of the local hunt. Hawtrey's position in that household and his relationship with his charges presents an intnguing parallel with the setting and characten of the play: We used to have wondefil games.... I really used to get quite enthusiastic over those childish amusements, because the children were so extraordinarily happy whilst we were playing,J In his memoirs, Hawtrey does not reveal whether The Private Secretaq contains any incidents from his time at Coodham but he would certainly have had an affinity with the circurnstances of von Moser's Der Bibliothekar when, in Juiy 1883, a fiend asked him to read a translation of this play.s Hawtrey's adaptation, cornpleted in August and September while on holiday in ~iamtz,6reveals his inherent farniliarity with the domestic lives and social interactions of the wealthier classes. Once his adaptation was completed, Hawtrey decided to mount the play in Oxford and Cambridge where he anticipated the persona1 support of his student acquaintances and family fnends.' As a result, when The Pnvate Secretary opened at the Theatre Royal, Cambridge on November 14, 1883, the production was, perhaps unintentionally, in the vaiiguard of a trend for out-of-town tria1 openings that has become common practice in the twentieth century. Like Hawtrey, the audience at Cambridge would have been familiar with the settings, situations and characters portrayed in the play and the Cambridge production which used a four-act version of the script, was, in Hawtrey's words, "an instant success with the a~dience."~This achievement, albeit before partisan spectators, persuaded Hawtrey to take the play to London. A few months later he was performing at the Court Theatre in Dan'l Druce, when Edgar Bruce contacted him and offered to mount The Private Secretarv at the Prince's Theatre if Hawtrey could find £2,000. Eventually CharIes and his brother John raised £1,250 and Bruce agreed to proceed, as long as the rest of the money followed quickly.' On Saturday, March 29, 1884, The Private Secretarv became Bruce's third production at the Prince's Theatre that had opened on Friday, January 18, 1884, with a revival of W. S. Gilbert's Palace of Truth. There was some disagreement amongst the reviewers, varying from surprise'0 to understanding" concerning Bmce's decision to open his new theatre with Gilbert's play but they agreed there was something lacking in the performance and indicated a Iack of preparation by the actors and management as the cause. The comments in The Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News are typical. The entertainment..& certainly not perfect, consisting as it does of a not very finished rendering of a play which needs special care and accuracy in its stage treatrnent.. .The various conceptions of character, whimsical and otherwise, did not seem to be fuIly thought out, and their embodiments apparently lacked the guidance of a master hand. l2

When Palace of Tmth ciosed after only six weeks it was replaced by Breaking a Butterfly, based on Ibsen's A Doll's Housq and wrïtten by Henry A. Jones and Henry Herman. The critical response was generally favourable, even though Tree was crit icised for over-acting,I3 but the play was apparently contrary to "the taste of the play-goers" and had to be withdrawn after less than five weeks. The intended replacement, an adaptation of Hugh Conway's novel Called Back, was not ready,l4 and there is evidence of gossip conceming Bruce's financial situation at this time. The Times' review, for the opening of The Private Secretary, concludes with a statement that, "there is no truth to the rumour of an irnpending change in the management or character of this theatre."'5 This suggests that Hawtrey's willingness to finance the mounting of his piay came at an opportune moment for the Prince's theatre. Edgar Bruce needed to fil1 a gap until Called Back was ready and, perhaps, he was suRering financially because of two consecutive failures in his new theatre. Bruce wanted to retain his Company of actors and insisted that they should be used for the various parts of the farce! Hawtrey was allowed to attend rehearsals "but was not allowed to express an opinion as to what should be done or how it should be played."[7 The attitude of the cast during rehearsals seems to indicate their awareness of the production's temporary nature and the stage-manager, A. W. Anson, 'appeared to exercise little authority and nobody took rnuch trouble to iearn their lines."18 According to Pearson, Beerbohm Tree was angry because he was forced to act the "ridiculous" Rev. Spalding and his preparation for the part seems intentionally designed to prevent the play's success. It seems that Tree, in revenge for the imposition, deliberately and outrageously burlesqued the curate, devising preposterous 'business7, conceiving absurd catchwords, gagging to his hearts content, and practically inventing the pan during rehearsals. lg

A lack of preparation was typical of Tree's early career. In his first professional appearance, at Folkestone Town Hall in 1878, he was praised for his realistic performance of a blind person. However, the characteristics he portrayed-finger twitching and painful listening-were the result of his calling for and attempting to hear the prompter's cues? This tendency to rely on "natural ability and innate capacitf"'l rather than preparation seems to validate Hawtrey's opinion that Tree "did not at-ternpt to leam his part [for The Private Secretaw] until very near the day of production."" Insuficient preparation can be disastrous in farce, which relies to a large extent on timing, Pace and well-executed business. Nevertheless the reviewers of the London première of The Private Secretaw were almost unanimous in their praise for the main actors, although Tree was criticised for exaggeration, extravagance and caricature." R. C. Carton, as Douglas Cattennote, was cornplimented for "alert decision" and an excellent performance. His character, while impersonating Rev. Spalding, provided an effective contrat with the real curate. The complexities of acting a character who is pretending to be someone else were apparently simplified by Carton, who "changed his coat but not his character," and the result was an effectively humourous conflict between "his very unclerical demeanour [thatl arnusingly belies his 'cloth.""" The opening night of The Private Secretam could not have occurred at a less auspicious tirne. That morning, The Times, with columns bordered in heavy black, formally amounced the death of the Queen's son, Prince Leopold, and the Court entered a four-week penod of official mouming. Whether it was this cloud over London's social life, the worthlessness of the play's plot and con~tniction,~~a lack of preparation or a complex combination of these and other circumstances, when Hawtrey went on stage to take lis cal1 at the end of the first performance in London he realised that the play was a fail~re.*~After four weeks, with sales of only £300 a week, Bruce announced the last two weeks of the mn However, the following week, immediately after the end of the Court's period of mouming, receipts more than tripled and the play stayed at the Prince's Theatre for seven weeks." The play was now sufficiently popular, "playing to capacity in the stalls, boxes and dress circle,"'* that Bruce wouid have kept the play mnning, except that the replacement was now ready2' It seems that the general social aûnosphere affected the audience's reception of The Private Secretaw and contnbuted to its initial failure. Anticipating an improvement, Hawtrey made plans to move the play to another theatre shortly after the first closure notice. He negotiated with John Hollingshead, a sub-lessee of the Globe Theatre and, with his brother, he attempted to raise another £1000.'~ Perhaps more significantly, Cecil Raleigh, a contemporary successful playwright, provided advice to Hawtrey who condensed the number of acts to three, diminished the prominence of Gibson and increased the importance of Spalding. This character was given a solo entrance in the middle of the second act, from which the character had been excl~ded.~' Hawtrey was able to recmit several mernbers of the Prince's Company for his production at the Globe: the Appendix, Table 2, provides a compan'son of the two London casts of The Private Secreta~.3 2 Hawtrey reassumed the part of Douglas, that he had played in Cambridge. However, Bruce required Tree for Called Back at the Prince's Theatre so Hawtrey engaged W. S. Penley for the leading role of the Rev. Robert Spalding. Essential to the success of farce is the humorous enactment of the situations in which the characters find themselves, and The Private Secretary contains a continuous sequence of circumstances and predicaments that the actors must exploit in order to generate and manipulate the audience's laughter. As is often the case with farces, the plot of The Private Secretarv is very simple. The play focuses on Douglas Cattermole's attempt to lead a more profligate life in order to impress his uncle and gain a promised financial reward. Mr. Marsland M. F. H. (Master of the Fox Hounds) is the uncle of Douglas's friend Harry Marsland and, in order to escape his creditors, Hamy persuades Douglas to visit the country home of his uncle. Mr. Marsland has recruited the Rev. Robert Spalding as a persona! secretary and tutor for his daughter, Edith, and her companion, Eva. The convenient arriva1 of the cleric, at Douglas's London apartment, provides the opportunity for Douglas to disguise himself as Spalding and infiltrate Marsland's household. As a result of this deception, numerous farcical situations occur which become increasingly chaotic as more people, including Douglas's uncle, one of Douglas's creditors, Gibson, and the real Spalding amve at Marsland's country home. The opening minutes of many plays allow the audience to senle and become aware of the stage setting and the initial mood of the characters. The scrîpt should contain signifiers of the play's type and style and the actors must ensure that this information is successfully communicated to the audience. The opening scene, in Douglas's apartrnents, behveen Douglas and his landlady, Mrs. Stead, provides the first structural signs that the play is intended to be funny and it juxtaposes the incongruous with the familiar as a device to start the first ripples of laughter: MRS. STEAD. (coming to table) if you please, sir, these papers have been left for you. DOUGLAS. (taking papers: opens one) [ 1 ] A b i 11 ! (gives i! back fo her) [2] Another! (gives if bock to her) [3] And another! (gives if back ro her) MRS. STEAD. (going up) ShalI I put them with the others, sir? I have put al1 the bills together on this linle tabie. buts bills on tabie UP c- --.-....__*____...... ~.....~~.-.~..-~.-..***.....*.**...--.---*.~--*--.~.~.*~*..*--...... --- MRS. STEAD. Why, al1 these bills are owing. DOUGLAS. Yes; 1only wish there were more of them. [4] ...-**...... -...... ---.---.-.-*----**--*..***...-.-.-.-.....*-.--....-..-~-*..---...... -....* MRS. STEAD. And now you owe me four months' lodging. DOUGLAS. Yes. I wish I had never paid you at all. CS] MRS. STEAD. Thank you, sir, but 1wasn't going to speak to you about myself. I have the utmost confidence in you. DOUGLAS. Thank you-so have 1. [6](rum up f~jire~loce)'~ Douglas's responses to the papers that Mrç. Stead gives him (noted above as [Il, [2] and 131) are an obvious use of the rule of three. His words, in themselves, are not funny, and the actor must use vocal intlection and visual artistry, perhaps an ever- wïdening smile, to create an incongmity between an expected reaction to bills and Douglas's inappropnate attitude to his bills that will entice the audience to laugh. The next set (141, [SI and [6])empIoys a primarily textual device of surprise to produce conflicting verbal impressions, because Douglas's replies to Mrs. Stead's comments are contrary to those that an audience wilI anticipate. A successful enactment of the first set will prepare the audience for these verbal incongruities and, again, the actor can use vocaI inflection and tone, posture, gestures or facial expression to enhance the paradox with conflicting visual and verbal images. The scene continues with a third laughter-enticing sequence based on Mrs. Stead's misunderstanding ofDouglas's motivations. Mrs. Stead is womed about the consequences of Douglas's profligacy, but he finds his deteriorating finances hilarious because his attempts to "sow wild oats" comply with his uncle's wishes. The audience is aware that the chziracters are at cross-purposes and it is the conflict between the audience's omniscient understanding, the characters' divergent trains of thought and Mrs. Stead's inability to perceive the situation that creates the humour. Douglas's attempts to enlighten Mrs. Stead about his uncle's instructions are hindered by his own laughter and then by the arriva1 of Gibson, one of Douglas's creditors. Mrs. Stead persuades Douglas to hide and the prevention of Douglas's explanation provides the humorous climax of this section and a structural link to a later scene between Douglas and Mrs. Stead. The lack of communication about Douglas's motives also prepares the way for further misunderstandings between Mrs. Stead and Mr. CattennoIe when the uncle arrives later in Act 1. The correct verbal and physical portrayals of Douglas and Mrs. Stead are essential to the success of this scene. The actors must be continually aware of the farcical structure and the volume and length of the audience's laughter in order to choose the most appropriate timing, Pace and inflection for the delivery of the lines. They must aIso select the most effective stances, gestures and facial expressions to support that delivery. One measure of the artistry of farce actors was their success in merging the various physical and technical elements with the personality of the characters being portrayed. As the reviews indicate, caricature was generally unacceptable in the performance of farce. Afier Douglas assumes the identity of Spalding and departs with Harry for Marsland's country home, Cattermole arrives and mistakes Spalding for his nephew. The violent interplay that follows between Spalding and Douglas's uncle provides an ideal example of the application and operation of contrasting and conflicting images in the performance of late nineteenth-century farce. In physical appearance the actors of these characters were significantly different. Tree was over six feet ta11 and slim," and although Hill was also tall, he had a "plethonc physique."3ï The contrat in size was even greater when Penley took over the part of Spalding with a concomitant increase in the apparent violence of the images and the visual incongruity of the situation. One reviewer considered this encounter to be "the most comic scene in the play."36 CATTERMOLE. (rising andgoing round nt buck ro [meet] hirn) This is the young hopeful I suppose! (as they rneef, ILC. Spalding look up, sees hini. and turm ro wdk back again) Come here! (Spalding stops near door L. Shouling) Corne here ! ! (S palding furns) Sit down! (Spalding hesitates) Sit down! ! (Spalding places umbrella by door and is going to si[ on chair placed trhere) No, not there, here! here! Come and sit down here! (flzrowsbook on chair, L. Of table. Spalding wulks nervously fo chair and szts) Take that hat off. (Cattermole says, "Oh, lor' !" averfsface. exfendsIefi arm, waves hmd Spalding nervously slzakes hands. Cattermole bocks hand nway with u growl. ... Spalding rubs his Figure 1 : W. S. Penlry as Rev. Robert Spalding and W. J. Hill as Mr. Catrrrntole The Private Secretaw: Act i riuse wih /z~~t~k~)rc/~ref-ro~/edup rtght. Knocking his- Izund down Don't do that when I'm talking to you. (Spaldinç looks ui hirn bewilderecf) He looks like a parson, I'rn blest if he don?! (Reput hundkercl~iej'h~c.v[ne.v.v)Don' t do that ! (Spalding mukes for door, L.. und goes off: Cattermolefiilows, drugs him hack. and ~lzrows him inro o cltut,i Cattermole srancàs over hirn gives him rhree vicious punclzrs. S paldi ng squirlns uncifindi' fulls on [lieJour. Pict ure) (French, Act 1, 25-26) The photograph shows Cattermole dominating Spalding, in a posed arrangement, probably based on this meeting in Act 1. The substantial difference in the size of the actors is very apparent and the contrast, between Penley's clencal dress, posture and expression and Hi 11's dominant and aggressive stance, increases the incongruity of the conflicting images. The scene continues in the same rnanner, with Spalding bearing the brunt of Cattermole's physical and verbal attacks. Hill exploited the potential for humour in their physical differences: he "was irresistible in the incongnious association of his irate tones and radiant bonhomie, the contrast of his sudden passion and the astonishrnent of the bewi ldered parson."" Images of violence and incongruity are two farcical devices that actors must portray effectively in order to generate laughter. An important and potentially controversial innovation in The frivate Secretary was the choice of an ordained minister as the farcical victim, the main recipient of farcical violence and the perpetrator of incongrous business. Playwrights had to be carefùl because the Lord Chamberlain could ban plays containing any criticism of the Church of England and, as the protector of the socety's religious and moral values, the censor could have decided that ridiculing a curate was unacceptable. Hawtrey had intended that the tailor should be the better part and Arthur Helmore, the actor who played Spalding at Cambridge, had to persuade Hawtrey not to be afraid of prejudice and to make his character a parson?* The inclusion of images that create a conflict with the audience's social and moral standards was an important aspect of late Victorian farce, and the perpetration of violence against a piest would certainly contravene such standards. The reviewer's comments on the scene between Cattermole and Spalding indicate that the actors were able to overcome any antipathy and utilise the incongruity of the conflicting images to generate laughter. A less favourable reaction occurred when Mr. Gibson, a Bond Street tailor, assaulted Spalding at the end of the first act of the Prince's theatre production. The climactic picture showed Mr. Gibson "ejecting water from a syphon bottle on the unhappy parson, who, utterly crushed and limp from the unequal fight, has sunk under his open urnbre~la."'~In French's later acting edition the first act ends with Gibson chasing Spalding, who finally jumps through the window:

SPALDING. (rerrlfied) No. (Rises und furns CO run round at back tu R. Door-Gibson goes to meet him, turnrng over chair. R. Spalding moids Gibson by turnzng and crossing. front to R. door, Ieaping overturned chair and crying. "Help, Help!" folbwed by Gibson, cal(ing, "Where are you going PO?"etc. Spalding tries tu open door. R., but cannot do so; then jumps through windo W. Gibson seizes him by ieg. calling, "Help, help!" (French, Act i,30) Examining the response of the critics to the character of Gibson, and to Amon's performance in that part at the Prince's theatre, may help to illuminate some of the parameters affecting the acceptability of theatrical violence and antagonistic images as vehicles for laughter. Although a curate is fairly low in the hierarchy of the Church of England (only one step above a deacon), one of the major critics, Clement Scott objected to the use of an ordained priest as a farcical ~ictirn.~'However, after the end of The Private Secretaq's long run, one critic commented that a curate was hedged in by a "special kind of divinity" and suggested that amusement at the ridiculous representation of the curate was revenge "for a long succession of du11 ~unda~s.'*'The implication is that the violence, albeit theatrical, perpetrated on Spalding by his social peers or supenors-Cattermole7 Douglas and Hany-was justifiable and, therefore, permissible in a farce. In cornparison, the above-mentioned changes to the end of the first act, in the subsequent version of The Private Secretary, indicate that it was unacceptable for a tailor to inflict such humiliation on a priest. In late nineteenth-century England, the possibility of social upheaval would be a source of real concem for those whose positions were jeopardised by the dernands for increased power frorn the lower classes. In fact, Gibson, in his opening scene with Douglas's landlady, reveals that he has socialiy unacceptable aspirations of a higher position in society: GIBSON. ..-You see, if I were a common tailor, 1 could live in a common way. But that's just what I'm not .... I long to soar-to soar-well, not exactly into ethereai blue-but on to the upper crust of society. (French, Act 1.6) The social aspirations of Gibson would be more Iikely to alienate the higher classes who, like Hawtrey, indulged in hunting, fishing and gentlemanly sports during the day and ho attended the theatre for their evenings' entertainment. The Illustrated S~ortingand Dramatic News, whcse title and contents imply that it was aimed at the higher classes, confims a negative response to the character of Gibson. Hawtrey's introduction of an angry tailor was denounced as a childish practical joke which spoilt his best work. The same publication reported that Anson's reception, as Gibson, "was the reverse of encouraging." Perhaps Anson wanted to prevent any adverse effect that a realistic portrayal of Gibson's yeamings rnight have on the audience, because his "attire as a tailor anxious to pose as a sporting 'swell' is exactly what it ought not to be under the circurnstances," and his performance apparently exceeded the bounds of feasibility in "appearance and marner...[ resulting in] a totally impossible creati~n.'~~The reactions of the cntics to the characters of Spalding and Gibson indicate that, depending on the relative status of the characters, actors had to negotiate different sets of criteria in order to ensure the acceptability of social conflict, farcical violence and ridicule as vehicles for laughter. Violent farcical business persists throughout the play, with several of the characters, including Douglas, Harry Marsland and Cattemole, continuing the mistreatrnent of the hapless Spalding. As Huberman notes, "The Privare Secreiary is one of the most violent British farces ever written for the stage.'J3 Spalding was the continual object of this visual farcical violence that provoked much of the laughter. In its review of the Prince's theatre production, The Times noted that: [Tree] convulsed the house at every tum, ...with his inseparable paraphemalia of an urnbrella and a band box, he is buffeted and knocked about by the other characters, crarnmed into clothes chests or hidden under tables and behind ~urtains.~~ Although contemporary commentary indicates that Penley, as Spalding, became the "star" of The Private Secretarv, the play is not a traditional vehicle for a low cornedian. The play contains many situations that require the involvement of al1 the actors in the creation of laughter and exemplifies the beginnings of a trend towards "ensemble" acting in farce. 1 will analyse some scenes that contain the other characters before concluding with a situation that requires several actors to interact with each other in the creation of a "frightening" atmosphere. The first scene shows the potential for laughter inherent in a medley of conflicting visual and verbal images. It occurs at the Marsland country residence when Douglas, dressed as the sham curate, rnakes his first attempt at tutoring Edith and Eva, by reading from Milton's Paradise Lost. At the same time the young girls try to distract hirn by playing with handkerchiefs that they have knotted into rabbits: DOUGLAS. There are only two people in Paradise. EDITH. (holding up handkerchief fied in a knot) Adam! EVA. And Eve ! (business-handkerch ieJ L. ) .----*-.-.-._.___.-...... -*--.--*.*-..-*.~...*...-.-**.---.---...~-~--*--...*.....-.-. DOUGLAS. Adam, on the contrary, was a weak man. (Edith Lefi knof &op; all laugh) In fact, about the weakest man of his time. (he examines handkerchiefs amused) After an interruption by Miss Ashford, the scene continues: DOUGLAS. ...( look at the girls; all break into a titrer; Edith whispers in Douglas's ear; he laughs; Eva sqys fo hirn "Tell me"; he does so. Douglas sqs ''1 cm tell you a much Wierone than that" puts his arms round rheir shoulders and whispers. Miss Ashford says "Oh!" fiorr~jied,rises and cornes down and look at [hem with glasses. They all lough until Douglas /ooh over his sho ulder, and sees Miss Ashford looking, then all pull up; Douglas reads) "Of man's first-" (Eva t ickles his ear wifh knof) "Of man's first-" (Edith same business) "Of man's first-" (botlz same business) (French, Act 2, 52-53) Figure 2: Mrs. Stephens, Miss Vane Featherstone, Miss Maud Millett and Charles Hawtrey, The Private Secretary, Act 2 The actors in this scene must manipulate the superficial visual and verbal images of a curate, two young girls, two handkerchiefs and the reading from a quasi-religious, classical epic, with the conflicting images of unciencal behaviour, the ridiculing of Milton's text and the symboiism of rabbits. The girls' flirtatious actions with the "rabbits" prevent Douglas from cornpleting the opening phrase of Paradise Lost with the correct word "disobedience" and the triple repetition signifies that something funny is happening. The juxtaposition of the shape of the handkerchiefs and the mental images evoked by the naked Adam's "first [disobedience]" contrast and conflict with the innocence of Edith and Eva. The similarity of the latter's narne to Eve is surely not accidental and it is hardly coincidenta1 that cute and innocent looking rabbits are also traditional symbols of sexual proclivity and fertility. The audience may want to resolve these complex and conflicting perceptions but allowing a late Victorian audience to dwelI on the equivocal nature of the images might cause embarrasment, dismay or anger, none of which are conducive to the creation of laughter. The actors must deliver their lines and cornpiete their actions slowly enough for the audience to receive the conflicting images but fast enough to prevent intellectualisation. Of particular importance for the success of the scene is the audience's impression of the girls. The greatest ambiguity is achieved if Edith and Eva are unaware of the significance of the s hapes they are producing with the handkerchiefs. As t mentioned in the introduction, when a "taboo" subject is presented "the more imocent the girl, the funnier the ~ketch.'~'It is interesting that only a few lines before a bnef review, in The Theatre, of the Prince's production of The Private Secretam, the following comments appear concerning Maude Mil let: Miss Mailde Millet represented the daughter [in Alone, a comedy by Palgrave Simpson and Herman C. Menvale] ... in a most sympathetic and winning manner; real "ingénues" are rare just now, and Miss Maude Millet looks and acts the pure, innocent girl with rare perfection.46

It is plausible that Hawtrey saw this review and cast Maude Millet in his Globe theatre production because of her innocent looks. The actor playing Douglas can enhance the humour and simultaneously add to the visual ambiguity of this scene. The comments noted above indicate that Carton did not react according to the cloth of the impersonated curate, but in keeping with Douglas's more worldly character. The result is a rapid sequence of conflicting and incongrnous impressions created by al1 the actors on stage. Several reviews refer to the lack of bdliance in the dialogue of The Private ~ecretary." However, witty conversation is not usuai in farce because intellectual attention to the words will distract the audience from the humour of the conflicting visual and aurai images whereas normal language will increase the incongniity of those images. Hawtrey was sufficiently familiar with the world of the play to have a direct understanding of the speech patterns of the characters. As a result, the dialogue is totally appropriate and realistic, and there is a naturalness to the situations in which the characters are placed. An example occurs in Act II when Cattermole arrives at Marsland's home and is introduced to Miss Ashford, Edith and Eva:

MARSLAND. (introducing) This is Miss Ashford, Mi. Cattennole. CATTERMOLE. (going ro EDlTH who cornes down R C. ) How do you do, Miss Ashford? EDITH. (laughing) I am not Miss Ashford. CATTERMOLE. Then where is Miss As h ford? (turning) MISS ASKFORD. 1 am Miss Ashford. (Cornes down R C.) CATTERMOLE. (shaking hands) Oh, how do you do? MISS ASHFORD. Happy to know you, Mr. Scaffoldpole. CATTERMOLE. No, Cattermole! (French, Act 2,35) Although this short sequence seems relatively unimportant its correct enactment is crucial to the farcical structure as it provides the initial motivation for laughter at the start of a new scene. The socially appropriate conversational tone and conventions of these introductions produce an apparently normal situation, but, when combined with a brkf mistaken identity and the mispronunciation of Cattermole's name, a potentially hurnorous scene results. However, only the actors can realise this potential; they rnust use their bodies and voices to create the customary, and therefore expected, behaviour of the characters and then blend the unexpected or incongnious visual and verbal images. For example, Mis. Stephens, as Miss Ashford, must mispronounce Cattennole's name as if it is the correct one. The next speaker, Hill, must allow the audience sufficient time to react to the mispronunciation and to the incongruity of describing Hill's physique as a "scaffoldpole." The subtlety needed to combine effectively these opposing images illustrates the importance of the farce actors' art in the absence of brilliant dialogue.. The stage directions for the climactic scene in Act 2 suggest a need for very adjustable stage lighting in order to produce the desired ghostly effects. Thearrical conventions enable an audience to accept the implications of reduced [ighting even though adequate light remains for them to see the stage; however the actors must enhance the desired atmosphere with their vocal and physical artistry. Before the end of the penultimate scene of Act 2 a stage direction occurs to "... graduafiy hwer liglrts ro semz- durhess7'(French, Act 2.65). Douglas and Harry are on stage when the final scene begins. Edith and Eva enter "-..cuurimly. ..stage durk," and al1 the characters must "speak in hulfwhrspers, except Splding keeping up the ghosrly mysterious lme: ii ED [TH. (crosses steafrhily ) Mr. Spalding! Are you alone? EVA. (crossrng steufihi(y) Where's the medium? DOUGLAS: You surely don? really believe- (Haq m/lesjire-irons. and runs down; gids scream; Edithfafls inlo Douglas's urms, Eva into Harry's). (French, Act 2, 66)

This and the next section furnish the audience with two conflicting perceptions. There is the on-stage atmosphere of suspense, produced by the level of lighting and the physical and vocal images of the actors, and there is the audience's omniscient awareness of the "real" situation. The movernents of Edith and Eva must allow sufficient time for the audience's empathetic anticipation to increase so that they are also surprised when Harry ratties the fire-irons. When the girls scream, the specîators will realise the incongruousness of their own and the girls' reactions which allows the anticipatory energy to dissolve as lauçhter. The actors must maintain a carehl, but unacknowledged, attentiveness to the audience's responses as these will determine the collective approach to the second section that reaches the following conclusion after only a few lines of dialogue: EDITH. What is he like? [Referring to the real Rev. Spalding who is being misrepresented as a medium]. EVA. Very creepy, 17msure. HARRY. Well, yes, rather. EDITH. 1s he young or old? DOUGLAS. Well, he7syoung. EVA. Young and creepy! Kow thrilling! EDITH. Thrilling? 1 begin to feel quite frightened! (Enter SPALDING, L. 1 E.) EVA. (frighfened) But wait until real spirits appear. SPALDING. (fo DOUGLAS) Do you know-(crosses to C. ) (Girls screum and run up stage, hzde behind curtaim. .. .) (French, Act 2,67) During these lines the acton must quickly rebuild the atrnosphere of suspense but the repetition of the process will cause the audience to anticipate another surprise reducing the effectiveness of this device to provoke laughter again. At Spalding7s entrance, the door must open quietly and fairly slowly to enhance the audience's expectations and to affirm the lack of response fiom the characters on stage. However, the appearance of the innocuous Spalding will undercut the audience's anticipation, beginning an anticlimax that is immediately reversed when Edith and Eva react to Spalding's voice. The girls' screams are suited to the on-stage atrnosphere but will seem excessive from the audience's omniscient perspective. The absence of any need to resolve these conflicting images enables an outburst of laughter. The level of suspense and the timing-for opening the door, the delivery of Spalding's line and the girls' screamsare crucial for the effective manipulation of the audience's emotions and perceptions. Al1 the actors are individually and collectively responsible for the success of this part of the scene that ends, with typical farcical violence, when Douglas and Harry seize Spalding "and throw h% ofl.srruggZing and remonsrrating." My analysis of these few scenes from The Pnvate Secretaw indicates the complexity of the acting required in farce and draws attention to the almost instinctive sensitivity that the actors must have to each other and to the mood and responses of the audience. It is not surprising that the rehearsal process ernpioyed earlier in the nineteenth century resulted in one-act farces with small casts of experienced low and light comedians. Only with the introduction of ensemble acting, with more time for rehearsals and with some disciplined direction, particularly for inexperienced actors, could the Full- length farce achieve its artistic purpose and deserve artistic recognition. Hawtrey had made his theatre debut with an Edgar Bruce touring Company production of The Colonel, and ivas coached by "Fred Glover, who had been for many years with the ~ancrofts."~~Glover stage-rnanaged the Cambridge production, and Hawtrey re-engaged him for the Globe. It seerns reasonable to assume that the Bancrofts' style of "natural" ensemble acting influenced the first and third productions of The Private Secretarf. During a strenuous two-week rehearsal petiod, Hawtrey instrwted Glover to cut out much of the rough-and-tumble business. Penley rehearsed with Hawtrey's brother, William, who cccopiedexactly al1 the actions and business introduced into old Cattermole's part by Hill, so that Penley was quite at home with Hill when the latter came to take part in the last two rehearsals.'"' Sirnilarly, Penley would have had to make Spalding's responses familiar to Hill and rnay have copied Tree's business. in Hawtrey 's opin ion, "Penley was extremely funny, and physically muc h better suited to the character."" As the photographs of Penley and Tree (on the following pages) indicate, Penley's posture and facial expression, although similar to Tree's, are far more incongrnous. Penley also appears younger and less sophisticated than his predecessor in the role. His awkward appearance seems more conducive to the provocation of laughter and he conveys a sense of wlnerability that would have gained the audience's sympathy. Although both photographs are posed, Tree's expression seems Iess natural, more of a contrivance to influence the audience than an extension of the character. Figure 3: W. S. Penley as Rev. Robert Spalding in The Pnvate Secretaw

The absence of Tree was initially considered a likely basis for failure," but a week later the impression of Penley had irnproved significantly, Mr. Penley does the best he can to compensate for the unavoidable absence oE. .TreeYs delightful simpleton ...Mr. Penley has a comical face, voice, and manner, ... his rendering will doubtless seem thoroughiy adequate.j2

Two years later the play "owed its popularity to one or two types of character cleverly drawn by Mr. Penley and Mr. ~ill."'~However, the source of Penley's success is disputable. One of Tree's biographers states categorically that "it was Tree who worked it up [the part of Spalding] with Mr. W. J. Hill, and who invented the catch Figure 4: H. Beerbohm Tree as Rev. Robert Spalding in The Private Secretaw words ... 'Do you know?', '1 don? like London,' 'I've got a pain here,' 'My goods and chatlcls. ""'Charles Hawtrey had only two years theahcal experienceSSwhen he wrote The Private Secretaw and it is doubtfui that he was the inspiration for the visual effects, traditional Iuzzi and three-act farce conventions as envisaged by ~uberman? [t seems reasonable to conclude that even though Tree created the business and catch words, it was Penley's artistry as a farce actor that created the part's success. After the move to the Globe theatre, the audiences did not continue to increase immediately. Receipts for the first week only averaged about £50 per nigi~t,~'and expenses were £360 per week? Attendance did irnprove gradually, however, and by early July Hawtrey had repaid al1 his backers and recovered his own capital of £2000, including the arnounts paid to ruc ce?^ Throughout the sumrner the audience seerns to have been formed mainly from the wealthier classes of society because "al1 our money came from the stallç and the dress circle," which were the more expensive seats. The pit contributed on!y £4 to £5, about 40 people per night, the upper boxes were half empty and there were virtually no receipts from the gallery. When Hawtrey applied for an injunction to prevent the performance of a pirated copy of the play, the judge contirrned his presence at the Globe: "Oh yes! Yes, I know. Ha! Ha! A very fùnny play. 1saw it a couple of nights ago.'m This remark and the types of seats occupied indicate that wealthier people, such as tounsts and those whose employment prevented them from leaving London, comprised the bulk of the Globe's audiences during the summer of 1884. Although the show was no longer a financial failure, before the end of the sumrner Hawtrey felt that The Private Secretaw was reaching the end of its run and he began rehearsing a replacement, The Pickpocket, adapted by his brother George from another von Moser play. However, on Monday, Septernber lst, with a sudden change in the weather from hot and dry to cold and wet, "al1 the empty pit and gallery and upper box people were waiting to corne into the theatre." During the remainder of the run, with the addition of two and then three matinées a week, The Private Secretary yielded "a weekly profit of sornething between one and two thousand pounds."61 The popularity of the play caused two important changes to theatre practice that have since become part of the theatncal environment. At the end of the first week in September the increasing cmhat the pit and gallery entrantes resulted in the pit door collapsing. Acting contrary to the advice of his manager, Hawtrey established queues at the doors, initially enfarced by extra police.62 The second innovation remedied the lack of control over advance ticket sales that often resuked in the double sale of seats. The solution, instituted at the Globe, was to pnnt separate bound books of "tickets and counterfoils for each night, with the date, number of seat, part of the house and price.'"3 These changes to the front-of-houe management helped to eliminate audience irritation by ending the usual pushing and shoving at the pit and gallery entrances and by preventing arguments between patrons and staff about the double sale of seats. A happy, relaxed atmosphere is the most favourable environment for the performance of farce because it facilitates the artistic purposes of the actors. However, the prime mesure of a farce's success, and confirmation of the actors' artistic abilities, is populanty at the box office. The Private Secretq had a continuous run of 784 performances before it cIosed afier more than two years on ApriI 17, 1886. Notes

Jefiey K Hubennan, Late Victorian Farce. (Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Research Press, L986) 48. ' Huberman, 48-49, quoting Clernent Scott, rev. of The Guv'nor by E. G. Lankaster, The Theatre. August 1880, 114- 1 16. 3 Charles Hawtrey, The Tmth at Last, ed. W. Somerset Maugham, (London: Thomton Butteworth Ltd., 1924) 84. 4 Hawtrey, 74-75. 5 Hawtrey, 1 1 3. 6 Hawtrey, 1 1 S. 7 Hawtrey, 1 15. 8 Hawtrey, 1 19. 9 Hawtrey, 122. 1O The Times, ianuary 19, 1884, 8. The Illustrateci London News, vol. 84, January 26, 1884, 78. l2 The IlIustratec! Sportinn and Drarnatic News, huary 26, 1884, 488. I3 The nlustrated Sportina and Dramatic News, March 8, 1884, 662. 14 The Illustrateci sport in^ and Dramatic News, March 29, 1884, 30. IS The Times, March 3 1, 1884, 7. 16 Hesketh Pearson, Beerbohm Tree: His Life and Laughter, (London: Methuen and Co. Ltd., 1956) 44. 17 Hawtrey, 122. lg Hawtrey, 122 I9 Pearson, 44. 20 Mrs. George Cran, , Stars ofthe Stage Ser., ed. J. T. Grein, (London: John Lane, The Bodley Head; New York: John Lane Company, 1907) 9-10. 21 Pearson, 17. 22 Hawtrey, 122. 23 When not quoted directiy, the reviewers' comments on the acting in The Private Secretary at the Prince's Theatre are from The Times, March 3 1, 1884, 7; The nlustrated Sportinp and Drarnatic News, April 5, 1884, 74; and The Saturday Review, vol. 57, April 5, I 884, 443. 24 The Times, March 3 1, 1884, 7. tS The Times, Apd 26, 1886, 6. 26 Hawtrey, 122. 27 Hawtrey, 123. 28 Hawtrey, 124. 29 The Hlustrated Sportinn and Drarnatic News, May 17, 1884, 228- 30 Kawtrey, 123. '' Hawtrey, 125- 126. 32 The cast of the Prince's Theatre production is fiom French's acting edition of The Private Secretarv, 1907, 1. The cast of the Giobe Theatre production is from Hawtrey, 125; from The Times, May 19, 1884, 10; and from The Iilustrated Sportinn and Dramatic News, August 16, 1884, 578 and September 13, t 884,678. 33 Charles Hawtrey, The Pnvate Secretary, French's acting edition, (London: Samuel French Ltd.; New York: Samuel French, 1907) Act 1, 30. E will note subsequent teferences to this text of The Private Secretarv in parentheses, immediately following the quotation, in the format French, Act, and page number. 34 Pearson, 9. " The Times, Apnl26, 1886, 6. 36 The Saturday Review, vol. 57, Apd 5, 1884, 443. 37 The Saturdav Review, vot. 57, April 5, 1884, 443. 38 Hawtrey, 1 19. 39 The Saturdav Review, vol. 57, ApriI 5, 1884, 443. 'O Huberman, 74, quotes Clement Scott's review of The Private Secretaq in The Theatre, 45 1 (no date given). '' The Times, April26, i886,6. j2 A11 the quotes and a conternporary comments in this paragraph are from The IlIustrated Sportinq and Drarnatic News, ApriI 5, 1884, 74. 43 Huberman, 77. 44 The Times, March 3 1, 1884,7.

j5 Michaet OrMahonet, Robert Paimer and JederKing, "The Art of Revue: Further Emphases for the Psychology of Humour," It's A Funnv Thina Humour: International Conference on Humour and Laughter. Cardiff, Wales, 1976, eds. Anthony J. Chapman and Kugh C. Foot (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1977) 79. 46 Clement Scott: ed., The Theatre, ns. vol- 111 (London, 1884) 278. 47 These include The Times, March 3 1. 1884, and Clement Scott, ed., The Theatre, 279. 48 Hawtrey, 103. 49 Hawtrey, 125-126. 50 Hawtrey, 125. " Hawtrey, 125; and The Illustrated sport in^. and Drarnatic News, May 17, 1884, 228. 52 The IlIustrated S~ortineand Dramatic News, May 24, 1884, 263. 53 The Times, April 26, 1886, 6. 54 Cran, 12. 55 Hawtrey, 1 13. 56 Hubeman, 76. 57 Hawtrey, 126. '' Hawtrey, 129. 59 Hawtrey, 130. 60 Hawtrey, 130. 6' Hawtrey, 140. 62 Hawtrey, 141-L42. 63 Hawtrey, 144A The Farces of A. W. Pinero: Conflict at the Court

For several years Charles Hawtrey remained the lessee and manager of the Globe Theatre and, although he no longer wrote, he continued producing farces. These included more adaptations from von Moser, in which Penley and Hill continued to attract audiences, but none was as successful as The Pnvate Secretary. In January 1888 Hawtrey assurned the management of the Comedy, a newer and better located theatre where he had another major success with Sydney Grundy's original farce, Arabian Niahts. In the intervening years, cornpetition for Hawtrey's farces came from an unexpected source when, in 1885, the Court Theatre began a series of farces by . Pinero, born in 1855, came fiom a lower class than Hawtrey and had a significantly different social, educational and theatrical background. His father was a solicitor and, at the age of ten, Pinero had to leave school. He was "placed in his father's law office to prepare for a legal career."' When his father retired in 1870, Pinero worked in a library for a few monthsY2then retumed to the legal profession obtaining a position as a clerk at a solicitor's office in Lincoln's Inn ~ields.~According to one biographer, He had to smiggle against many disadvantages, interna1 and external both. His reading had been restricted, his school education narrow. He had Little acquaintance with life and rnanners outside the sphere of his upbringing.. ..he was [completely cut offl from the wealthy, the leamed, the fashionable. The worlds of art, sport, politics, ...were as far from the Old Kent Road solicitor's son as was the world of manual toil.' Pinero successfully utilized his legal background in his scenarios and chose respectable characters as the victirns of his farcical situations. Although lacking an intimate knowledge of society's higher levels, his settings and characters became increasingly more anstocratic. Several of his plays contain caricatures of cchorsey"personalities and "horsey" dialogue and he often applied these characteristics to the wornen in his three-act farces. Pinero's theatn'cal training and experience were much greater than Hawtrey's. As an infant, Pinero attended a pantomime at the Grecian Theatre and later he frequented the Sadler's Weils and Prince of Wales's theatres, the latter under the management of Squire Bancroft and Marie m il ton.' Although Pinero "was expected to join his father in the legal profession,'d he settled finally on a stage career and followed the traditional approach to an acting career when he arranged, in May 1874, to join R H. Wyndham's stock company at the Theatre Royal in Edinburgh. Mer two years in the provinces he retumed to London and appeared at the Globe Theatre in Apnl 1876. In September the same year he was accepted into 's company at the Lyceum where he stayed until August 1881 when he transferred to the ~aymarket,~now inanaged by the Bancrofts. Apparently Pinero found their artistic policy of "life-like" ensemble work more congenialm8Meanwhile, Pinero had begun his career as a playwright and on October 6, 1877 his first play, a one-act farce (also categonsed as a ~omedietta),~ entitled f200 a Year, was produced as a benefit,1° at the Globe Theatre. '' In 1884, with sixteen plays completed, Pinero gave up acting to concentrate on wnting,I2 even though a sumrnary in The Times of the London theatrical scene for 1883 indicated disappointment at his progress. This review severely criticised two of Pinero's plays, The Rector and Lords and Comrnons, performed respectively at the Court and Hayrnarket theatres, because they breached a fundamental principle of playwrïting by trîfling with the audiences' sympathies. l3 Pinero's next play, Low Water, opened at the Globe Theatre on January 12, 1884, to scathing reviews, only a few months before The Private Secretam began its long run on the same stage. Apparently Low Water contained an unacceptable mixing of genres that The Times' critic referred to as "a compound of sentiment and farce, emotion and buffoonery."" Sirnilarly, The Saturday Review insisted that comedy and farce, pathos and laughter, were mutually incompatible: "...laughter is not the chief, or indeed a necessary, end in comedy ... rnirth is complex in expression, and the spirit of buffoonery is uncongenial to the muse of ~orned~."~~ Pinero biamed the actors for the failure of Low Water but one critic came to their defence, asserting that Pinero was ccresponsiblefor the perverse significance of the extraordinary details in which his caricature of contemporary society abounds." The same reviewer described the play's principal female as a "strong-minded, kind-hearted, outspoken, and altogether unconventional heroine nicknarned 'the Major'," a description appropriate for some of the female characters in Pinero's later and more successhI farces. Pinero maintained his belief that the actors were responsible for "the complete obscurîng of the meaning of the work."I6 Perhaps to ensure that the actors did not jeopardise the integrity of his plays, he began to take charge of casting and rehearsals and "by the mid-1880s he had made further inroads into territory which traditionally had lain outside the author's direct contr01.~~" Several years later, in response to a question about the construction of his plays, Pinero stated that his plots grew "out of the men and women I conjure up. I make their acquaintance and familiarise myself with them, and 1 expect them to tell me the ~tory"'~ In previous decades, playwrights ofien wrote for the styles and lines-of-business of specific actors in order to have their works accepted for staging. However, with such an intimate knowledge of his characters and the theatrical experience necessary to visualise them in performance, it is not surprising that Pinero wanted to assert his authority over the production process. There is evidence of playwright-directors throughout the history of theatre but the twentieth-century concept of a director denves largely from the later decades of the nineteenth century. The significance of farce in this process has generally been ignored, and the influence of Pinero's work at the Court theatre deserves greater recognition. He became "totally involved in a play fiom its conception to the rise of the curtain on opening night," and achieved "the nght to direct his plays and to influence strongly the choice of casts and effects."19 The Court's managers, John Clayton and Arthur Cecil, began their 1984185 season with a senes of senous plays whose failure resulted in "severe financial trouble in late 1884 and early 1885." Accordingly they accepted Pinero's suggestion to mount his farce, The Maaistrate, "as a total change of for their theatre. On March 3 1. 1885, the most popular of Pinero's farces opened at the Court Theatre and in a letter to Augustin Daly, in April 1885, Pinero confirmed that The Magistrate was "produced [in London] under rny sole direction and is animated with the life and character Ihave instilled into it ..."" However the acting Company in existence at the Court theatre supplied the cast for his first success (see the Appendiy Table 3). The Times' reviewer succinctly commends Clayton and Cecil on their change of genre, praises the author and his play and indicates the audience's response to the opening performance: On Saturday evening the hitherto staid and respectable Court Theatre produced an original three-act farce by Mr. Pinero entitled The Magistrate, which for deftness of construction, ingenuity, and genuine fun equals, if it does not excel, any French piece of the kind seen of recent years, ... There is no need to find fault with Messrs. Clayton and Cecil for their sudden change of front as public entertainers. In dramatic art tous [es genres son, bon, hors le genre ennvyem, and the change from comedy to downnght farce at the Court finds its justification in the fact that Mr. Pinero's piece makes the public laugh till their sides ache."7 7

The play was so popular that it remained open during the summer of 1885, and Beerbohm Tree, who had relinquished his roIe as Rev. Spalding to W. S. Penley a year earlier, took over the leading part of Mr. Posket, the magistrate, while Arthur Cecil kvas on ho~ida~.~~Interestingly, Posket was the only part that Tree played in any Pinero play,24but he "appeared without much di~tinction."~~ Hawtrey called The Private Secretary a "farcical comedy" apparently because of its length, but Pinero labeled The Magistrate "an Original Farce in Three Acts" and becarne "the first to apply the tenn 'farce' to the full length f~rrn.'"~~The plays are vev similar in their use of farcical devices and visual humour. In addition, the leading farcical characters, Spalding and Posket, each hold office in an important pillar of the established social order; the former in the Church and the latter in the judiciary. Unlike Spalding, whose naïveté and excessive humility contribute to his victimisation, the immediate cause of Posket's decline is an overtnisting nature, an unlikely characteristic for a mzgistrate. and a concern for his step-son's welfare. Another important difference is that other characters are the perpetrators of farcical violence on Spalding but it is the Magistrate's situations and uncontrolled circurnstances that induce and sustain Posket's IiteraI and metaphoncal fa11 into a farcical state of physical torture and mental tonnent. As with The Private Secretary, 1will examine scenes from The Magistrate and Pinero's other farces, that contain potential for social, visual and aura1 conflict and that provide examples of farcical structure, dialogue and business. I will draw attention to those aspects that exempli& the art of farce acting because the actors must blend the seerningly incongruous elements into a congruous whole in order to stimulate laughter. Pinero's characters and plots are considerabiy more complex than those in The Pnvate Secretw and 1 will not provide detailed analyses of these aspects. Instead, I wil1 introduce and discuss them when they are important for an understanding of a particular scene. At the beginning of The Ma&rate the audience is introduced to Cis Faringdon, "a manly youth, weanng an ton ja~ket."~~Xis mother, Agatha, is a widow, who has understated her son's age by five years in order to deceive Mr. Posket about her own age pnor to their mamage. As Cis Farringdon, "Mr. H. Eversfield had another of those boyish parts in which he is so excellent." The first scene of the play is between Cis and his piano teacher, Beatie Tomlinson, "a pretty, simply dressed little girl of about sixteen," (Act 1, 305) played naïvely by Miss ~orre~s.~'With no information about Cis's tme age, the audience has to decipher the conflicts of his manly physique, youthful clothes, worldly actions and childishly exaggerated knowledge, al1 of which contrast with Beatie's innocence. This conflict of appearances is exernplifred in their conversation about Mr. Posket's job as a magistrate: BEATE: Oh, does each police court have two magistrates? CIS: (Proudiy.) Al1 the best have two.[l] BEATIE: Don? they quarrel over getting the interesting cases? 1should.[2] CIS: 1don? know how they manage-perhaps they toss up who's to hear the big sensations.[3] ... But, as a nile, 1 fancy they go half and half, in a fnendly way-(11 (Lighting cigarette.) For instance, if the Guv'nor wants to go to the Derby he lets old Bullamy have the Oaks-and so on, see?[2] (He sits on the fioor. cornfurfaMy recfining against Beatie, and pufing h is cigarette.) BEATIE: Oh, 1 Say, Cis, won't your mamma be angry when she Ends 1 haven't gone home? CIS: Oh, put it onto your pupil. (Kissing her.) Say, 17rn very bac kward. BEATIE: I think you are extremely fonvard-in some ways. ... [3] (Act 1,305-306) Although not intended to cause uproarious laughter the scene contains the typical farcical structure (two sets of three laugh lines indicated by the bracketed numbers), for the motivation of an increasing response from the audience that culminates in Beatie's final words. Since the play was billed as a farce, the audience was no doubt prepared to laugh but, with Pinero's record of mixed-genre plays, there could be the possibility of misinterpreting the intzrplay of these characters. Just like the "rabbit" scene in The Private Secretarv, the actors rnust display the conflicting images mentioned above and simultaneously convince the audience that there is no impropnety in their actions. The spectators must believe that Cis is an immature youth behaving above his years. Beatie's reactions to his conduct must convince the audience that she is a couple of years his senior, because siich a difference in ages will mitigate his inappropriate behaviour. This approach will enhance the incongruity of Cis's smoking, kissing and, later, dnnking port, without disturbing the audience's moral sensibilities, while providing smcient humour to begin the process of laughter creation. The entrance of Cis's mother prevents Further misbehaviour. Agatha reports that her husband's fnends "are always petting and fondling and caressing what they cal1 'a fine Iittle man of fourteen!"' Then she infonns the audience that she has concealed her child's real age. (Act 1,309) Agatha's husband, MT.Æneas Posket, and their dimer guest, Mr. Bullarny, enter shortly afler this revelation and some farcical business occurs which, again using the mle of three, combines visual humour with a double meaning on the word 'nut'. Startled by the entrance of a servant bringing the port, Beatie has previously dropped some nuts over the floor, which are subsequently stepped on by other characters: BULLAMY: ...May I tempt Mrs. Posket? [to a jujube] AGATKA: No, thank you. (Treading on one of the nuls which have been scatrareci over the room.) How provoking-who brings nuts into the drawing-room.[l] ....*.~...**..._*__~.*~~~~~..*~~**~~~~.....~.~.***..~~~.~~~.~~.~~..-*~.~~~~.....~~.~.~..~~.....~..... (... Posket treads on o nut as he walh over to his w fe. ) POSKET: Dear me-how corne nuts into the drawing-roorn?[2] (To Agatha.) Of what is rny darling thinking so deeply? (Treads on anorher nul.) Another! My pet, there are nuts on the drawhg room carpet! [3] (Act I, 3 10) Lt would be impossible for Beatie to control the location of the nuts on the stage when she drops them. However, the actors must react realistically when they tread on the nuts, some of which could be preset out of the audience's view, and the business could be accornpanied with a simultaneous sound effect. The actors' visual movements must support the main purpose of this sequence which is to draw attention to the word "nut." Similarly, the actors must stress "nuty' in such a way that the audience will receive the superficial meaning and also the inference that the characters could be referrïngto each other. The hint of innuendo in BulIamy7soffer to ternpt Mrs. Posket, suggested by the absence of a comma after "tempt," indicates that he is one target of Agatha's response. The triple repetition of the physical reactions and the three verbal "points" create a series of incongruous images that, with correct timing and pace, will induce laughter from the audience, A few lines later it seems that Pinero has omitted the third, laughter-provoking Ieg in another sequence that uses similarly incongruous verbal and visual impressions: AGATHA: Æneas! (He kisses her: then Cis kisses Beatie, loudly, Posket and Bullamy both hsten puzzled- )[ l ] POSKET: Echo? BULLAMY: Suppose so! (He kisses rhe back of his hand experzmental[y; Beatie kisses Cis.) Yes .[2] POSKET: Curious. ... [3] (Act 1,3 13) In fact by omitting a third kiss and rejoinder, Pinero gives the actor playing Posket complete control over the length and volume of the audience's laughter. The timing, intonation and inflection of Posket's final word is critical. If spoken correctly, the actor will undercut the audience's expectations of a third kiss and punch-line yet stimulate their laughter. iLCurious" must not be said as a question which suggests further investigation will take place. Similarly, puzzlement is too strong a motive and indicates a continuance. However, if Posket makes a well-timed anticipatory pause, accompanied by a suitable gesture and facial expression, the actor cmmisiead the audience into expecting the conventional third leg of the sequence. The actor can then Say "Curious" with a sense of flatness and finality in order to create an anticlimax which will provoke laughter through the release of tension. Although Cis is not responsible for the misrepresentation of his age, he is the instigator of the situation that causes his step-father's farcical victimization. Cis convinces Posket to visit the Hôtel des Princes in order to pay an outstanding bill for a pnvate room that Cis needs to entertain supposedly older fnends from Brighton. Although Cis's motivation of Posket seerns rather weak it is not completdy impiausible, and, with the assistance of the actor's characterisation, Posket becomes "one of those 'probable people placed in possible circumstances' whom Pinero believed should be the principal characters of farce, and his utter middle-class respectability makes him the perfect farce ~ictirn."~~ Before Cis and Posket leave on their clandestine trip to the Hôtel des Princes, Agatha's sister arrives and in a scene reminiscent of The Private Secrem, she is introduced to Posket and Bullamy: AGATHA: (About lo jntroduce Posket.) There is my husband. CHARLOTTE: (Mistaking Bullarny for hirn.) Oh, how could she! (To Bullamy, turning her cheek [O him.) I congratulate you-1 suppose you ought to kiss me. AGATHA: No, no! POSKET: Welcome to my house, Miss Verinder. CHARLOTTE: Oh, 1 beg your pardon. How do you do? BULLAMY: (To himsev) Mrs. Posket's an interfering woman. (ACT I,3 14) The mistaken identity, conflicting character reactions and incongruous business of these introductions, while superfïcially unimportant, are crucial to the dynamics of farcical construction. The laughter of the previous scene reaches a peak on the audience's reaction to ccCurious,"and should then die away. However, with the opening of a new "French" scene, indicated by the entry of a new character, the actors must start the audience rising to the crest of the next wave of laughter. Later in the fint act, Charlotte receives a letter from a Captain Vale, breaking off their recent engagement. In a second letter Agatha lems that an acquaintance £Yom her previous rnarriage, Colonel Lm,is coming for dimer the next evening. Ldqn is Cis's godfather and an old school fnend of Mr. Posket. Agatha fears that his amval will result in the disclosure of her secret. In typical farcical fashion a third leîter arrives advising of a friend's illness. This provides Agatha with an excuse to Ieave the house with Charlotte and visit Lukyn in order to make sure that he does not reveal her true age. In the second act, Lukyn is entertaining Captain Vale at the Hôtel des Princes when Agatha and Charlotte arrive. Lukyn invites the women to join him for dinner, but Vale, not wanting to meet Charlotte, hides behind a curtain. A typical farcical food scene follows in which Vale's hands emerge from concealment to assist in the serving of plates, oysters, sole and lemons. In an earlier scene of Act 2, when Posket and his step- son amved at the hotel, the propnetor, Blond, asked them to eat in an adjoining room so that he could accommodate Lukyn and Vale. The audience is aware of this proximity and the result is a progressive build of tension caused, initially, by an increasing probability of a meeting between Charlotte and Vale and, later, by the possibility of Agatha and Posket discovering each other. When Agatha hears her husband and son in the next room, she suspects their motives for frequenting the private supper rooms and decides to confront her husband at home. Blond prevents her departure and asks Lukyn and his guests to keep quiet because the police, suspicious of after-hours trading, are downstairs. Just before he leaves, Blond "Biows out cundles, andturns down the other lights," (Act II, 349) darkening the stage in a lighting effect similar to one in The Private Secretaw The device of a darkened room, seemingly more appropriate for a thriller, is used for the same reason in farce-to increase suspense and the audience's stress. in this scene of The Magistrate, the level of tension increases as the characters' predicarnents deteriorate. ShortIy after turning off the lights, Blond returns and instmcts everybody to hide because the police are searching the premises: (The4vare di busrling, and everybody is lolking in whispers; Lukyn places Agatha under the taHe, where she is concealed by the cover; he gets behind the overcoufs hanging from the pegs; Vale and Charlotte crouch down behind sofa.) (Act TI, 349-3 50)

The next sequence deals with the arriva1 of Posket and Cis from the adjoining room and contains three distinct uni&, with a sub-sequence of three in the last unit: Enfer Blond quietly. followed by Cis and Posket on rip-loe, Posket holding on ro Cis. BLOND: This way; be quick...( He goes ouf. leaving Cis and Posket.) POSKET: Cis, Cis! Advise me, my boy, advise me. CIS: It7sal1 nght, Guv, it's al1 right. Get behind sornething. AGATHA: (Peepsfrom under &abiecloth.)Æneas, and my child! [End of 11 (Posket and Cis wander about, lookzngfor hzding-places.) VALE: (Tu Cis.) Go away. CIS: Oh! LUKYN: (Tu Poskei who is fumbling af the coafs.) No, no. [End of 21 BLOND: (Popping his head in.) The police-coming! (Cis disappears behind the window-curtain. Posket dives under [abLe.) [3.1] AGATHA: Oh! [3.2] POSKET: (To Agatha in a whisper.) I beg your pardon. I think 1 am addressing a lady ....[3-31 (Act II, 350-35 1 ) The Times review, quoted below, indicates that the laughter was so loud on opening night that the audience did not hear Agatha's line in which she recognises her husband and son, which is not surprising considering the rapidly increasing speed at which the actors must Pace this scene. There are textual indicaton of this, such as slightly longer sentences that bracket sections of stichomythia and Posket's comparatively long speech, after the last line quoted above, which suggests a slowing of pace. During the scene the actors must increase the speed and rhythm of their words and movements, each contnbuting to the ensemble to achieve a unified frantic effect, which, togerher with the darkened stage, will cause an increasing level of tension in the audience. Conflicting with these visual and verbal images, designed to promote the suspense of the situation, are the inclusion of humorous lines and the use of the rule of three. The juxtaposition of these elements verifies the conventions of farce, and, in consequence, authonses the audience to laugh. However, the actors must retain precise contrd over the audience in order to maintain the scene's dynamics. The objective is to allow regular but increasing levels of laughter, because each laugh releases sorne stress, enabling progressively higher levels of tension and laughter. Finally, at the most opportune moment, the incongmity of Posket's greeting to his unrecognised wife provokes the concluding eruption of laughter and the tension dissipates. Ln order for this process to succeed, al1 the actors must be very sensitive to the audience's responses, and, simultaneously, to their fellow performers so that the dialogue and business recommence on the correct beat, as the laughter declines. The Times surnrnarised the visual impressions of the scene and its effect on the audience: The lights are lowered, and al1 the characters are huddled together upon the darkened stage to hide as best they can under the furniture while the police inspector and his men ransack the prernises. The worthy metropolitan magistrate ignominiously crawls under a tabie where his wife is already hiding, neither of them being aware of the other's presence. The situation is grotesque in the extreme and convulses the house with laughterm30 The play's final three peaks of laughter occur in the first scene of the third act that takes place the next moming in Posket's room at the Mulberry Street Police Court. A short introductory scene concludes with the chief clerk remarking, just before his exit, that "Mr. Posket is punctiliousness itself in dress." (Act 111,358) Posket enters immediate and his appearance (ser figure 5) creates an instantly incongmous contrast with the clerk's description that will cause the first burst of laughter. Shortly afterwards Posket begns a lengthy soliloquy on the events of the preceding night. Huberman considers this sequence to be "Pinero's most portentous innovation in the use of spectacle for farcical effe~t."~lThis form of exposition relies on the expertise of the actor who rnust use words and body language to create images for the audience that convey previous events in a suitably entertaining way. Ln farce, the actor must use additional artistry and stagecraft not only to pictorialise the stoy but to induce the audience to laugh, in this case at the potentially tragic downfall of a respectable citizen. Posket begins his narrative by describing his flight fiom the police in central London, that follows the collapse of the supper-room balcony on which he and Cis had attempted to hide. The chase concludes several miles away and many hours later in the streets of Kilbum. The actor must construct a profusion of conflicting images to describe, for the audience, Posket's desperate efforts to Save his reputation. He mut reenact the panic of the chase and the tenor of a respectable magistrate's attempt to escape justice, yet draw attention to the inherent incongruity of the situation, because the character, tho ugh disheveled, is O bvious ly safe and unharmed. Figure 5: Arthur Cecil in The Magistrate, Act ILI ... Posket enters quickly. and leans on his chair as rf exhausfed His appearance is extrernely wretched; he is srill Nt evening dress. but hzs chthes are rnuddy. and his Iinen soiled and crurnpied, while across the bridge of his nose he has a small strip of blackplasfer. (Act UI, 358) The structure of the speech, with many short phrases and sentences, provides for rapid delivery, but allows the actor to pause as if Posket was, and is still, panting for breath. An example of this structure contains one of several opportunities to evoke laughter. In this instance a visually incongmous anti-climactic undercut acts as the punch-line: "Pretending to be Cis] 'Corne on Guv-you're getting blown.' Where are we? Park Road What am I doing? Getting up out of a puddle." (Act III, sc.i, 359) The Theatre confims the success of Cecil's chosen style for delivering Posket's speech: "His description of the night's horrors when being chased by the police was inimitable in its mock tragic de~cri~tion."'~ The third episode occurs towards the end of the scene, afler a long and gradua1 increase in tension. The clerk of the court, Wormington, advises Posket that his first case concerns "a serious business arising out of the raid on the Hôtel des Princes." (Act II, sc.i, 362) Lmenters and eventually asks Posket to release the women, Agatha and Charlotte, who are using false narnes to hide their identity. After refusing Lukyn's request, and a couple of false, tension-enhancing moves towards the court's entrance, Posket fuially enters the court-room. The tension increases further as two minor characters commence an innocuous but humourous conversation on stage, which is punctuated by contlicting sounds of distress from the court-room. WYKE: I've been lookin' after two ladies. LUGG: So have 1. WYKE: 1haven't found them LUGG: EI'd known, I'd 'a been pleased to [end you our two. (Front the other side of the curtains there is the sound of a shriek from Agatha and Charlotte.) A few lines Iater,

(Another shriek from the two women,u cry from Posket, and rhen a hubbub are heard.) And finaily, (Amid a confused sound of voices Posket is brought in lhrough the curtains by Wormington...) (Act III, SC-i,371-372) The review in The Times provides the audience's impression of these frantic and farcical actions and sounds, A scream hmthe women announces to the house that the inevitable recognition between the dock and the bench has taken place, and Mr. Posket is forthwith brought back to his room in a state of collapse to hear fiom his clerk the awful tnith that he has mechanically sentenced the whole of his fellow-sinners in the dock to seven days' imprisonment without the option of a fine.j3 The audience's reaction on hearing that Posket has sentenced his wife to prison is the culmination of this scene and also the play's climactic crescendo of laughter. The short final scene of The Mapistrate resolves the predicarnents of the vanous characters but does not include any signifcant farcical action. The Theatre's reviewer praised the play, the dialogue and particularly the performance, "The Magistrate," ...is so well elaborated, the dialogue is so srnari, and every oppomuiity capable of producing laughter is so well treated that the farce proves to become one of the most amusin productions that the English stage has seen for some time.5 and these opinions were confirmed in The Times, The story is worked out with admirable lucidity and neatness and with an inhite variety of comic details, which.-.keeps the house in roars of laughter from the rise to the faIl of the curtain. The idea of so grave and responsible a personage as a metroplitan magistrate occupying the ludicrous situations assigned to Mr. Posket tickles the public immoderately, and, needless to Say, it loses nothing of its comicality by the strongly professional air imparted to the character by Mr. Cecil. Mrs. John Wood finds an excellent medium for the display of her comedy powers in the shrewish, self-possessed, and sharptongued Mrs. 5 Posket; ...3

The Maaistrate was a major popular success, and ran for alrnost a year. The management of the Court Theatre, no doubt revelling in and wanting to continue their good fortune, had aiready commissioned another farce from Pinero and The Schoolmistress opened within a few days, on March 27, 1 886. There was a mixed reaction from the cntics to Pinero7snew play. The inclusion of "elements traditionally anathema to farce,"36 rnay have caused the confusion, and indicates that Pinero was again mixing the genres. However, with the success of The -strate, the critics were forced to equivocate. When comparing The Schoolmistress with The Magistrate. The Theatre stated that the new play had a weaker construction and contained improbabilities "glaring even for farce," then praised the dramatist for overcoming these objections by embroidering on it "such a wealth of witticisms as has rarely been found in one play."37 One reviewer watched the play twice. The first visit resulted in the comment that the play "had no story," and that any attempt "to trace the links of the plot" would leave the reader "wondering how it could possibly have corne to pass that €rom the rise to the fa11 of the curtain audiences ~au~h."'~However, following a second visit to the Court Theatre a few weeks later, and perhaps influenced by other critical comment, the reviewer decided to change opinions: After a second seeing and hearing of The Schoolmistress ... one is disposed to very considerably modify the first impression produced by its want of plot. The fun is as unflagging as in The Magistrate, and it has more vanetys9 It is interesting that the initial negative remarks are textuaily based, whereas the subsequent positive cornments are based on the visual and verbal images of the performances. The critic for The Times observed that Mr. Pinero had failed to strïke the same "equally happy vein of humour" as The Magistrate, yet noted that this play's success influenced the audience's reception of The Schoolrnistress. The "over-sanguine" opening-night audience "were reluctant to admit themselves mistaken," and provided a "running accornpanirnent of laughter and applause." " The reviewer for The Theatre was apparently one of the audience afflicted in this way, being "so exhausted wi-th laughter that the critical faculty is entirely suspended in anxiety for the condition of the zygomatic musc~es.'~' Writing in the Illustrated London News, Clement Scott dismissed the lack of plot as immaterial, because these plays, presumably referring to farces, depend on treatment not story. He praised The Schoolmistress as "the best original farce Mr. Pinero has ever written," and complimented the author's intimate knowledge of the stage and its audience, evident in the production. However, he reserved his primary approbation for Pinero7sdirection of the cast, The whoie thing is polished to the point of perfection ... he [Pinero] has the magical power, not only of suggesting what he wants done, but of securing the success of his own suggestions. He has some difficulty, perhaps, with old hands, who have certain views of their own which may or may not be in accordance with the author's scheme; but he can rnould al1 the new hands; he can train raw recruits, he is a first rate drill-master; ... Laughter is started with the first Line of dialogue, and continues to the kt. The dialogue is continually intempted by loud guffaws; the acting is so full of spirit and so exhilarating that the audience catches the infection, and that delightnil sight is presented-a meny audience of laughing contented faces.'2 Of the younger actors, Miss Norreys, who, as Peggy, played "one of the most active fernale haves in British dramatic hist~r~,""~was the only one to receive significant attention from the reviewers. Table 4 in the Appendix provides the details of the cast of The Schoolmistress. The Times commended her for throwing "a great deal of briskness and bnghtness into the action.'"' The Saturday Review noted "a remarkable freshness and go" in her performance, commented on her keen sense of fun and art but suggested that "a trifle more restraint might improve the whole res~lt."'~The Theatre was quite specific about the defects in her acting: although she played with high spirit, a decidedly effective weird impishness and "evidently feeling her part," she lacked experience in "the art of comrnunicating her high spirits to the audience; she hardly seemed to get en rapport with diem.'*'6 The implication is that, for al1 Pinero's drilling and polishing, he was unable to irnpart the artistic talent for intercomecting with the audience; an ability essential for controlling their responses. The old hands, however, received considerable acclaim for their artistry and skills. Arthur Cecil was apparently ideally suited for the part of Queckett and, according to the cntics, he made the most of this opportunity to display his venatility: He plays a young man with certain marked characteristics, he has to show his command over pure farce, pure comedy, and emotion of the comedy and farce kind, and he interprets.. .the part with singular skill, delicacy, and wit." The Theatre remarked that Cecil's "irnpersonation was a thoroughly delightful piece of work," and that his method, although susceptible to over-elaboration, was remarkable for its finish? The Times linked Cecil with Mr. John Clayton and Mrs. John Wood and gave them special mention for the picturesque and effective creations of their charactersmJgConsidering her lirnited time on stage, Mrs. John Wood was still able to irnpress: "[she] was, as indeed she always is, inimitable... a little bit of a scenu delivered in the 1st act was one of the hits of the piece."50 After the second visit, the critic for The Saturday Review was even more effusive about her talents, Mrs. John Wood has two excellent opportunities, and uses both exceilently. In the third act she ...g ives within a singularly brkf space a stnking sketch of tme jealous irritation, of cold wisdom coming corn that inkition, and of tragedy which is kept within the bounds of mock tragedy wïth singular art.... To imitate acting on the stage is not an easy thing. Mn. Wood makes it seem easy? One scene in the second act commanded the attention of the critics for both The Times and The Saturday Review. With his wife, the schoolmistress, absent, Queckett decides to hold a dinner party at the school and Peggy blackrnails him into inviting her and the other fernale pupils. Queckett's other guests, Rankling, Mallory and Saunders, are, respectively, "a ponderous and irascible rear-admiral, played by Mr. Clayton, a slim lieutenant, and a tiny mid-shipman; and the action is in keeping with this odd personnel-that is to say, it iç broadly farcica~."~~The scene, in which these characters take part, combines physical incongruity, the farcical use of food and the building of comedic tension, in a three-step sequence. The first step involves the size of a lark pudding which is too small for the eight dimers. Queckett rernarks that the pudding "...is architecturally di~~ro~ortionate,"~~(Act II, 47) providing an excellent example of the "immense pomposity of his sesquipedalian verbiage" that contrasts incongruously with "the utter insigniiicance of his person."54 Peggy writes notes for the girls telling them not to eat the pudding but Queckett gives them to Rankling, Mallory and Saunders by mistake. The dialogue, actions and positioning of these three characters constitute the rniddle stage of this sequence that gained the critics' favourable attention.

Figure 6: From the lefi; Messrs. Victor, Kerr & Clayton, The Schoolmistress, Act U. (Rankling, Mallory and Saunders corne suddeniy together. each carrying a note. j

RANKLING: (ro Mallory) Mallory, we were right - there is some homble mystery about Queckett. (Zooking to see they are not observed) I've had an anonyrnous warning. 'For heaven's sake, don't touch the pudding! ' MALLORY: 1know. RANKLING: Tell the boy. MALLORY: (ru Saunders) 1 Say - don't you Say yes to pudding. SAUNDERS: 1 know Tell the old gentleman. MALLORY: (to Saunders) He knows. (ro Rankiing) He knows. (Wrh a simultaneom gesture they pocket the notes and go îo find their seats at table. ..-) (Act TI, 48) As the photograph on the previous page indicates, there is an irnmediate visual incongmity resulting from the contrasting sizes of Rankling, Mallory and Saunders and their spatial relationship. The dialogue and business that coincide with this picture contain a mechanical repetitiveness that increases the verbal and visual humour. Simultaneously, the inconsequential cause of the actors' excessive furtiveness enhances the incongruity of this visual image. The actors must enhance the humour by using sirnilar vocal tones and inflections, and by rigidly controlling the timing of their lines, gestures and movernents. According to the critic for The Saturdav Review, the t;umouroüs effect and laughter "produced by the Admiral, the Lieutenant, and the tiny boy-sailor, standing three in a row like the Three Bears" exemplified Pinero's irresistibly comic handling of the play's situations." In contrat, The Times reviewer believed that the characters rather than the situations caused the humour and that Pinero was "in this instance indebted to the Company for a large measure of his success.. .In short, the merit of the acting would insure the success of a much infenor piece? It is no longer possible to determine whether the authoddirector or the actors were responsible for the play's realisation and success, even though the acting received considerable credit. A reasonable interpretation of the evidence suggests that it was the combination of an inventive and knowledgeable "director" and a creative ensemble, containing some very experienced actors as well as some raw recmits, that contributed signi ficantiy to the success of The Schoolmistress. With 209 performances, The Schoolmistress was less successful than either The Private Secretarv or The Manistrate. Ets successor, Dandy Dick, opened on January 27, 1887 and ran for 171 performances at the Court Theatre and 75 performances at Toole's theatre, ternporarily leased when the Court was closed for dernolition on July 22." The cast list of Dandy Dick is provided in Table 5, in the Appendix. Dandy Dick completed Pinero's contract with the theatre for three farces,'' but, although Labelled as such and containing many farcical devices, it has significant differences from the farces already discussed. In a further move up the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the incurnbent farcical victim is The Very Rev. Augustin Jedd, D.D., the Dean of St. Marvells. However, in Dandy Dick there is no equivalent of Cis or Peggy to initiate the victirn's downfall. Like a hero in tragedy the impecunious Dean initiates his own misfortune by successfully enticing seven donations for the restoration of the church spire that match his own contribution of a thousand pounds. Unfominately his own money does not exist and the Dean, succumbing to temptation, reverses his moral scruples and bets fifty pounds on Dandy Dick to win a local horse race in order to obtain the fun& The conflict between his actions and his position is compounded further when he administers a "bolus" to Dandy Dick to prevent the animal catching a chi11 fol lowing its move to the Deanery's stables afier a fire at the village inn. The Dean's inappropriate behaviour culminates in his arrest, Luckily unrecognised, for attempting to poison the horse. The moral incompatibility between the Dean's actions, his self-induced predicament and his important social and reiigious position is the basis for the conflicting impressions received by the audience, that are central to the play's humour and the stimulation of laughter. Yet, as one commentator states, any other play based "on such a theme would have to be a very serious play-almost a tragedy in fact. But, in this case, it is the very incongruity of the idea that sets our minds at re~t."'~In effect, the improbability of the conflicting impressions enabled the Victorian audience to laugh at the Dean's behaviour and situation. In addition, Pinero does not provide opprhmities for the audience to Iaugh directly at the Dean, instead the humour is often generated by a contrast between his lofty words and his pitiable predicaments. An example occurs afier his sister extncates him, fortuitously still unidentified, from the jail of the local police station: THE DEAN: Do 1 understand that 1 have been forcibly and illegally rescued? SIR TRISTAM: That's it, old fellow. THE DEAN: Who has committed such a reprehensible act? SIR TRISTAM: A woman who would have been a herotne in any ageaeorgiana! THE DEAN: Georgiana, I am bound to overtook it, in a relative, but never let this occur again? [t is important that the actor maintains the Dean's moral credibility with the audience so that, whiIe some of the situations cal1 for a mock-tragic attitude, the character must always appear sincere, with no sign of pomposity or hypocnsy. This approach enables the greatest contrat between the Dean and his sister's down-to-earth worldliness. Georgiana Tidman uses the pseudonyrn George Tidd in order to conceal her gender in racing circles and Pinero describes her as ''a jovial, noij, woman, very 'horsey ' in rnanners and appearance, and dressed in pronounced masculine style, wih bil[ycock har and coaching coui. " (Act 1'29.) It is evident that Pinero experimented with the "masculine woman" character-type in his farces because there is a definite progression fiom Charlotte in The Mag-istrate, through Georgiana to the "boys" in The Amazons. However, the plays do not promote rnisogynism or even anti-feminism, and Georgiana, in her unequivocal behaviour, is more admirable than her brother. NevertheIess, Georgiana is very eccentric by late-Victorian standards and is capable of creating conflicting farcical images. In responçe to the Dean's rejoinder to remember that she is a lady, Georgiana encapsulates the conflicts inherent in her character: "George Tidd's a man, every inch of her!" (Act II, 63) The inherent incongruity of this statement is enhanced by the opposing perceptions of Georgiana's character and of her immediate image, costumed in an evening dress. (Act II, 49) The potential for the audience to misinterpret these visual and verbal images indicates the narrow line of believability that Mrs. John Wood had to negotiate in order to successfûlly invoke laughter without antagonising the audience's moral code. However, in the closing lines of the play, it is the propriety of "our laughing at a Sporting Dean," (Act LII, 162) rather than at Georgiana, that Pinero justifies and for which he requests the audience's approval. Although Dandy Dick contains many of the structural requirements that encourage an audience to laugh, it inciudes none of the visual business usuaIly present in a farce. Perhaps, as Huberman States, the play's unfamiliar content confused the audience, but one critic, while noting that Dandy Dick "contained much that was rollicking fun," concluded that "a more cynical piece has rarely been wrkten.'"' With this play Pinero approached the point at which the artistry of the actors was insufficient to convert the conflict inherent in controversial characters and themes into uproarious laughter. In Dandy Dick and the subsequent farces, the shortage of farcical business and the mixing of genres prevented the stimulation of laughter; the raison d'être of farce. In September 1888, The Court Theatre reopened on a new site in Sloane Square, but another Pinero farce did not appear until Apnl23, 1890. The Cabinet Minister lasted for 199 performances but many commentanes note the shortage of farcical content and the inclusion of sentiment in a combination rerniniscent of some early Pinero plays that the critics ~ondernned.~'Fyfe provides an unattnbuted quote that indicates the audience's confusion at the unfamiliar mix, The audience found itself laughing at seemingly serious situations which it felt should properly provoke tears; .. . experiencing constant perplexity as to emotional duties. The programme said "farce," yet here was actual drama with a whimsical twist that was most surprising, here were bits of pathos which were positively cor ni^.^^

As the wife of the cabinet minister, Mrs. John Wood was the self-induced farcical victim but the only farcical character is a highland laird, the Macphail of Ballocheevin, "a pathetically shy, naive Highland laird of huge stature, vast wealth, few words, and totally under the control of his mother." Brandon Thomas's performance in this character "was the only aspect of the Court production to receive unanimous praise," but the critics considered the play "was a perplexing and ineffective mixture of genres that added up to anything but a far~e."~ After completing The Second Mrs. Tanqueray, in the summer of 1892,65 Pinero wrote his fifth and final farcical offenng for the Court, apparently prompted by no more weighty motive than the indulgence of his own playful fancy,... he attempted no criticism of Me, he sought to solve no problem of morality, sociology, or psychology; he merely perrnitted himself to dally with the "mannish woman" idea in the lightest, gentlest s rrit of satire, and in a most whimsical mood of romance.e The Amazons, which he identified as a "farcical romance7', opened on March 7, 1893, and, as the cast list indicates (Appendix, Table 6), Pinero again raised the social status of the characiers, this time into the realrns of the aristocracy. However, Lord Fancourt Babberley, and not the Earl of Tweenwayes, has the distinction of being the first farcical lord during this period, because Brandon Thomas's Chariey's Aunt toured the provinces for several months before Pinero wrote The Amazons. Disappointed by the lack of a male to inherit the family title and physique, the Castlejordans decide to raise their three daughters as boys. After her husband's death and the surrender of the title to her brother-in-law, "a wizen creature without sh~ulders,'~~'Lady Castlejordan maintains the deceit. She dresses her daughters as young men and refers to them as "sons." Even though the play contains the farcical device of deception, none of characters is subjected to the physical or mental tonnent mual for a farcical victirn. In addition, there are times when Pinero has stmctured the script seemingly to deter the customary build of farcical humour. One example occurs in the second act, when de Grival is kneeling beside Wilhelmina. (See fig. 7 on the next page). She has been hunting, and

Vi@s her gun from one knee ru anorher; the mude chancing &O point towards de Grival." He is "disconcerted by the presence of rhe gun," rises and moves to sit on her lefi. Several lines later, Wilhelmina "inadvertenfly...shifi her gun so thal ifpoints at de Gnval's face." (Act 11, 92-91). Figure 7: Miss Temss & Mr. Elliott, The Amazons, Act II. Ln order to complete the mle of three, the sequence should be repeated, perhaps with the gun following de Gnval's movements, ending with a laughter provoking punch- line. However, Pinero ends the series early, with a rather weak line, "Never play with edged guns," as de Grival removes the gun to a safer Location. Since neither the words nor the stage directions are humorous in themselves only the actors' expressions and postures could make the scene mernorable. It appears frorn the illustration that there is a significant contrat between de Gnval's excessive reactions and Wilhelmina's calm obliviousness. The conflict between these images would be ~~cientto generate Iaughter at the situation. The play does contain intrinsic satire, partially aimed at the masculine disposition, rnind and muscle of Lady Castlejordan's "three fine, stalwart young felIowsy" (Act 1, 13) that might reflect an anti-feminist attitude? However, the farcical characters in The Amazons are not the daughters but two of their three suitors. Galfked, Earl of Tweenwayes is a weak, sickly and ineffectual representative of an hereditary male aristocracy, and André, Count De Grival, in the words of a contemporary reviewer, "is an Anglo-maniac who misquotes English proverbs, and concludes each sentence in tmly British style with 'Don't you know' or 'Dammit Pinero juxtaposes the most contrasting characters to achieve the most incongruous effects by having Tweenwayes pursue the "hoydenish Lady Thomasin," and de Grivai "the dainty fittle maiden, Wilhelmina," who is the most femînine of the sis ter^.'^ However, the audience and the actors are fully mare that the "boys" are female, so incongruity cannot result from the audience's omnipotent knowledge of a deception, as is the case in The Private Secretaw and Charlev's Aunt, or from a conflict between the girls' masculine clothing and their personalities. Instead, the humour cornes €rom an incongruous contrast between the girls and their suitors. As The Theatre pointed out: boyish girls demand of course the contrast of effeminate youths. Tweenwayes has s pindleshanks and a thin voice, consumptive tendencies, and no digestion. His family, "we" as he usually says, made history, but he is afraid of cows." Even though Thomasin is "naturally boyish," there is an inference throughout the play that the daughters are no longer the willing accomplices to a childhood game of cross-dressing and that they are playing at their masculine roles. However, Tweenwayes and de Grival are as eccentnc as they appear and any satire, and the audience's laughter, is generally directed at them, their ailments and their ineffectual postunng. The third, eldest and most manly sister, Lady Noeline, is paired with Lord Li tterl y, "a handsorne young man w ith the fme of an athlete and on air of indolence." (Act 1, 57) He is the eldest son of Lady Castlejordan's brother-in-law and heir to the lost title and, as a result, he makes a perfect physical, social and equitable match for Lady Noeline. These two characters comprise a totaliy romantic aspect of the plot and, even though they becorne involved in the motivation of laughter, they are not farcical. The critics noted the whimsicality of The Amazons and compared the lovers, the romantic plot and the sylvan setting to Shakespeare's As You Like IL 72 but they qualified their praise of the play. According to The Theatre. The Amazons fell far short of Dandy Dick or The Magistrate but "at its worst it is infinitely clever [sic] than farce as she is usually wrote [sic]."73 The Sketch concurred, stating that, although the play "is a pretty fairy-tale fancy wittily told" and "has few du11 moments and many bright ones," it was not Mr. Pinero's best work. The second act was too long and burdened by an indiscreet episocie with a poacher. In addition, ''the plane of probability" constantly shifted." The Times was considerably more forthright: The Amozuns is quite unworthy of Mr. Pinero's reputation ... lacking that element of mith and genuine observation which underlies al1 genuine comedy, ... it lapses into a dangerously trivial and purposeless piece of nonsense... Mr. Pinero has committed himself either to an unworkable theme or to an uncongenial one.75 There was a greater divergence of opinion concerning the play's reception by the opening night audience. The Times commented on the disappointment and surprise caused by "the perplexity with which the greater portion of the piece was followed by a house bent upon being atnu~ed."'~In contrat, The Era reported that laughter convulsed the house "within a few minutes of the rising of the curtain," and continued loudly and frequently, and the performance ended "with a storm of cheering [that] gave the clever author assurance of another s~ccess."~~ It is significant that the scene most of the critics mention specifically is one of the few with visual business that is overtly farcical. The third act opens in darkness and de Grival and Tweenwayes descend a rope into the girls' gymnasium at Overcote Hall, because they have misread the directions on a surreptitious invitation from Lady Thornasin. The farcical tension, again enhanced by the darkness, increases as they bump into ever-noisier items of gymnastic equipment and finally Tweenwayes' hand hits the keys ofa piano. (Act UI, 139-142) The tension eases with the amval of Lord Litterly but their attempts to leave are intempted when "the eleclric lighls are switched on. and rhe scene becornes suddeniy brigl~l."~~De Grival, who has been trying to climb back up the rope, "descendsprecipitnteiy, '"(Act III, 147) and the three men disappear into a cupboard as "Sergeant" Shuter enters, followed by the girls enveloped in long cloaks. As Shuter plays the piano, "the girls take oftheir cioah and throw them down ongrily; rhey are in degantly made gymnasium dresses of dfferent co~ours,"and begin their exercises with Indian clubs and bar-bells. (Act HI, 148-156) When a reporter asked Miss Temss and Miss Hanbury about îheir favourite scene, they replied simuitaneously "Oh, the gymnasium." Miss Hanbury added, intriguingly, that she thought "the public also rather enjoy seeing us go through the e~ercises."'~ Unlike similar situations in the other farces 1 have exarnined, such as Posket's unfinished moves towards the courtroom in the penultimate scene of The Magistrate, the audience's omniscient awareness of the men in the cupboard is not manipulated in order to intensifi the suspense of the situation and provoke laughter. Instead, the girls are about to stan exercising on the horizontal-bar and vaulting-bar, when Shuter, with only a brief preparatory build, opens the cupboard door: The men appear; Shuter, droppîng the clouh, utters a yell of ferror and runs over lo the other side of the roorn. There Ïs a generai uproar, the girls screum, Tweenwayes mning across ~he roorn is seized by S huter and violently shaken. Escaping from her, he makes for the rope. where he meets de Grival, who has crawied under ihe vazdting-horse; rhey atrempt fo CMthe rope rogerher. impeding each other 's progress. P AC^ In, 156) According to the reviewer for The Era it was the incongrnous image of Tweenwayes trying to escape that aroused the audience, His lordly supenority was exceedingly droll, and his anything but lordly attempted flight in the scene of the gyrnnasiurn provoked roars of laughter, for his lordship was neither up nor down, but was perched midway like a monkey on a rope. ccOutrageouslyfarcical," exclairns the reader. Undoubtediy, but it was too much for gravity, and the spectators simply r~ared.'~

In her interview with The Sketch Miss Browne, who had performed in The Mapistrate and The Schoolmistress in Australia, credited the acting to Pinero's direction and his ability to make "one understand exactly what he wants and how he wishes a part to be inte~-~reted."~'Generally al1 the critics agreed on the high standard of acting, particularly from the women. The comments in The Theatre provide an insightful differentiation of their styles: "[The girls] are charming, Miss Temss most naturally so, Miss Hanbwy with most artistic skill, Miss Browne by force of chic and dash and racy fun...'"' The Sketch complimented their acting and the reviewer's descriptive adjectives imply that the feminine traits of the actors outweighed the masculine traits of the characters: The Company is excellent. Miss Lily Hanbury as Noeline very prettily shows her girlhood breaking through the mask of boyhood imposed by her mother and the gradua1 growth of love; Miss Ellahe Terriss as Wilhelmina loo~s delightful, acts very gracefully, and sings charmingly; and Miss Pattie Browne plays cleverly as the third of these quaint Graces. ..8 3

Similar amibutes were noted in The Era, together with the critic's impression of the actors' success: Miss Lily Hanbury...p layed Lady Noeline in style most fascinating.. .. Miss Paîtie Browne. ..scored an undeniable success on her first appearance, her Lady Thornasin... being quite captivating in its sauciness and swagger. Very pretty and very charming was the treatment given by Miss Ellaline Temss to the character of "Willie." ... A capital bit of work, too, was the "Sergeant" Shutter of Miss Marianne ~aldwell.~~

At a time when the social implications of the women's suffrage movement might have caused the audience to react adversely to their appearance, these women used their artistry and femininity to overcome any antipathy to their male costumes and characteristics. Similarly, the sylvan setting and make-believe atmosphere would have contributed to the audience's acceptance of women dressing and acting as men. Pinero's direction of the actors' interpretations and his control of the stzging and set design was no doubt partly responsible for the audience's positive reception of his whirnsical idea. However the reviewers' reception of the male farcical characters was less than enthusiastic. The Theatre commended EIliott for his "dexterous" and "extremely clever ... acting" as the "explosive Frenchmen," De Grïval, but referred to Grossmith as -78.5 "quaint ... heavy and slow as the puny lordling ... The Era complimented Elliott's performance, stating that his portrayal was "clever, vivacious, and thoroughly diverting?" but restncted the comments about Tweenwayes: c'Mr. Weedon Grossmith was ...as 7786 contemptible a Little coward as could be imagined ... [n a censure of both actors, The Sketch criticised their coarse caricature and the monotonous repetition of their comical effects!' Bearïng in mind the traditional antagonism between the English and the French and the criticisms of the English aristocracy inherent in the character of Tweenwayes, the audience would be more willing to Iaugh at De Grival and less able to achieve an empathy with Grossmith's performance. If Pinero influenced Elliott and Grossrnith as much as he did the women, then he must take responsibility for the failure of the main farcical character. On March 8, 1893, the day afier the fiwt performance, Pinero wrote to Henry Irving and the letter's tone indicates that he did not expect a major success, "the little play seerned to please the not very exciting audience in Sloane Square last night and there is every promise that it will fulfill its modest purpose."88 Compared to his eariier "robust and Iess fantastic farces," The Arnazons was almost a failure, closing on July 8, 1893 after only I 1 1 performances.89 There are a several trends identifiable in Pinero's Court farces that culminate in The Arnazons. In each of the plays the main farcical character cornes from an increasingly higher level of society; a member of the judiciary in The Mapistrate, a minor member of the aristocracy in The Schoolmistress, a Scottish laird in The Cabinet Minister, concluding with a representative of the ancient nobility in The Amazons. At the same tirne the themes and situations become increasingly more controversial. In The Mapistrate, Agatha lies to her husband and Cis leads him astray, and, in The Schoolmistress, Queckett is secretly married to the proprietor of a school for young women who has ambitions of a stage career. The Very Reverend Augustin Sedd D.D. succumbs to temptation and gambles on a horse-race, and Tweenwayes personifies a physical and intellectual degeneration of the British aristocracy. Pinero continued to include "farce" as part of the generic identification of the later plays but the mixing of genres becornes more noticeable until the farcical elements in The Amazons aimost disappear. Over the same period, Pinero gained more authonty over the casting and his choice of leading actors shifted fiom the traditionaily experienced actors such as Arthur Cecil, John CIayton and Mrs. John Wood, to the younger "ensemble" trained actors such as Brandon Thomas, Weedon Grossrnith and . The audiences expected to laugh uproariously at Pinero's farces because of his early success and because of the conventionally appropriate response to "farce." However, none of the later productions included a skilled farce actor. The comparative failure of The Arnazons, with its controversial characters and subject matter, and mixed genres, indicates that, even with Pinero's direction, the arîistry of the chosen actors was unable to compensate for the estrangement of the audience. The absence of an actor skilled in the artistry of farce acting is very noticeable in The Amazons and may have contributed to the play's lack of success. By cornparison, another farce, Brandon Thomas's Charlev's Amt3 was running in London at the same time as Pinero's final Court farce and subsequently completed four years of continuous performances. Thomas's play contains as much potential for social and moral indignation as The Amazons, because the farcical victim is a member of the nobility who is forced to dress and act like a women in order to maintain a deception. However, Charlev's Aunt contains two significant differences: although sentimental in places, it is thoroughly farcical in construction; and the ieading farce actor of the period, W. S. Penley, played the farcical victim. In the next chapter I will focus on Penley's performance in Charlev's Aunt in order to show how the artistry of his acting rnanipulated the potential conflicts and evoked the audience's sympathy and ernpathy in the successful creation of laughter. Notes

' Walter Lazenby, Arthur Winp Pinero. (New York: Tway-ne Publishers, Inc., 1972) Il, noted fiom Wilbur Dwight Dunkel, Sir Arthur Pinero, (Chicago. 194 1) 9-1 1. Lazenby, 11. 3 Lazenby, 1 1, and J. P. Weaiïng, ed., The Collected Letters of Sir Arthur 1Vinp; Pinero, (Minneapolis: U of Minnesota Press, 1974) 4. ' Hamilton Fyfe, Sir Arthur Pinero's Plavs and Plavers, (London: Ernest Benn Limited. 1930) 26. 5 Lazenby, 11, noted fiom Dunkel, 7-9. 6 John Russel1 Stephens, The(Cambridge. Cambridge UP, 1992) 6. 7 Wearing, 16. 8 Wearing, 6. 9 Lazenby, 26. 1O lefiey H. Huberrnan, Late Victorian Farce, (Am Arbor, Mich.: UMf Research Press, 1986) 79 80. 1 [ Wearing, 16. IZ Stephens, 77. 13 The Times, January 14, 1884, 4. 14 The Times, January 14, 1884,9. " Hubeman, 8 1 quoting The Saturday Review, Novernber 29, 1884.6 19. l6 The fllustrated S~ortingand Dramatic News, January 19, 1884, 48 1. 17 Stephens, 166-167. 18 The Sketch, April 5, 1893, 594. 19 Wearing, 9- 1 0. 20 Hubeman, 8 1. "Wearing, 80. 22 The Times, March 23, 1885. Hubenrian, 8 1. 24 Fse, 41. 2s Hesketh Pearson, Beerbohm Tree: His Life and Lauehter, (London: Methuen and Co. Ltd., 1956) 45. 26 Hubeman, 82. 27 A W. Pinero, "The Magistrate," English PIavs ofthe Nineteenth Centuw: IV. Farces, ed. Michael R Booth, (Odord: Oxford UT,1975) 305. 1 will note subsequent references to the script, within the text, in the format (Act no., page no.) 28 Ciernent Scott, ed., The Theatre, n. S. vol. V, (London, 1885) 200. 29 Booth, 303. 30 The Times, March 23, 1885. 3 1 Huberman, 89. 32 The Theatre, vol- V, 200. 33 The Times, March 23, 1885. 34 The Theatre, vol. V, 199. 35 The Times, March 23, 1885. 36 Huberman, 9 1. 37 Clement Scott, ed., The Theatre, n. S. vol. VII, (London, 1886) 268. 38 Huberman, 93, quoting The Saturdav Review, Aprii 3, 1886, 472-473. 39 The May 15, 1886,678. The Times, March 29, 1886. " The Theatre, vol. VU, 269. 32 The IlIustrated London News, vol. 88, Apd 3, 1886, 352. " Hubeman, 93. 44 The Times, March 29, 1886. 4s The Saturday Review, May 15, 1886,678. 46 The Theatre, vol. VII, 270. 47 The Saturday Review, May 15, 1886,678. 4% The Theatre, vol, W, 269. 49 The Times, March 29, 1886. 50 The Theatre, vol. VIi, 270. s 1 The Saturday Review, May 15, 1886,678. 52 The Times, March 29, 1886. 53 A W. Pinero, "The Schooimistress," Pla~sbv A. W. Pinero, ed. George Rowell, (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge UP,1986), Act 2, page 47. Subsequent quotations from or references to this script will be noted within the text in the format (Act no., page no.) j4 Fyfe, 42. 55 The Saturday Review, May 15, 1886, 678. 56 The Times, March 29, 1886. 57 Malcolm C. Salaman, intro- to Arthur W. Pinero, Dandy Dick, (London: William Heinemann, 1893) viii. '*Fyfe, 254. 59 Fyfe, 3 3. 60 A. W. Pinero, Dandy Dick, intro. Mdcolrn C. Salaman, (London: William Heinemann, 1893) Act III, sc.ii, 142-143. 1 will note fiirther quotations from and references to the play within the text in the format (Act no., page no.) 6 1 Huberrnan, 100, quoting The Athenaeum, Febniary 5, 1887.20 1 62 Huberman, 100; Fyfe 46-47, and Booth 301. 63 Fyfe, 46. 64 Huberrnan, 10 1. 65 Wearing, 136. 66 Malcolm C. Salaman, intro to Arthur W. Pinero, The hatons, (Boston: Walter H- Baker & Co., t 8%) 3. 67 A W. Pinero, The Amazons, @oston: W. H. Baker & Co., 1895) Act 1, 17. 1 wilI note further quotations fiom and references to the play within the text in the format (Act no., page no.) 68 Booth, 300. 69 Charles Eglington, ed., The Theatre, n. S., vol. XXI, (London, 1893) 200. 70 The Theatre, vol. xxi, 200. The Theatre, vol. xxi, 200. '' The Theatre, vol. xxi, 200; The Athenæum, no. 34 1 1. March 1 1. 1893, 322; The Times3 March 8, 1893, 10. 73 The Theatre, vol. mi, 200. 74 The Sketch, March 25, 1893, 396. 75 The Times, March 8, 1893, 10. 76 The Times, March 8, 1893, 20. n The Era, March 1 1, 1 893. 78 The introduction to an interview in The Sketch, April 5, 1893, 594, confims that the rebuilt Court Theatre had electric Iights back-stage. 79 The Sketch, Apd 5, 1893, 594. 80 ~he~arch11, 1893. The Sketch, April 5, 1893, 594 . 82 The Theatre, voI. xxi, 200. 83 The Sketch, March 15, 1893, 396. 84 The Era, March L 1, 1893. The Theatre, vol. xxi, 200. 86 The Era, March I 1, 1893. 81 The Sketch, March 15, 1893, 396. 88 Wearing, 140. 89 Salaman, intro. to The Amazons, 5. CHARLEY'S AUNT: The Consummation of Conflict

In the preceding chapten my analyses of the plays and performances indicate that late nineteenth-century farces contain inherently incongmous themes, situations and enacted images designed to cause conflict for the audience. According to Freud's theories of humour examined in the introduction, audiences will generate mental energy in order to resolve these conflicts. The actors must use their artistry to manipulate and control the audience's creation and release of this energy in order to provoke the rcquisite volume of laughter at the appropriate moments. If the actors allow the audience to dwell too long on specific visual and verbal images or to think too much about the personal. social or moral implications of particular themes and situations, then the ability to evoke laughter is severely restricted. In Pinero's later farces, the mixing of genres confused the audiences and the lack of farcical business and appropriate textual structures limited the actors' opportunities to create and control the audiences' responses. At the same tirne, Pinero raised the social status of his characters, and his themes and situations became more controversial. The effect of these elements becomes significant when the composition of the audience is considered. 1 mentioned in the introduction that the Court theatre was located some distance frorn the main theatre district and it seems probable that a large proportion of the audience came from the adjacent upper-class residential districts. There was a distinct danger of antagonising such an audience because of the criticism irnplied in images of socially significant or aristocratie characten exhibiting incongniously ndiculous behaviour. In addition, Pinero's plots and situations contain potential threats to the judicial, religious and social hierarchies and to the moral beliefs of the period. The task of the actors becomes extremely dificult in such circumstances because their performances must not augment any antagonism. At the same time, they may have to overcome some animosity before they can gain the audience's empathy and sympathy. The contemporary trend towards rezlistic ensemble acting complieated this process. In order to achieve this style in farce, each actor had to build a dynamic empathy with the audience and, simultaneously, maintain a constant but unobtrusive awareness of the audience's reception and responses to the other actors on stage. As Michael Booth notes, "AH farce is fantasy; al1 farce mut involve its audience in this fantasy as well as indicate clearly that it is fantasy"' in performance, it is the actors who have considerable control over the perceptions of the audience. The artistic purpose of farce is to create lauçhter but, when an audience begins to see reality instead of fantasy, the actors must exert their individual and collective artistry to refocus the audience's perceptions and regain control of their responses. It is significant that the decreasing popularity of Pinero's farces coincided with an increasing potential for their content to encroach on and cnticise the lives and circumstances of the Court's spectators. The reviews quoted above provide evidence that Pinero's control of casting and rehearsals enabIed him to achieve the desired ensemble effect. However, his later casts lack effective and experienced farce actors able to provoke laughter from those images that create conflict for the audience. This was not the case with Brandon Thomas's Charley's Aunt that opened in London a few months before The Amazons and contained similar potential to antagonise the audience with controversial content. In Charley's Aunt, the farcical victim and recipient of considerable farcical violence is an aristocrat, Lord Fancourt Babberley, who, Like the daughters in The

Arnazons, is forced to cross-dress in order 10 perpetrate a deception. The resulting incongmous images and situations could easily offend the moral sensibilities of the Victorian audiences, causing uneasiness, irritation or anger, none of which is conducive to the eniption of laughter. However, the cast contained the most accomplished farce actor of the period, W. S. Penley, and my analysis of his performance will demonstrate how he used his artistry to gain the sympathy and empathy of the audience and to convert his audiences' mental energy into uproanous laughter. With 1469 Brandon Thomas's play achieved the longest unbroken run of any nineteenth-century British play and, according to the author's descendants, "as late as 1953, a day did not pass without a performance of Charley's Aunt somewhere in the wor~d."~E. R. Wood describes the play as "the clâssic example in the English theatre of pure ~arce,'"and in his textual analysis of late Victorian farce, Jeffrey Huberman distinguishes the play as the climactic production of a "Golden Age of British Farce," that he commences almost a decade earlier with Penley's very popular performance in Hawtrey's The Pnvate Secretaw. Like Hawtrey and Pinero. Brandon Thomas did not corne from a theatrical family. He was bom in 1840 and raised in where his working-class family had Iittle contact with the theatre. In 1876, when Thomas was living in Hull, a friend, who had heard him recite "on the platform of the Baker Street schoolroom," persuaded him to perfomi for the Kendals at the end of a private supper in honour of their visit to Hull on a provincial tour. They invited him to contact them in London if he decided to become an actor.' Whatever the motives behind this offer, in 1879 Thomas traveled to London, presented himself to the Kendals and on April 19th, '%th a pronounced northern accent'' and no stage experience, he made his professional stage debut in their Company at the Court theatre! In December 188 1, Thomas made his first significant impression as an actor in The Squire, one of Pinero's first major successes with a full-Iength play. Like Pinero, Thomas began writing piays to supplement his incorne from acting and a year later John Clayton produced Thomas's first full-length play, Comrades, that ran for more than 100 performances at the Court theatre. For this play, Thomas received f 100, plus £1 for each performance, and f 100 for the provincial rights. The rnoney enabled him to pay his tailor, whose bills had remained unpaid for several months. The recurring conversation between Thomas and his landlady conceming these invoices is reminiscent of the opening scene of The Private Secretary: "There's another of those letters this moming," Miss Carter [Thomas's landlady] would Say reprovingly. "Put them in the pile with the others," he would reply and tum over and go to sleep7 In the sumrner of 1885, Cecil Clay invited Thomas to join his company on a tour of the United States. Thomas was waiting for confirmation of a position with Charles Hawtrey's company but accepted the tout-ing engagement. Hawtrey's offer of a year's engagement in London arrived too late and Clay's company, that included Weedon Grossrnith, sailed for the U. S. A in $epternbere8The Amencan tour seemed destined to fail until Clay asked Thomas to edit and rewrite a one-act play that Clay had written for his wife. The result was a buriesque of amateur theatricals called A Pantomime Rehearsal. This play, with Weedon Grossrnith in a major role, becarne "an instantaneous success" for the co~n~an~.~Clay extended the tour for two months and Thomas did not return to England until June, 1886. Thomas rejected offers off50 to f60 per week to return to the United States for the following season and decided to stay in London where he accepted an offer off 1O per week from Wyndham at the Criterion ~heatre." In January 1887, Charles Hawtrey produced a farce adapted from the French by Brandon Thomas and Maurice de Vemey, entitled The Lodgers. The cast at the Globe theatre included WiIliam Hill and W. S. Penley and Thomas's remarks on the performance provide an interesting commentary on Hill's acting, the Globe audience and the attitude of critics to farce: Hill had of course almost mined it, [The Lodgers] ...He did not know a line - I am told he was ah1- and I found everyone [in the company] paralyzed with fright. The piece is only a slight farce but well constmcted and exactly what the Globe people want and the notices will al1 be 'slating7, we know that, to start with."

Thomas's association wîth Pinero resumed a year later when the latter's sentimental comedy, Sweet Lavender, opened at Terry's Theatre on March 21, 1888. The play provided Thomas with his Brst major role in London and ran for two years." While performing in Sweel Lavender, Thomas appeared sirnultaneously in matinées at other theatres, and received permission from Edward Terry to act for twelve weeks in his own one-act play, A Highland Legacy. Charles Hawtrey produced this play at the Strand Theatre in November 1888, as an opening piece to a burlesque. Thomas was able to perform in both plays because he did not appear in Sweet Lavender until Act iI.

However, it was his play-writing ability in A Highland Legacy that the critics praised. l3 Pinero sumrnarked Thomas's acting in Sweet Lavender: "It isn't that you're such a good actor, Brandon, it's that there are so damned few of you."f4 Nevertheless, Thomas must have suficiently impressed the author and Pinero cast Brandon Thomas as the Macphail, the only farcical character in The Cabinet Minister which opened at the Court Theatre on Apd 23, 1890. The mixed reception by the opening night audience resulted in Pinero summoning the cast to a meeting the next morning. He insisted that they must "play the piece with every dot and every comma exactly as it has been rehear~ed."'~The influence of this authoritarian attitude is apparent when Thomas directed the London production of Charley's Aunt. Another anecdote conceming The Cabinet Minister confirms the potential to antagonise the audience when actors have insuEcient experience in the performance of farce to be able to divert conflicts into laughter. At the play's second performance, presumably in response to Thomas's portrayal, "a Scotsman was seen to nse from the stalls in indignation and sblk out, saying: 'It is an insult to the Scottish nation."'16

Thomas's first child was bom during the rehearsals for The Cabinet Minister, l7 and during his return kom a visit to his wife, recuperating in Walton-onThames, a chance meeting occurred with W. S. Penley. Penley told Thomas that he wanted tu manage his own theatre and asked Thomas to write "a pretty little three act comedy with plenty of fun in it and a touch of sentiment - on similar lines to your Highland ~eeacv."'~Thomas's main concem was the dificulty of creating a new character for the actor but, apparently, Penley's expression and oval face "reminded Thomas of a photograph of an eIderly relative of his own, with hair in smooth bands, bow-window fashion, wearing a bonnet and fichu." Penley laughed when asked if he had thought of playing a woman and Thomas explained that the fun would be to see the character's inability to play a womm even though he Iooked like one.19 Thomas agreed to write the play for Penley and decided to set the play in Oxford with undergraduates as the main ~haracters.~'He had visited the city in 1885," and he returned in 1890 to obtain accurate information about the university. Only three and a half weeks afier agreeing to write the play, Thomas completed the first draft of Charlev's Aunt and invited the actor to a reading. Thomas's wife remembers that Penley was "convulsed with laughter, leaning against a wall until he slid down to the Boor, still laughing." At Penley's request, a solicitor drew up a formal agreement that gave Thomas control of casting and rehearsals and stipulated that Thomas's consent was required for any aiterations to the text. Penley paid £50, agreed to produce the play in London and was granted a seven-year iease on the play, with an option to renew for a further seven years.22 It was more than two years before Penley was able to mount Charlefs Aunt in London, and the intervening events contain many simiiarities to, and significant differences fiom, the early history of The Private Secretary. Unlike Charles Hawtrey, Penley had no success in obtaining loans from friends in order to finance the production, and Thomas agreed to a provincial tour of six weeks in order to attract ba~kers.'~They restricted the tour to srnaller towns so that the London critics would not attend "and spoil the publicity before it reached ond don."'^ This decision did not impress one critic who was surprised that the author did not give "London playgoers a preliminary peep at his work through the medium of a Court matinée."25 In accordance with their agreement, Thomas conducted the rehearsals, and Charley's Aunt opened at Bury St. Edmunds on February 29, 1892,26 with the cast show in the Appendix, Table 7." The tour continued in small towns such as Cambridge, where The Private Secretam had its first performance but a tire at the theatre in Oxford prevented a piamed engagement in the city that provided the setting for Thomas's play. The provincial audiences gave Charley's Aunt a good reception: for example, The Cambridge Independent stated that "'Each scene closed with yells of applause louder than those which had preceded them." However, with only a short stay in each tom and perhaps hindered by the absence of publicity from a successful London ruri, the audiences were very ~~arse.~'As a result the tour was not profitable and Penley was unable to find a backer for a London production. Afier some argument, Thomas agreed to an extension of the tour which continued with some cast changes.29 By June 1892 the tour had reached Portsmouth, and Charles Hawtrey was asked to attend a performance with a view to mounting a London production. Apparently he was not impressed. He contended it a mistake to disguise the principal cornedian in wornan's clothes for nearly half the play. He thought the author had missed most of his cpportunities. He did not think the play very funny.... Finally he said that in any case it was not suitable for London as the play only played one hour and a half30

Hawtrey's account of this visit is somewhat different. He relates that Emest Bradley went in his place to see Charlefs Aunt in Portsmouth and it was the latter's unfavourable account of the performance and his opinion that the London public would not accept Penley appearing in women's clothes that decided Hawtrey against producing the play.3' The previous year, Cecil Clay had given Brandon Thomas and Weedon Grossrnith the rights to A Pantomime Rehearsal which they made the centre-piece of an evening's entertainment entitled Triple Bill using the traditional three-item programme that had proved successful on their Amencan tour. The production opened at Terry's Theatre on June 6, 189 1 and ran at various theatres until finally moving to the Court in December when Thomas took over management of that theatre with the backing of a ~yndicate.~'In June 1892, Thomas was still perfoming in A Pantomime Rehearsal but, when he heard the cornments about the provincial production of Charley's Aunt, he attended a weekday matinée in Portsmouth. "What he sawhorrifieci him - his poor play mangled and distorted; badly played, cut to ribbons, and with unauthorized gags in it which he strongly

disapproved of "33 Thomas insisted that the tour end immediately and that no further performances occur until he could oversee a London production.34 Meanwhile, Hawtrey was planning tus own provincial tour and he had to find a production for the Cornedy Theatre because his lease prevented any closure or sub-Ietting of the building. He decided to remount The Pnvate Secretaw and, with the termination of Charley's Aunt's provincial tour, he was able to engage Penley for his original part as Rev. Robert ~~aldin~.~'The revival opened on July 4, 1892 and ran until November, when it was replaced for a few weeks by another of Penley's successes, The Arabian Nights. Hawtrey attributes the renewed popularity of The Pnvate Secretan, to "some clever advertising in the daily papers by my brother, whom I had left in charge at the Comedy ~heatre."~~However, according to The Times the main interest was "the reappearance of Mr. Penley in the part of the meek and long-sufferïng curate." The revival's success onginated from Penley's reenactment of the "quasi-clerical whirnsicalities ... with much of their old spirit and point." This review notes the classless appeal of the incongruity between Spalding's "profession and the absurd and trivial character of his acts," and concludes with the opinion that "the wittiest dialogue could hardly hope to compete in popularity with the old but ever enjoyable 'business7 of Mr. Penley's impersonation."37 Apparently Penley had the same faith in the potential of CharleyysAunt as Hawtrey had for The Private Secretary a decade earlier and, whenever Hawtrey7s provincial tour allowed for a quick visit to London, Penley would try to convince the manager to back Charlefs Aunt. According to Hawtrey, Penley had to produce the play before the end of 1892 or he lost his option under the tems of his agreement with Brandon ~hornas.~'Penley was sufficiently womed that he offered Hawtrey al1 the London rights of Charlev's Aunt in return for the salary he was receiving for playing the Rev. Robert Spalding but Hawtrey was unable to help." By December 1892, Penley was free to perform in Charley's Aunt and the Royalty theatre was available but he informed Thomas that he could not finance a London production. Thomas also attempted to find a backer but was similarly unsuccessful. Finally, Penley received an introduction to a business financier, Mr. Hartmont, who agreed to provide the necessaxy capital,"' in retum for "a huge share of the profits, both tom and co~ntry.'~'In fact the backer provided very little, if any, actual cash: Mrs. Thomas believed that only £60 was used of the f 1000 placed in the bank," and Hawtrey States that less than £500 was advanced and never touched because Charley's Aunt made a profit from the fint week ofits production." Prior to the production, newspaper reports criticised both the theatre and its location. Tnith called the Royalty c'dingy," and a reporter from The Topical Times inentioned "a plentiful supply of curtains about the place to prevent draughts!" When intetviewed for The Pall Mall Gazette, Penley agreed that the theatre's location on Dean Street, some distance from the major London theatres, could be inconvenient but he thought that people would be willing to seek out a good thing. The same publication commented on the delicate task facing Penley in his part as an undergraduate disguised as an old lady, because "we do not in this country like to see a man in a woman's dress."

However, The Figaro- was more optimistic because the author "has never produced anything bad-'* In accordance with their agreement, Thomas conducted the rehearsals and chose the cast that, apart from Penley, only contained Ada Branson and Emily Cudrnore from the original tounng Company (see Tables 7 and 8 in the Appendix). An incident at the dress rehearsal confiirms the authoritarian approach adopted by Thomas. Penley, perhaps concemed by remarks such as those in The Pall Mall Gazette, objected to removing the Aunt's clothes on stage because the audience might consider it improper, even though he was fully dresseâ iri male clothing undemeath. Thomas, in an extreme demonstration of his power, sumrnoned his solicitor to the dress rehearsal to confirm that he could stop the opening performance on the following night if Penley did not act the play as it was ~vritten~~Penley agreed to perform as instnicted and Charlev's Aunt opened on December 2 1, 1892. Charlev's Aunt is an important milestone in the development of British farce and in the history of farce acting. The play incorporates many of the successful laughter- inducing devices of The Private Secretary and of Pinero's farces. At the same time, Penley's performance successhlly integrates the techniques of the traditional low- cornedian with the realistic ensemble acting styles of the late nineteenth-century. He used his artistry as a superb farce actor to involve the audience and to generate uncontrollable laughter from conflicting images whose impropriety contained the potential to antagonise. With its uncontrived progression from one risible situation to another and its skillful combination of farcical business and comedic themes, the play is a precursor of many twentieth-century situation-cornedies and farces. Charley's Aunt is a prime example of the nineteenth-century practice of writing for a specific "star." Penley had asked for a comedy similar to A Highland Legacy, but Thomas believed that farcical elements were essential to suit Penley's whimsical personality that contained "a certain pathos behind his drol~er~.'~~With the character of Lord Fancourt Babberley, Thomas raised the social position of the farcical victim into the anstocracy, continuing the trend begun by Hawtrey and sustained by Pinero. As the cntic for The Saturday Review commented, It is unusua! to find the butt in a farce a gentleman, but the innovation is none the less welcorne. We do not laugh the less heartily at the littie man, and we like him, perforce, al1 the better.'" However, Lord Fancourt, generally referred to as "Babbs," is not the typical farcical victim, because, in a complete change of conventions, the character not only has a successful love interest but also receives several oppominities to reverse the persecution and gain revenge on his tomentors. In an expository opening scene, fellow undergraduates, Jack Chesney and Charley Wykeham, decide to hold a luncheon party to entertain their prospective fiancées, Kitty and Amy. The fortuitous visit of Charley's real aunt will supply the necessary chaperone and they invite Babbs so that he will occupy the aunt while they make their proposais to the young ladies. Penley's first entrance occurs when Babbs enters Jack's room by the window in order to "borrow" some champagne. Jack and Charley prevent his depamire and the violence of this first encounter, between the victim and his antagonists, is very reminiscent of business in The Private Secrem: Enter Jack and Charley, they meet Lord Fancourt nt door and bring hirn back to centre of room.[l] JACK: Hallo, Babbs. (Takes bag [containing the champagne] from Lord Fancourt, puts if on table. ) We've just been over to your rooms to find you. We've been talking about you. LORD FANCOURT: No, really? (To Jack) 1Say, how do you think I'm tooking? JACK (cheerily): Splendid, old chap! LORD FANCOURT: Yes, 1thought you'd be pleased with me. (Takes bag and boks towardr door.) Well, ta-ta! (Charley stops hirn at door. They bring him back as before. [2]Jack fakes bagfrom Lord Fmcourt andputs it on table centre.)48 E. R. Wood's production notes indicate the conflicting images of humour and violence inherent in the seemingly innocuous stage direction 'bring hirn back': They intercept Babbs as he reaches the door. Charley puts his left am through Babbs's left a-rm (as they face each other), Jack puts his right through Babbs's nght, and they whisk him backwards, with his feet trailing or even off the ground, up to the centre table. Al1 Babbs's subsequent attempts to bolt need to be well rehearsed... until they are precisely executed while looking ~~ontaneous.'~

A few lines later Babbs repeats his final words, "Well, ta-fa," raising the audience's expectations for a third repeat of this business. The first wo instances are noted above [1] and [2], and the third occurs in the following section 121. However, a change in the format causes a surprise for the audience that provokes greater laughter at the end of the sequence and indicates that, unlike Spalding, the victim will not acquiesce easi ly :

LORD FANCOURT: .. . Well, ta-ta! (Makes a feint to bok) Jack and Charley miss him and land on table over bag. [3] Lord Fancourt grins. (Act 1, 15)

Ofien preceded by Lord Fancourt's "ta-ta," and with variations to enhance the humour, the image of Babbs trying to escape and being carried back becomes a visual running gag for the rest of the scene: LORD FANCOURT: ...(Pich up bug-) Ta-ta; I'm off! (Attempts to boit towards window.) (Jack intercep and brings him back to table as before.. .) (Act 1, 16)

LORD FANCOURT: (Seizes bug ugain und bolrs CO outside door. ) Jack and Charley bring him buck. turn hirn round and run him up to fable on which he fails face downward. pufting bag on table ... (Act 1, 17) LOW FANCOURT: No thanks, I'm off! Lord Fancourt boits fowards window wifh his bag and is brought back as before. (Act 1, 18) The use of such violence in the opening scenes of a farce has three main purposes. First, the absence of any real pain is an important convention of farcical violence and signifies to the audience that the play is a farce. Second, because laughing at violence conflicts with principles of socially acceptable behaviour, the genre requires actors to perform incongruously, providing an acceptable motivation for the audience's Iaughter and an outIet for the mental energy generated to resolve the conflict. The unnatural, mechanical timing, inherent in the spontaneous preciseness mentioned by E. R. Wood, and the actors' employrnent of unusual or excessive postures, movements and gestures are incongruous because they conflict with normal expectations. The presentation of painless violence affirms the presence of farce and the enactrnent of inconpous images begins the process of laughter creation; together these provide the starting point for gradually increasing waves of laughter. The third objective of farcical violence is to arouse the audience's syrnpathy for the victim and, by association, for the actor. The correct relationships between the audience, the character of Babbs and the actor, Penley, were critical to the success of Charley's Aunt, that, like The Private Secretaq and Pinero's farces, contains potential ly disturbing images and subject matter. I will diverge fiorn my examination of Charley's Aunt, because an understanding of the social and moral conflicts inherent in the play's performance is essential to an accurate appraisal of Penley's artistry. Evoking the audience's sympathy for Lord Fancourt Babberley and for Penley was particuiarly important in a late nineteenth-century production of Charley's Aunt, where the victim was about to dress as a woman in a breach of social conventions that could have ruined the actor's ability to evoke laughter. In a decade that saw the prosecution and imprisonment of for indecent acts with the son of Lord Queensbury, the images of a member of the xistocracy masquerading as a woman contained the distinct possibility of disaster because of the impropriety inherent in such an overt violation of the strict Victorian moral code. Victorian audiences were familiar with the conventions of pantomime that allowed a male actor to play the "dame;" a female, usually low-class, character susceptible to extreme exaggeration and caricature. In the fantastic and mythical environments of pantomime such characterisations were not only possible but expected. However, in farce, the characters must remain plausible even when placed in improbable situations. Furthemore, towards the end of the nineteenth century, the actors had to comply with the trend for more realism in their performances. As a result, the image of a man dressed as a woman not only stretched the parameters of farcical plausibility but also presented Lord Fancourt's actor with the dilemma of maintaining realism without offending the audience. At the same time, the actor had a marvelous opportunity to reveal his artistic ability through the manipuiation of the audience's perception and reception of these conflicting images in order to evoke uncontrolled laughter. Penley's reaction at the dress rehearsal confimns his awareness that the picture of Lord Fancourt Babberley in wornen's clothes could antagonise the audience and adversely affect their reception of the play. Several reviews not oniy mention this danger but also praise, and provide evidence of, Penley's approach to the dilemma. Afier pointing out that Penley contrived to avoid vulgarity of treatment or suggestion, The Times' critic noted that the actor "does not seek to reproduce the strong-minded, red- nosed, masculine female" of the Christmas pantomime, but "pretends merely to masquerade in the rnissing lady's c haractef7in an inoffensive and entertaining way.jO The Saturday Review commented that in Britain "critical opinion and popular sentiment are equally opposed to the assurnption of female characters by male actors," but complimented Penley's portrayal of an old lady because "he has made her the pivot of the pIay, and has drawn genuine laughter throughout three actç of a farcical comedy without a vestige of ~ffence."~'The Athenæum dismissed the play as a trifle but cornrnended Penley's "admirably artistic and comic" performance as an elderly matron and hoped he would "not yield to temptation, and accentuate a part which, droll as it now seems, might easily be rendered repellent ... "52 Al1 these reviews refer to Penley perfoming the part of a woman, even though it is Lord Fancourt Babberley who, within the play, impersonates Charley's aunt. Perhaps the critics did not want to offend their readers by referring to a male anstocrat masquerading as a woman or perhaps Penley created this impression in order to mitigate the eEects of Babbs' appearance. Either situation indicates the potential for a conflict between Victorian moral codes and the character's costume and portrayal. The responses of the critics confirm Penley's artistic ability to control the audience's perception of these conflicts and to direct their response as uncontrolied laughter. The scenes that lead up to Penley's first appearance in women7sclothing help to increase the audience's anticipatory tension for his entrance and the other actors must enhance the effects of this farcical structure in their performances. Babbs's attempts to depart from Jack's rooms continue when he informs Jack and Charley that he has a part in some amateur theatricals and must leave to try on his costume of an old lady. Jack prevents Babbs's escape, sends Brassett for the clothing and insists that Babbs uses his other room to change into the women's garments. (Act I,23) Afier Lord Fancourt's exit, scenes occur with Kitty and Amy, who leave because Charley's aunt, Donna Lucia D7Alvadorez, has not arrived, (Act 1, 26) and between Jack and his father, Sir Francis Chesney, who agrees to pursue the possibility of a wealthy rnamiage rvith Donna Lucia. (Act 1'30-3 1) This section concludes with Chartey's revelation that his aunt has had to delay her visit for a few days. (Act 1, 3 1) As well as furthering the plot and setting up some situations in which Lord Fancourt will later become embroiled, these scenes, with gradually increasing Pace and comedic content, intemie the audience's anticipation for the reappearance of Babbs. Jack and Charley start to worry about the lack of a chaperone for their luncheon w*thAmy and Kitty. However, when they see the girls retuniing, their anxiety rapidly tums into panic adding to the audience's apprehension: CHARLE Y (turning - to Jack j: Here they are! They 're coming ! (Again looking out of window) JACK: What on earth are we to do? (Act 1'32)

Jack sees Babbs dressed as an old lady through the open bedroom door, and his surprise and amazement quickiy change to delight when he realises that Babbs's costume provides a fomiitous solution to the rnissing aunt: LORD FANCOURT (om: 1 Say, Jack, come and look at me! JACK (irritably, gues to upstage door): What the deuce is it? (Opens door, looh ofJI stars back a step in amazement.) By George? Splendid! (To Charley.) Charley, come here quickly! (Act 1'32)

Jack's distinct but quickly changing reactions and his humorous attempts to acquaint Charley with the possibilities increase the anticipatory pressure building up in the audience: [JACK continues] Do you know what a pious fraud is? Charley crosses to Jack. CHAEtLEY (surprised and pded): Pious fraud? JACK: First cousin to a rn irade! (Pushes Charley across him.) Look! CHARLEY (iooks om: What is it? JACK: Babbs - your aunt! [Spoken correctly this and the next line contain an incongnious pmon "Bob's your uncle," meaning a successful conclusion, and "my aunt" being a colloquial euphemism for "don't be stupid," or "my ass."] CWEY: Babbs! (kingupon Jack) My aunt! JACK: It's the only one you've got, so you'll have to make the best of her. (Act 1,32)

The appearance of Lord Fancourt provides the catalyst for the audience to release the pent-up tension as uncontrollable laughter: LORD FANCOURT (om:1 Say - look here - Eder Lord Fancourt, dressed as an old lady, in biack satin, fichu. wig. CUP. etc. Stands smding- How's this? (Then waIh down Ieft, srniling benignly.) (Act I,32)

Brandon Thomas's wife recorded the opening-night audience's increasing laughter followed by their twnultuous response to the incongruous image of Penley dressed as an old lady: The laughter grew louder, the fint night audience thawed and warmed up appreciatively. None knew how the plot was to turn out, and few guessed what disguise Penley was shortly to adopt.... 1 have never heard such a storm of laughter as that with which Penley was received when he appeared in the woman's dress on the first night ...53

Apparently, Penley's appearance not only stopped the show but brought down the curtain. Emily Cudmore left her dressing room to investigate the noise and joined the fireman "who was standing helpless in the Prompt Corner. She... took one look at Penley and collapsed against the bell, ringing the curtain dom in the middle of the first act."'.' With the imminent amval of Amy and Kitty, Jack and Charley coerce Babbs into the role of Charley's aunt and use kicks, punches and pushes to force his acquiescence to the deception. Babbs is a totally unwilling accomplice but, unlike Spalding, Posket or Queckett, he does not become a tormented victim. Ln fact he uses every oppominity to gain revenge on his friends. One such situation, that occurs shortly after Amy and Kitty retum, exemplifies the conflicting visual and verbal images that inundate the audience for the remainder of the play. Babbs is sitting on a chair beside a writing desk down- stage right, Amy cornes down le) of Lord Fancourt. AMY: Oh, I'm so sorry, we have so longed to know you. LORD FANCOURT: Have you, my dear? (Takes Amy '.Y hand.) AMY (standing by Lord Fancourt): Mi. Wykeham has told us so much about you, that he has made us quite love you. Kitty sits by the window, Charley cornes down behind Amy left- LORD FANCOURT (slipping his lefi arm round Amy S waist): Has he, my dear?

Charley takes Lord Fancourt 's arrn away angrily. Lord Fancourt replaces if,C harley pulls it avay again. Amy kneels. Lord Fancourt slips his arm round her shoulders and gives her a quick litlle hug, and 60th the boys a look oftriumph. Charley, fiirious. wak away and sulh. (Act I,36) The newspaper reports conf3rm that Penley's performance, unlike Anson's as the tailor in The Private Secretarv, in no way impinged on moral or social sensibilities. Nevertheless, the audience's omniscient awareness of the deception creates the possibility of some disconcerting images provoked by Babbs' physical contact wïth Amy and his manipulation of the situation for both his own enjoyment and his desire to anger Charley. Penley had to negotiate a fine line to ensure that the audience correctly deciphered the image of a young man dressed as an old woman making improper advances to a young lady, for his own benefit and Charley's discornfort. If the actor uses suitable facial expressions and performs the embraces carefûlly, the audience will see Babbs' pleasure at Amy's closeness and will accept that this is a pretense intended to provoke Charley's jealousy. The audience must believe that Babbs' pleasure derives more fiom successfully discomfiting Charley than from his physical contact with Amy, who can assist the resolution of the conflicting images by reacting suitably to the touch of a fi-iendly old lady. The audience's sympathy for Babbs, because of his predicarnent, and their empathy with Penley, a popular actor whose entrance has just created major laughter, help with the appropriate reception of this scene. An expression of satisfaction on Babbs's face should provoke laughter that unites the actor and the audience in a celebration of victorious revenge. This type of situation repeats regularly throughout Charley' s Aunt but the predicaments become even more equivocal when Babbs has to dea! with the amorous approaches of Sir Francis and then Spettigue. However, there is never any question about Babbs's manliness or his inability to masquerade as a woman. When Amy gives him a

bouquet of flowers he stuffs them down the front of his dress and "mes to see over them. can 'r, sa parts them and peers berneen," causing Brassett (and probably the audience) to "neurly explode" with laughter. (Act I,34) There are also several instances when Jack or Charley have to prevent Babbs revealing his tme gender with such masculine mannerisms as crossing his legs above the knee (Act 1, 36). Nevertheless, both Sir Francis and Spettigue must interact with Babbs as if he is really an eligible widow, even if their main interest is Donna Lucia's inherited wealth. The setting for the second act is the garden outside Jack's rooms at the college, where Babbs has arranged to meet Sir Francis and Spetîigue. Shortly before Sir Francis enters, Babbs pointedly draws attention to the tïousers he is wearing under his skirt and petticoat. This business as in response to Jack's directives "to remember that you7rea real old lady" and to refuse Sir Francis's forthcorning proposa1 of mamage. (Act LI, 58) The laughter generated by the incongrnous images and dialogue of the set-up between Jack and Babbs helps to create anticipation for the farcical potential of the "love" scene between the two men and helps to forestall any negative audience reaction that such a scene could provoke. Babbs's excessive coyness at Sir Francis's appearance, coupled with his attempt to escape "with long strides," adds to the laughter and soothes any possible im'tation of the audience's sensibilities. (Act II, 59) Nevertheless, as Sir Francis verbally pursues his "floweret," succeeds in patting Babbs's hand, makes the proposa1 and receives "her" refusal, it is the detail of the actors? reactions that must stimulate ever louder laughter as the scene progresses. The actors must remain in character and they must play the situation realistically yet humorously. This requires an implicit awareness of the audience's omniscient knowledge about the deception so that, for example, facial expressions are appropriate to the situation and provoke laughter, without disengaging the spectators' attention. The scene between Sir Francis and Babbs contains virtually no farcical business but the situation is completely farcical. The humour relies to a large extent on conflicting images, verbal misunderstandings and incongruities resulting from the disguise and the deception. The audience's knowledge that Babbs is a man creates a conflict between the image of a man proposing mamage to amther man (who is dressed as a woman) and the audience's moral and social standards of acceptable behaviour. Although Sir Francis's ignorance of Babbs' tme identity rnitigates the moral dilemma and substantiaily enhances the humour of the situation, the potential for danger inherent in the conflicting images defines the scene as farcical and not comedic. The actors must use their vocal and physical artistry to control the audience's reception of the images, so that, instead of causing imtation, the conflict dissolves through laughter. The opening- night audience's response to this scene, and two subsequent scenes, confirms the success of this artistic process: The 'proposai' scene between Brandon Thomas and Penley convulsed the audience. The undressing scene which had caused such a mpusat the dress rehearsal went with yells. The tea scene and the faIl of the second curtain left 55 the audience wiping their eyes and sobbing...

Separating these scenes are segments of sentiment and lighter comedy for exarnple when Charley's real aunt arrives with her cornpanion, Ela, and when Jack proposes to Kitty. However, the farcical scenes rely almost totally on the technical expertise and artistry of Penley for the continuing evocation of uncontrollable laughter. With the inclusion of more and more farcical business, the pace of the second act quickens, propelled by the accelerating speed of Spettigue's physical pursuit of Babbs. In a manner similar to a scene in The Schoolmistress, the chase intermpts less farcical and slower action, surprising the audience visually and manipulating the level of tension with rapid fluctuations of pace. Eventually, in its use of the stage and the scenery as farcical tools, the pursuit creates temporal and spatial conflict and the incongmity of the images increases the audience's anticipation as the laughter swells to the climax of the act. The chase begins when Babbs sees Spettigue in the garden just before the arrivai of Donna Lucia and Ela. After again drawing attention to his maIe clothing, Babbs "rzim offquickly throzgh clrchwqy towards chapel." followed by Spettigue who, entering from the garden, "Sees Lord Fancourt ofthrolrgh archway." (Act II, 62) After about six minutes of stage action, Donna Lucia, Ela and Sir Francis exit into the garden and, without any preparatory dialogue, Babbs enters "through chapel arch. runs rupidly across stage. holding up skirts in front, ... and out to garden," followed immediateiy by Spettigue. (Act 11, 69) A light-comedic proposal scene occurs between Kitty and Jack that Iasts about four minutes. Kitty departs and Babbs intermpts a bnef discussion between Jack and Charley when he enters "frontgarden, running. doubles between boys und hides bellincl arch at back. " The presence of jack and Charley requires Spettigue to reduce his pace and stroll across the stage before he "goes out towards Chnpel." (Act 11. 73) The undressing scene follows in which Babbs, unnoticed by his ffiends, gradua1ly strips out of his disguise and final ly "stands grinn ing. hands in trouer pockets. .. but still weuring wig bonnet and mirrem." When Charley sees him, Lord Fancourt bol& through archway at back,followed by Jack, who pich up pett icoat andjichu. C harley pich up dress - round back of scenr - re-enter at Chape( arch afier a second. followed by Speiiigue. Exeunt by back arch, again. They re-enter down b#v Chape! mch still running same order. cross stage to appropriate corner. Lord Fancourt is just disappearing up right as Spettigue appeurs down lefr. (Act II, 75)

Unlike the expsitory re-enactment of the chase in The Magisvate, the audience does not have to imagine this pursuit from a verbal description. Several times prior to the chase, the dialogue contains details of the garden and chape1 allowing the audience to create images of the off-stage environment. Similarly, once the chase begins, the time between the reappearances of Babbs and Spettigue is long enough to indicate the size of the buildings and gardens surrounding the visible area. When Babbs exits after the undressing scene the audience will expect a similar wait, and his re-appearance afier only a few seconds will stade the audience and create a conflict between their perceived image of the setting and the actual stage. Enhanced by the contemporary theatncal convention of pictorial realism, this overt breach of the spectators' temporal and spatial perceptions adds to the incongruous impressions bombarding an audience that is deepty engrossed in the performance. The result, when the chase re-enters the stage, is a major conflict between the audience's desire to resolve the various conflicts and their emotional concentration. Hotvever, the incongruous image of Babbs, appearing in men's clothing but wearing a wig 2nd bonnet, confirms the farcical context and sanctions a burst of laughter powered by the release of the unneeded mental energy. In effect, the loudest laughter occurs when copious intellectual stimulation provoked by a variety of codicting and incongnious images contends with a deep emotional involvement in the performance. After the chase and a technically dificult yet very funny scene in which Babbs reassumes his disguise, Thomas innovatively dispenses with the rule of three and builds to the c1irna.x of the second act with an alrnost continuous strearn of visual and verbal jokes and farcical business that lasts some six minutes, excluding laughter. In the absence of any textual guidance, the effectiveness of this technique relies totally on the artistry of the actors who must maintain their characters, retain the audience's involvement with the performance, and, simultaneousIy, stimulate and control the required length and volume of laughter. Mrs. Thomas confirms the success of this process on the opening night when she reports the audience's belief at the end of the second act that, 'They [the actors] can't keep it up another a~t.~'~~However, as Saturday Review noted, "the third act is the best and briskest of the three, and the interest increases consistently to the very end-a most excellent thing in farce as in other things. "" The third act is set in Mr. Speîiigue's drawing room and continues to exploit the incongmity of Babbs's disguise in a sequence of scenes that culminate with Donna Lucia revealing her true identity, Babbs reverting to evening dress and the various nuptial pursuits reaching successfüi conclusions. One scene in particular requires considerable skill on the part of Lord Fancourt's actor and Penley's performance verifies his artistic abilities. Apparently Penley was temfied of performing this scene, between Ela and Babbs, in which she reveals her gratitude and love for a man who played cards with her dying father and lost deliberately, in order to restore her father's finances. Both Babbs and the audience are fully aware that he is the focus of Ela's affections and Penley objected that the audience would roar with laughter. Thomas agreed that the audience would laugh, but noted that they would be "laughing 'with you' in sympathy. That is the art of corne^^."^^ The scene between Ela and Babbs is full of sentirnentality, which in itself conflicts with the incongruity of the farcical situation that the audience's superior knûwledge creates. This mixing of genres is rerniniscent of Pinero's early plays, when the author blamed the adverse critical reaction on the actors' performances, and of the Iater farces when the audiences were confused as to the correct response. The use of incongruities and conflicts to provoke laughter at a potentially sentimental situation adds considrably to the responsibilities of the performers. It is primarily the actors who must create and maintain the audience's emotional concentration on, and participation with, the performance, preventing any intellectual analysis that might distract or cause confusion. Thomas's biographer confïrms Penley's preeminent abilities in this respect: To imitate and caricature Penley's manner and pecuiiar voice was never dificult but it was less easy to give an idea of his dramatic power. He knew just how much to do and how much to leave undone, he could Say the most incongruous things with an air of simplicity and innocence that was irresistible and could hold an audience in the hollow of his hand, making them roar with Iaughter with a word or a look. ... Brandon Thomas once expressed his opinion of Penley as an artist in these words: A genius - in personal ity and performance incomparable.59

The reviews of Penley's performance in Charley7sAunt confirm these comments. The Era remarked that: "There is no one part of this penley's] impersonation that may be called better than the rest-it is al1 so droll and dl irresistibly provocative of mirth.7m The Theatre, although unable to accept farce acting as "high art," praised Penley in a sequence of superlative comparisons: '1s the play worth playing,' is the query, and the answer comes pat 'it al1 depends on the player.' .. . But the central figure is everything. It is Sayers in the ring, Pitt in the Commons, Napoleon at Austerlitz. Given the Man of Destiny in the character, the piece is a hYo hours7 triumph. Exchange him for a dummy, and a fiasco could hardly be averted. Luckily Mr. Penley and the Man of Destiny are one!'

The Era continued its praise of Penley, referring to the shrieks of merriment kom the first night's audience when the actor was on stage and noting the generally held opinion that his performance was "the very funniest thing seen in London in recent years." This review attributed the play's success mainly to Mr. Penley and concluded that "the farcical comedy, which was received with as much cheering as laughter, ... will doubtless run for rn~nths.~'The Star declared that Penley was a public benefactor "more useful to the civilized world than a Cabinet Minister or his Grace the Archbishop of ~anterbur~.'"~ The immediate and enormous success of Charley's Aunt necessitated a move to a Iarger theatre and on Ianuary 30, 1893, aRer only a few weeks at the Royalty, the production, in a remarkable coincidence, reopened at the Globe theatre, the site of Penley's first London triumph in The Private Secretaq. By rnid-February advance bookings had reached "the extraordinary sum of £4,500.'"' Before the end of March, The Piccadilly advised people who wanted to see Chariefs Aunt before Christmas to start booking because reservations for October were already being made. Advance sales were now f !~,ooo.~~In an interview with The Sketch, Penley joked that the play wvould have to move to St. Paul's Cathedra1 or the Albert Hall in order to accommodate the dernand and renarked more seriously on the amount of preparation involved: .A is by no means an easy part to play; it took a lot of study, for it is full of business, .... People have no idea of the care that has been taken over every little detail?

Huberman concludes that "despite iü Victorian ongins, Charlev's Aunt has achieved a kind of artistic universality that transcends cultures and languages-surely the mark of a great work of art!' I would add that it is the mark of great artistry that Penley and the other actors utilised the conflict between the play's images and the social and moral attitudes of late nineteenth-century England and united with the audience in the stimulation of uncontrolled laughter, the desired artistic response to farce. No tes

Michael R Booth, ed., EngIish Plays of the Nineteenth Centurv: IV. Farce, (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1975) 15. 2 Jeffiey H. Huberman, Late Victorian Farce, Theater and Dramatic Studies Ser., ed. Oscar G. Brockett, (Am Arbor, Michigan: U.M.1, Research Press, 1986) 1 17. 3 Huberman, 129, &om Amy Brandon-Thomas, Silvia Brandon-Thomas, and Jevan Brandon- Thomas, "Program [sic] Notes," Souvenir Program lsicl of Charley's Aunt, Sixtieth Anniversary Production, Coronation Year 1953, 21. ' E. R Wood, ed., Charley's Aunk (London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1969) vii. 5 Brandon-Thomas, Jevan, Charlev's Aunt's Father: A Life of Brandon Thomas, (London: Douglas Saunders with Macgibbon & Kee, 1955) 40-4 1. 6 Brandon-Thomizs, 49. 7 Brandon-Thomas, 75. 8 Brandon-Thomas, 99- 10 2. 9 Brandon-Thomas, 106- 106. 10 Brandon-Thomas, 112. 1 I Brandon-Thomas, quoting a letter fiom Brandon Thomas to Marguerite Leverson, Ianuary 20, 1887, 115. 12 Brandon-Thomas, 12 1. 13 Brandon-Thomas, 127- 129. 1.8 Brandon-Thomas, 122. " Brandon-Thomas, 142. l6 Brandon-Thomas, 142. '' Brandon-Thomas, 142. lg Brandon-Thomas, 147. l9 Brandon-Thomas, 148. 20 Brandon-Thomas, 148. 21 Brandon-Thomas, 97. 22 Brandon-Thomas, 156. 23 Brandon-Thomas, 166. 24 Brandon-Thomas, 167. 2s Brandon-Thomas, 167 quoting The IIlustrated Sportina and Dramatic News. 26 Brandon-Thomas, 167. 27 Brandon-Thomas, 167. 2g Brandon-Thomzs, 168- 169. 29 Brandon-Thomas, 169-170. 30 Brandon-Thomas, 172. 3' Charles Hawtrey, The Tmth at Last from Charles Hawtrev, ed. W. Somerset Maugham, (London: Thornton Butterworth Ltd., 1924) 229. 32 Brandon-Thomas, 159- 162. 33 Brandon-Thomas, 172. 34 Brandon-Thomas, 173. 35 Hawtrey, 227-228. 36 Hawtrey, 228. 37 The Times, My5, 1892, 10. 3s There is no mention of this obligation in Brandon-Thomas' biography. 39 Kawtrey, 228-229. Brandon-Thomas, 173-174. 4 1 Hawtrey, 229. 42 Brandon-Thomas, 173- 174. '' Hawtrey, 229. 54 Brandon-Thomas, 175, quoting the various undated publications. 4s Brandon-Thomas, 175- 176. 46 Brandon-Thomas, 149. 47 The Saturday Review, Decernber 24, 1892, 74 1- 48 Brandon Thomas, Charley's Aunt, Act 1, p. 15. Quotations Eiom the play are from the 1969 Heinemann edition, noted above. I will note fbrther references wi-thin the text using the act number and the page number from this edition. 49 E. R Wood, 1 !2. sa The Times, Decernber 22, 1892, 10. 51 The Saturday Review, Decernber 24, 1892, 74 1. 52 The Athenaeum, 3401, Decernber 3 1, 1 892,93 1. Brandon-Thomas, 177. 54 Brandon-Thomas, 177. 55 Brandon-Thomas, 178. It is necessary to assume that the biographer has acçess to documentary evidence to support this observation of the opening ~ghtaudience's response. 56 Brandon-Thomas. 178. 57 The Saturday Review, December 24, \892,74 1. Brandon-Thomas, 155. 59 Brandon-Thomas, 147- 148. The Era, Decernber 22, 1892. 61 Charles Eglington, ed., The Theatre, n. S. vol. XXI, (London, 1893) 97-98. '' The Era, December 22, L892. Brandon-Thomas, 178- 179. 64 Brandon-Thomas, 180, quoting The Citizen, Febmary 1 1, 1893. 6s Brandon-Thomas, 180, quoting The Piccadillv, March 23, 18%. 66 The Sketch, Febmary 22, 1893. 233. 67 Huberman, 129. THE CONTINUATION OF CONFLICT

In the introduction I quoted Ken Dodd's wish that the key to humour should never be discovered or disclosed. Although 1 do not claim to have found the code that has eluded literary and dramatic scholars, philosophers and psychologists, I have shown that actors are prirnarily responsible for the stimulation of laughter in farce. The incongnious portrayal of respectable characters in farcical situations and the presentation of thematic images that conflict with acceptable social standards are integral not only to those farces that I have examined but also to others of the period. The artistic objective of the actors was to stimulate laughter by the effective enactrnent these incongrnous images. The plays of other genres may require literary analysis in order to assess the art of the playwright, but only in performance can the audience, with the facilitation of the actors, fully appreciate the Laughter-provoking verbal and visual images of farce. Also in the introduction I drew attention to Jeffrey Hubbeman's view that the period 1884 to 1893 was a Golden Age of British farce and, based on the unprecedented popularity of farce during this period, his assessrnent is certainly accurate. The farces of this Golden Age were the successful product of a period when considerable changes were taking place to the theatre industry. For example, Brandon Thomas followed the older tradition by writing Charlev's Aunt specifically for W. S. Penley, but the whole cast had to work together in order to provoke laughter from the audience. The play's humour is based entirely on Iate-Victorian British society but relies on the effective performance of incongmity and conflicting images. As a result, Charley's Aunt has retained its popularity throughout much of the twentieth century. However, by the end of the twentieth century, the images no longer contain that potential to antagonise which is essential to the creâtion of humour. In a recent production of Charley's Aunt, at the Macpherson Theatre in Victoria, the images of farcical violence were the main causes of laughter but the audience reacted only slightly to the appearance of Babbs in wornen's clothes. One trend, apparent in Pinero's earlier plays and later farces, was the mixing of genres. While Pinero's experiments were not generally successful, because the audience were confused about the correct response, the spectators seern to have accepted the mixing of romance and farce in Charlev's Aunt. The proliferation of art movements during this period, and into the twentieth century, has resulted in the emergence of new genres and at the same time the traditional genres have fiagmented and recombined in ever-increasing complexity. Farce has not been immune to this process. The "knockabout" humour of farce became the "slapstick" of such North Amencan performers as the Marx Brothers and Jerry Lewis. Incongnious images, farcical violence and conflicts with social values are an integral pan of Charlie Chaplin's movies and of the more recent television series, Monw Pvthon's Flying Circus. Nevertheless, the three- act British farce has retained many of the textual attributes and performance requirernents detailed in this analysis. During the latter half of the twentieth centwy a resurgence in the popularity of the British farce has occurred in London, and there have been occasions when the genre has almost monopolised the stages of West End theatres. The British stage farce has continued to incorporate conflicting images and to use subject matter that has the potential to antagonise. The plays of Alan Ayckboum oflen contain images that create spatial and temporal conflict for the audience. In one of his early piays, How The Other Half Loves, the only setting is a composite of two Living rooms in different houses. Initiaily, the actors must comrnunicate the spatial arrangements and furniture of each roorn to the audience. However, once the audience is sufficiently aware of the distinctive parts, the actors have many opportunities to use the inherent potential for conflict to instigate laughter. For example, an actorkharacter may seem about to sit on a chair or touch something in the "other" living room, but, with an adequately motivated change of direction, the character aborts the move at the last moment. Correctly executed, this type of business will cause considerable laughter, because the audience must release the tension that builds up when the actor appears about to make a mistake. The farcical climax of How The Other Half Loves is the concurrent presentation on stage of a dinner party taking place in each living room on consecutive nights. The result is great potential for images of temporal and spatial conflict that the actors must enhance in order to induce laughter. This manipulation of the audiences' spatial, temporal and theatrical awareness continues in Ayckboum's comedic trïlogy The Noman Conquests. Each play covers the sarne time period and has the same characters but takes place in a different part of the home; the dining room, the kitchen and the garden, respectively. The overtly theatncal Noises Off presents, in three acts, the rehearsal, the back-stage action and the performance of one part of a play. This scenario contains considerable potential for the portrayal of incongruous and conflicting images. However the effective enactment and exploitation of these images is a challenge to the skill and artistry of the actors who must perform characters piaying characters and maintain the ernpathic rapport with the audience needed to maximise laughter. If Alan Ayckboum's plays are representative, it appears that scripts have becone considerably more cornplex requiring even greater expertise from the actors in deciphering and accurately performing the farcical signifiers and conflicting images. An examination and analysis of the performance of farce in the 1st thirty years might confimi that another Golden Age has occurred. Newspapers and PeriodicaIs

The bibliographical references for newspapers and periodicals are restricted to those works cited in the text and represent only a proportion of the actual documents examined.

The Athenzum. No. 34 1 1, March 11, 1893; No. 340 1, December 3 1, 1892.

The Era, December 22, 1892; March 1 1, 1893.

The Illustrated London News. January 15, 1887; January 26, 1884; January 26, 1884; March 20, 1886; April3, 1886; April24, 1886; May 1, 1886.

The Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News. January 19, 1884; January 26, 1884; February 23, 1884; March 8, 1884; March 29, 1884; April5, 1884; Apd 26, 1884; May 17, 1884; May 24, 1884; June 14, 1884; July 19, 1884; July 26, 1884; August 16, 1884; September 13, 1884.

The Saturday Review. January 26, 1884; March 8, 1884; ApriI 5, 1884; May 1, 1886; May 15, 1886; December 24, 1892; July 28, 1894.

The Sketch. February 22, 1893; March 15, 1893; April 5, 1893.

The Theatre. New series, vol. V, January to f une 1885. London, 1885. The Theatre. New series, vol. W, January to June 1886. London, 1886. The Theatre. New series, vol. XXI, January to Sune 1893. London, 1893.

The Times. January 4, 1884; January 14, 1884; January 15, 1884; January 19, 1884; January 19, 1884; February 29, 1884; March 24, 1884; March 29, 1 884; March 3 1, 1884; April 8, 1884; April22, 1884; May 1, 1884; May 8, 1884; May 17, 1884; May 19, 1884; May 2 1, 1884; March 23, 1885; March 29, 1886; April 17, 1886; April26, 1886; January 19, 1887; March 16, 1887; July 1 1, 1887; September 20, Z 887; November 7, 1887; July 5, 1892; March 8, 1593,

The Plays

Hawtrey, Charles. The Private Secretaw. French's acting edition. London: Samuel French Ltd.; New York: Samuel French, 1907.

Pinero, A. W. Dandv Dick. London: William Heinemann, 1893. -. The Amazons. Boston: W, H. Baker & Co., 1895.

-- The Mapistrate. Anthologised in Michael R. Booth, ed. and intro. English Plavs of the Nineteenth Century: IV. Farces, (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1975)

---. The Schoolmistress. Anthologised in George Rowell, ed., intro. & notes. Plavs bv A. W. Pinero. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge W, 1986.

Thomas, Brandon. Charley's Aunt, E. R-Wood, ed., intro and notes. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1969.

Apart From the above plays that provide the basis for the performance analyses, the foIlowing late nineteenth-century farces and cornedies were also read and examined for farcical structure and content.

Albery, James. The Pink Dominos. Ln The Dramatic Works ofJames Albery. Vol. II. Ed. Wyndharn Albery. London: Peter Davies, 1939.

Feydeau, George. Get Out of mv Hair! Trans. Frederick Davies. In Three French Farces. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1973.

---- . Keep an Eye on Arnelie. English version Brainerd Dufield. In Let's Get A Divorce! and Other Plays. Ed. Eric Bentley. New York: Hill and Wang, 19%.

Gilbert, W. S. Tom Cobb or, Forturie's Toy. London: Samuel French; New York: Samual French & Son, nd.

Gx-undy, Sidney. The Arabian Nights. London: Samuel French; New York: T. Henry French. Nd.

-- - A Pair of Spectacles. In ed. George Rowel. Nineteenth Century Plays. London: Oxford UP, 1953.

-- . The Snowball. London: Samuel French, nd- In eds. Allardyce Nicoll and George Freedley. English and American Drama of the Nineteenth Centurv. Readex Microprint.

Heathcote, A. M. The Duchess of Bavswater and Co. London: Samuel French; New York: T. Henry French. Nd. Labiche, Eugene and Edmond Gondinet. The Happiest of the Three. Trans. Frederick Davies. In Three French Farces. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1973.

-and Marc Michel. An Italian Straw Hat. English version Lynn and Theodore Hoffman. In The Modem Theatre. Vol. 3. Ed. Eric Bentley. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1955.

--- and A. DeIacour. Pots of Money. Trans. Albert Bermel- New York: New Arnerican Library, 196 1.

--- and Edouard Martin- A Trip Abroad. English version R. H. Ward. In Let's Get A Divorce! and Other Plavs. Ed. Eric Bentley. New York: Hill and Wang, 1958.

Other Works

Archer, Frank. An Actor's Notebooks. London: Stanley Paul & Co., n.d.

Baker, Henry Barton. Our 01d Actors. Vol. 2 of 2 vols. London: Richard Bentley & Son, 1878.

Baker, Michael. The Rise of the Victorian Actor. London: Croom Helm; New Jersey: Roman and Littlefield, 1978.

Bentley, Eric. "The Psychology of Farce." Intro. to Let's Get A Divorce! and Other Plays. Ed. Eric Bentlsy. New York: Hill and Wang, 1958.

Bergson, Henri. Laughter: An Essav on the Meanine: of the Comic. Trans. Cloudesley Brereton & Fred Rothwell. London: MacMillan and Co. Ltd., 19 1 1.

Bermel, Albert. Farce: A Histow from Anstophanes to Woody Allen. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982.

Booth, Michael R., ed. Introduction. English Plavs of the Nineteenth Centuw: IV. Farces. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1975.

--- - Theatre in the Victorian Age. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 199 1.

Brandon-Thomas, Jevan. Charlev's Aunt's Fathec A Life of Brandon Thomas. London: Douglas Saunders with Macgibbon & Kee, 1955. Caputi, Anthony. Buffo: The Genius of Low Cornedy. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1978.

Coleman, John. Players and Plavwrights 1 Have Known. 2 vols. London: Chatto & Windus, 1888.

Cran, Mrs. George. Herbert Beerbohm Tree. In the series Stars of the Stage. Ed. J. T. Grein. London: John Lane, The Bodley Head; New York: John Lane Company, 1907.

Chapman, Anthony J. & Hugh C. Foot. Humour and Laughtec Theon., Research and A~pIications. London: John Wiley & Sons, 1976.

-- . it's A Funnv Thing, Humour: International Conference on Humour and Laughter, Cardiff, Wales, 1976. Foreword B. M. Foss. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1977.

Darlington, W. A. The Actor and his Audience. London: Phoenix House, 1949.

Davis, Jessica Milner. Farce. London: Methuen, 1978.

Day, W. C. Behind the Footlights; or, The Stage as 1Knew It. London & New York: Frederick Wame and Co., 1885.

Feinberg, Leonard. The Secret of Humour. Amsterdam: Rodopi N. V., 1978.

Filon, Augustin. The English Stage: Being an Account of the Victorian Drama. Trans. Frederic Whyte. Intro. . London: John Milne; New York, Dodd, Mead, & Company, 1897.

Flieger, Jerry Aline. The Purloined Punch Line: Freud's Comic Theow and the Postmodern Text. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins W, 199 1.

FouIkes, Richard. British Theatre in the 1890s: essavs on drarna and the stage. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992.

Freud, Sigmund. Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. Ed. & trans. James Strachey. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Inc., 1963.

Fyfe, Hamilton Sir Arthur Pinero's Plays and Players. London: Ernest Benn Limited, f 930. Glasstone, Victor. Victonan and Edwardian Theatres: An Architectural and Social Survey. London: Thames and Hudson, 1975.

Greig, J. Y. T. The Psycholo~of Laughter and Comedy. New York: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1969, originally published 1923.

Grossmith, Weedon. From Studio to Stage: Reminiscences of Weedon Grossmith, written by himself. London: John Lane, The Bodley Head; NewYork: John Lane Company; Toronto: Bell & Cockbum, 19 13.

Gruber, William E. Comic Theaters: Studies in Performance and Audience Response. Athens and London: U of Georgia Press, 1986.

Hawtrey, Charles. The Tmth at Last from Charles Hawtrey. Ed. and intro. W. Somerset Maugham. London: Thomton Butterworth Ltd., 1924.

HolIand, Norman N. Laughin~:A Psychologv of Hurnor. lthaca & London: Comell UP, 1982.

Huberman, Jeffrey H. Late Victorian Farce. ln the senes, Theater and Drarnatic Studies, No- 40, ed. Oscar G. Brockeît. Ann Arbor, Michigan: U.M.I. Research Press, 1986.

Hudson, Lynton. The Ennlish Stage: 1850-1950. London: George Harrap & Co. Ltd., 1951.

Jenkins, Anthony. The Making of Victorian Drarna. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 199 1.

Knight, Joseph. Theatrical Notes. New York: Benjamin Blom, 197 1. First published, London, 1893,

---- . A History of the Stage. London: Spottiswoode, 190 1 . Reprïnted in series, The Viciorian Muse. Eds. William E. Fredernan, Ira Bruce Nadel & John F. Stasney. New York & London: Garland Publishing Inc., 1986.

Lauter, Paul. Ed. & intro. Theories of Cornedv. Garden City, N.Y.:Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1964-

Lennox, Lord William Pitt. Plavs, Players and Playhouses at Home and Abroad: with anecdotes of the drama and the stage. London: Hurst and Blackett, 188 1. Lewes, George Henry. On Actors and the Art of Acting New York: Grove Press, nd. Originally published 1875.

Marston, Westland. Our Recent Actors. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington, 1890.

Morreall, John, ed- & intro. The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor. Albany: State U of New York P, 1987.

Niche!!, Allardyce. A Histow of Late Nineteenth Centuw Drama 1850 - 1900. Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge üP, 1946.

Pearson, Hesketh. Beerbohrn Tree: His Life and Laughter. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd., 1956.

Rowell, George. Theatre in the Age of Irving- Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 198 1.

---- . The Victorian Theatre 1792-19 14: A Survev. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1978.

Salaman, Malcolm C. lntroduction to Arthur W. Pinero, The Amazons. Boston: Walter H. Baker & Co-, 1895.

Seward, Samuel S. Jr. The Psradox of the Ludicrous. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1930-

Scott, Clement. The Drama of Yesterdav & To-day. 2 Vols. London & NewYork: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1899.

Stephens, John Russell. The Profession of the Playwright: British theatre 1800- 1900. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992.

Taylor, George. Plavers and Performances in the Victorian Theatre. Manchester & New York: Manchester UP, 1989.

Warrington, John, intro. & trans. kïstotie's Poetics. Dernetrius on S~le,Longinus on the Sublime, (London: Dent; NewYork: Dutton; Everyman's Press, 1963).

Weanng, J.P., ed The Collected Letters of Sir Arthur Pinero. Minneapolis: U. of Minnesota Press, 1974. Wood, E- R., ed., intro and notes. Charlev's Aunt. London: Heînemam Educational Books Ltd., 1969.

Woodfield, James. English Theatre in Transition 188 1- 19 14. London & Sydney: Croom Helm; Torowa, New Jersey: Barnes & Noble, 1984.

Whyte, Fredenc. Actors of the Centuw: A Play-Lover's Gleanings from Theatrical Annals. London: George Bell and Sons, 1898. This appendix contains tables of the casts that are referred to in the text.

Table 2: A cornparison of the two London cas& of The Private Secretary Character's Name Cast at Prince's Theatre Cast at Globe Theatre Mr. Marsland, M- F. H- Mr- A. Beaumont Mr. A. Beaumont Hamy Mars land Mr. H. Reeves Smith Mr. H. Reeves Smith Mr. CattermoIe MI. W. J. Hill Mr. W. J- Hill Douglas Cattermole Mr. R. C. Carton Mr. C. Hawtrey Rev. Robert Spalding Mr. H. Beerbohm Tree Mr. W. S, Penley Mr. Sydney Gibson Mr. G. W. Anson Mr. J. Taylor Edith Marsland Miss Lucy Buckstone Miss Vane Featherstone Eva Webster Miss Tilbury Miss Maud Miliett Mrs, Stead Mrs. Leigh Murray Mrs. Leigh Murray Miss Ashford Mrs. Stephens Mrs. Stephens

Table 3: The Cast of The Mas&ate, Court Theatre, March 2 2, 1885 Mr. Posket Mr. Arthur Cecil Mr. BulIamy Mr. Fred Cape Colonel Lw ME John Clayton Capt. Horace Vale Mr. F. Kerr Cis Farrïngdon Mr. K. Eversfield Achille Blond Mr. Chevalier Isidore Mr- Deane Mr. Wormington MiGilbert Trent Inspecter Messiter Mr. Albert Sims Sergeant Lugg Mr. Lugg Constable Hamk Mr. Burnley Wyke Mr. Fayre Agatha Posket Mrs- John Wood Charlotte Miss Beatie Tomlinson Miss Norreys Popham Miss La Coste Table 4: The Cast of The Schoolmistress, Court Theatre, March 27, 1886 The Hon. Vere Queckett Mr. Arthur Cecil Miss Dyott Mrs- John Wood Rear-Admiral Archibald Rankling, C.B. Mrs. Rankling Miss Emily Cross Mr. John CIayton Lieut. John Mallory Mr. F. Kerr Dinah Rankling Miss Cudmore MiSaunders Mr- Edwin Victor Gwendoline Hawkins Miss Viney Mr. Reginald Paulover Mr. H. Ermyntmde Johnson Miss La Coste Eversfield Mr. Otto Bernstein Mr. Chevalier Peggy Hesslerigge Miss Norreys Tyler Mr. W. Phillips Jane Chipman Miss Roche Goff Mr. Fred Cape Jaffray Mr. Sugg

Table 5: Cast of Dandy Dick, Court Theatre, January 27, 1887 The Very Rev. Mr. John Clayton Sir Tristam Mardon Mr. Edmund Augustin Jedd, D.D. Maurice Major Tarver Mr- F. Kerr Mr. Darbey Mr. H. Eversfield Blore Mr. Arthur Cecil Noah Topping Mr. W. H. Denny Hatcham Mr. W. Lugg Georgiana Tidman Mrs. John Wood Salome Miss Marie Lewes Sheba Miss Norreys Hannah Miss Laura Linden

Table 6: The Cast of The Amazons, Court Theatre, March 7, 1893 Ga1fred, Earl of Tweenwayes Mr. Weedon Grossmith Barrington, Viscount Litterly Mr. F. Kerr André, Count de Grival Mr. Elliott Rev. Roger Minchin Mr. J. Beauchamp Filton (A Gamekeeper) Mr. W. Quinton Youatt (A Servant) Mr. Compton Coutts Orts (A Poacher) Mr. R. Nainby Miriam, Marchioness of Castlejordan Miss Rose Leclerq Lady NoeIine Belturbet Miss LiIy Hanbury Lady Wilhelmina Belnirbet Miss Ellaline Terriss Lady Thornasin Belturbet Miss Pattie Browne "Sergeant" Shuter Miss Marianne Caldwell Table 7: The Cast of Charley's Aunt, Bury St. Edmunds Theatre, February 29, 1892 Stephen Spettigue Mr. Henry Crisp Colonel Sir Francis C hesney Mr. Arthur Styan Jack Chesney Mr. Wilton Heriot CharIey Wykeham Mr. Emest Lawford Lord Fancourt Babberley Mr. W. S. Penley Brassett Mr. Hamy Nelson The New Footman Mr. Charles King Donna Lucia D'AIvadorez Miss Ada Branson Amy Spettigue Miss Lena Burleigli Kitty Verdun Miss Dora De Winton Ela Delahay Miss Emily Cudmore

Table 8: The Cast of Charley's Aunt, Royalty Theatre, December 2 1, 1892 Stephen Spettigue Mr. Emest Wendrie Colonel Sir Francis Chesney, Bart Mr. Brandon Thomas Jack Chesney Mr. Percy LyndaI Charley Wykeham Mr- H. Farmer Lord Fancourt Babberley Mr. W. S. PenIey Brassett Mr. Cecil Thornbury Donna Lucia D' Alvadorez Miss Ada Branson Amy Spettigue Miss Kate Gordon Kitty Verdun Miss Nina Boucicault Ela Delahay Miss Emily Cudmore IMAGE NALUATION TEST TARGET (QA-3)

APPLIED - liVL4GE. lnc -= 1653 East Main Street -----. Rochester, NY 14609 USA a- --a- --- Phone: 716/482-0300 ---- Fax: 71 61288-5989

O 1993. Applied Image. Inc-. All Rights Resewed