John Galsworthy's letters to Leon Lion 9783111400303, 9783111037448

Citation preview

STUDIES IN ENGLISH Volume

LITERATURE XV

JOHN GALSWORTHY'S LETTERS TO LEON LION by

ASHER B O L D O N WILSON

G8 1968

MOUTON THE HAGUE · PARIS

© Copyright 1968 in The Netherlands. Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 67-27214

Printed in The Netherlands by Mouton & Co., Printers, The Hague

PREFACE

The following work is an annotated edition of the letters written by John Galsworthy to Leon M. Lion together with an introduction setting forth facts and judgments upon Galsworthy's career in the theatre. The letters are now a part of the manuscript collections of the Bender Room at the Leland Stanford Junior University Library. Upon the death of Leon Lion in 1946 his estate contained the letters which follow. These were offered for sale, and were purchased for the Stanford Library by Miss Janet Hitchcock with University funds made available by Dr. John Dodds and Dr. Norman Philbrick. The writer was privileged to be consulted for a judgment on the value of the letters. After purchase the letters were set in chronological order, for some were without dates of composition, given short descriptions and filed. Thereafter the collection was microfilmed. No letters in the collection, however incidental to the concerns of the theatre of the time, have been omitted from this work. This action seems justifiable on two grounds. First, the collection should be published so that others than those who have access to the Bender manuscripts may read them. Second, the subject of the work is not the British theatre of the nineteen twenties but John Galsworthy's relation to the London theatre of the nineteen twenties in the person of one theatrical producer, Leon Lion. The record of this relationship between a playwright and his producer is discursive at times, even to being picayune, while at other times it is filled with ellipses which are present with the consent of both parties. Thus Lion's Jewish antecedents are never mentioned

6

PREFACE

though Galsworthy composed the play Loyalties with its fiery character of De Levis, the English Jew, in the summer he met Lion. Further, though Galsworthy was always concerned about the marriage laws of Britain and particularly about the married woman who is declassed by divorce, there is no mention of this concern in the letters though Lion was divorced during the period of the correspondence. It would seem that it is just this proportion of things which lends an air of credence to the correspondence. For, Parson Weems to the contrary, men's lives do not resolve into cautionary tales but range more widely and show a pattern more variegated if not so pithy. It is hoped that the introduction to the letters will ameliorate this absence of form which besets the body of the text. The introduction sets forth the major characters of the correspondence, Lion, Galsworthy and Harley Granville Barker, Galsworthy's theatre mentor. It also attempts to give sufficient history of the London stage just before and after the first World War to make a reading of the letters intelligible. Portland, Ore. 1964

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

5

PART I: INTRODUCTION

I. Galsworthy in the pre-war London Theatre . . . II. Galsworthy in the post-war London Theatre . . III. The playwright's development

11 29 56

PART II: THE LETTERS

IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X.

The Grein-Lion Cycle of 1922 Interlude Escape Interlude Festival in Paris and Exiled Interlude The Revivals of 1932

89 121 137 155 165 188 205

Appendix

217

Bibliography

224

Part I INTRODUCTION

I GALSWORTHY IN THE PRE-WAR LONDON THEATRE

Together with George Bernard Shaw, James M. Barrie and Harley Granville Barker, John Galsworthy is considered one of the major playwrights of the renaissance of British drama which occurred between the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the first World War. Of this quartet two, Granville Barker and John Galsworthy, were self-declared writers in the naturalistic mode of play writing. Galsworthy wrote and spoke extensively throughout his quarter of a century as a playwright upon his theories of the nature of drama. Galsworthy conceived of the action of a play arising from the interplay of character and circumstance. As in life, as Galsworthy saw it, where each grouping of persons and environment showed an inherent moral or preachment, so in the play, as Galsworthy attempted to make it, the interplay of character and circumstance should be roughly shaped to an idea or argument. But past such rough shaping of the tenor of the play the playwright was bound by his characters, for it was from character that the drama drew its vitality. Only through a clear and honest revelation of the nature of character could the playwright gain the sense of inevitability which was necessary to a successful naturalistic play. In his most extreme statement of this position Galsworthy held that the human being was the plot, and he was a good plot because he was organic, and a play to be a good play must be organic.1 According to Galsworthy, a character in a play though he might be 1 John Galsworthy, The Inn of Tranquillity (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1912), p. 193.

12

GALSWORTHY IN THE PRE-WAR LONDON THEATRE

subordinated to the play's over-all design, was not the product of reason. Rather, he was the product of the deepest feelings of the author. The process of the character's delineation was controlled by an initial error in his own actions, an error which the author had predicated in the design of the play, but from that point on the only controls on the delineation of the character were the author's sure concept of the character's temperament and his instinctive sense of selection of materials which fit the germinal notion of the play. This concern with character and its proper delineation in the persons of the play was shared with Galsworthy by Granville Barker, producer of the majority of Galsworthy's plays before the first World War and himself a playwright in the naturalistic mode. His productions of Galsworthy's earlier plays are still considered definitive. Galsworthy had had no training in the theatre before he worked with Barker and throughout his life Galsworthy considered Barker without peer in the matter of casting and rehearsing plays of this type. Thus it is natural to find Galsworthy and Barker in concurrence on the nature of character. Correspondence between Galsworthy and Barker, between Barker and other theatre persons, and between Galsworthy and others all shows the same view of the nature of character. To Galsworthy and Barker, character was an essence, hard to describe but capable of definition, measureable in the amount present or absent in a person and, to a degree, predictable in response to other persons or events. In short, Galsworthy and Barkker believed in a psychology of types. This can be seen in the following letter from Galsworthy to Barker concerning the characters in Galsworthy's first play, The Silver Box. The keynote of Barthwick is want of courage. He thinks himself full of principle and invariably compromises in the face of facts. The keynote of Mrs. Barthwick is want of imagination. Her imagination is only once aroused, and that by a personal touch, viz. by the child's crying at the end of Act II. . . . Mrs. Barthwick is not more than fifty and well preserved. The keynote of Jack is inherent want of principle derived from Barthwick, and courage by fits and starts derived from Mrs. Barthwick. The keynote of Jones is smouldering revolt. The keynote of

GALSWORTHY IN THE PRE-WAR LONDON THEATRE

13

Mrs. Jones is passivity and she must not be played pathetically, only be pathetic from force of circumstances.2 In a similar fashion Barker writes to Gilbert Murray about casting an actress to play Helen of Troy in Murray's translation of The Trojan Women. Now G.K. would get the meaning of the speech and the scene into the heads of the audience. She is quite beautiful to look at - in rather a serpent of the Nile brought up to date way - but she is clever - she will be sure - and polished - very sweet - sweetness suggesting hardness certainly - Mondaine describes her in modern things. But that woman has appreciation - principally of cleverness - no religion except the Roman Catholic - which doesn't count, and great intention. Just for her cleverness I'd have her. 3 At a later date in his career as a playwright, while attempting to cast a revival of his play The Fugitive, Galsworthy reaffirmed both his view of the nature of character and his faith in Granville Barker's judgment. Of an actress being considered for the part of Claire in The Fugitive Galsworthy writes that she does not "carry guns enough for that most difficult and important part", and of another for the same part that she may have "much more flame and power of 'getting it over' ", and again, of an actress who did not suit him for Claire, that she had "not got the 'edge' wanted in the part, not the vibration".4 Finally, he picked a Miss MacGill to play the part, Miss MacGill having been recommended by Barker. On Sunday, Moyna Macgill came by appointment and gave us a very promising reading of Clare [sic] (The Fugitive). She is in appearance by far the nearest to my imagined type. . . . Certainly for a first reading she gets nearer the part than anybody I have seen. It may interest you to know that she was Granville Barker's suggestion for that part some months ago, and he knows the requirements of the part pretty well for he had to consider the casting of it himself at one time.5 2

Η. V. Marrot, The Life and Letters of John Galsworthy (New York, Charles Scribner Sons, 1936), pp. 191-192. » C. B. Purdom, Granville Barker (London, Rockliff, 1955), p. 34. 4 Letters from John Galsworthy to Leon Lion, August 27, 1921 (hereinafter identified as Letter). 8 Letter, February 20, 1922.

14

GALSWORTHY IN THE PRE-WAR LONDON THEATRE

The demonstration of the moral or argument of a play in the manner which Galsworthy describes, that is, to create the illusion of actual life passing upon the stage, and from that illusion to demonstrate implicitly a moral or argument as though it were part and parcel of reality, requires not only a high degree of craftsmanship on the part of the playwright, but also an acute sensitivity to the evidential value of detail. Galsworthy recognized this as the afterpower of selection of material which benefited the germinal notion, or argument, of the play. This ability to select detail, which he identified as the "flavour" of the playwright, Galsworthy believed was beyond the conscious control of the artist. It is the exercise of this ability, which creates the effect of finality, Galsworthy identifies as the mark of the great play. The following passage in which Galsworthy describes his own process of composition of plays demonstrates first, the unconscious nature, for him, of the writing process and second, the highly selective nature of that process. . . . I sink into my morning chair, a blotter on my knee, the last words or deed of some character in ink before my eyes, a pen in my hand, a pipe in my mouth, and nothing in my head. I sit. I don't intend; I don't expect; I don't even hope. I read over the last pages. Gradually my mind seems to leave the chair, and be where my character is acting or speaking, leg raised, waiting to come down, lips opened ready to say something. Suddenly my pen jots down a movement or remark, another, another, and goes on doing this, haltingly, perhaps, for an hour or two. When the result is read through it surprises one by seeming to come out of what went before, and by ministering to some sort of possible future... .·

Galsworthy finds a dichotomy of fact and feeling in the world. Scientists are men involved in discovering the finality of fact. Artists are men involved in the discovery of the finality of feeling. The playwright considers both fact and feeling in that he deals with both character and its environment, though his preponderant interest is character. From one point of view, the statement of a fact is a statement of moral certainty. Galsworthy believes that such an order of certainty is also available in the area of feeling. • John Galsworthy, The Creation of Character in Literature (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1931), p. 20.

GALSWORTHY IN THE PRE-WAR LONDON THEATRE

15

This order of certainty might be likened to the degree of certainty required of judge or jury when either decides upon the conviction of an accused person. This sense of finality, or moral conviction, on the part of the audience is induced by creating . . . such an illusion of actual life passing on the stage as to compel the spectator to pass through an experience of his own, to think, and talk, and move, with the people he sees thinking, talking and moving in front of him. 7

It is through the careful articulation of illusion and argument, or moral, that Galsworthy's plays derive their power. Galsworthy has described it as the delicate manipulation of a procession of symbols under a surface of reality.8 Testimony to the effectiveness of Galsworthy's method of playwriting can be found in the reviews of the original productions of his plays, especially those plays produced before the first World War. For example, in reviewing Justice, first presented in 1910, Max Beerbohm wrote, in part: The curtain rises on the second act; and presently we have forgotten the footlights, and are in a court of law. At a crucial moment in the cross-examination of a witness, somebody drops a heavy book on the floor. An angry murmur of "Sh!" runs round the court. And we ourselves have joined in it. The jury retires to consider its verdict, and instantly throughout the court there is a buzz of conversation - aye, and throughout the auditorium, too: we are all of us, as it were, honorary "supers".·

Or, as Desmond MacCarthy judged the original production of The Silver Box in 1906, "Very seldon has a performance so careful had at the same time so much the air of a play that acted itself." 10 Galsworthy's criticism of the stage conventions of his time is an implicit support of the method of playwriting he practiced. In 1909 he wrote 7 8

• p. " p.

Galsworthy, The Inn of Tranquillity, p. 200. Ibid., p. 201. Max Beerbohm, Around Theatres (London, Rupert Hart-Davis, 1953), 567. Desmond MacCarthy, The Court Theatre (London, Bullen, 1907), 24.

16

GALSWORTHY IN THE PRE-WAR LONDON THEATRE

. . . We want no more bastard drama; no more attempts to dress out the simple dignity of everyday life in the peacock's feathers of false lyricism; no more straw-stuffed heroes or heroines; no more rabbits or goldfish from the conjurer's pockets, nor any limelight. Let us have starlight, moonlight, sunlight, and the light of our own selfrespects.11 And of his own method of composition he noted My own method was the outcome of the trained habits (which I was already employing in my novels) of naturalistic dialogue guided, informed and selected by a controlling idea, together with an intense visualisation of types and scenes. I just wrote down the result of these two, having always in my mind's eye not the stage, but the room or space where in real life the action would pass."

Both Galsworthy's own views of playwriting and the testimony of theatre-goers who saw his plays indicate the nature and degree of the illusion of reality which could be produced by some of the author's plays. It was in Galsworthy's attempt to induce this effect of reality, while implicitly stating the moral or argument of the play, that the highest demand upon his art was made. If each grouping of life, as Galsworthy saw it, had an inherent moral, then to create a play which was like life required that the moral or argument of the play appear inherent to the play, just as it was in life. At his best Galsworthy was capable of successfully essaying this difficult feat, as the following recounting of the cell-scene from Justice shows. The cell-scene in the third act is, for purposes of horror, more effective than tomes of written words, however pungent. When the curtain falls, the auditorium is as silent as the very prison whose silence the convict has just broken by hammering with his fists against his door; and not even when, a moment later, the curtain rises, and we see Mr. Dennis Eadie cheerfully bowing his acknowledgements to us, is the horror undone. Cheerfully? No, I am very sure that Mr. Eadie is too fine an artist not to shudder at this rising of the curtain - this bland, idiotic attempt, on the part of the management, to undo the horror.1® 11

Galsworthy, The Inn of Tranquillity, p. 202. Marrot, The Life and Letters of John Galsworthy, p. 714. (Italics have been added.) 15 Beerbohm, Around Theatres, p. 568. 12

GALSWORTHY IN THE PRE-WAR LONDON THEATRE

17

This selection from Beerbohm's writings indicates clearly the successfull jointure of naturalistic effect and persuasive argument. As he notes, the scene is more effective than tomes of written words. A measure of that effectiveness can be seen in the scorn Beerbohm heaps on the curtain call taken at the end of the scene. This custom of an earlier time was a means of assuring the audience that the actor was not truly discommoded and a device for allowing the actor to receive what approbation the audience might wish to give. Beerbohm's response to this convention is a measure of the degree of illusion of reality which Galsworthy had incited in the knowledgeable theatre-goer which could not be allayed by merely applauding the actor who had played the part, even though he may have played it to perfection. The play was the thing being viewed, the play and all of its parts, all of which combined in artful concert into what Galsworthy described as a "spire of meaning", the end of which was meant to produce in the audience " . . . a sort of mental and moral ferment, whereby vision may be encouraged, imagination livened and understanding promoted".14 It is apparent that the production of plays like Galsworthy's are not dependent alone upon the acting of the major parts nor the playing of the more important scenes. Nor would minute reproduction of reality in the form of settings be sufficient in itself to create the desired effect. Rather, the careful preparation of the actors and the scenes must be entrusted to a single guiding hand, either the author or a producer who can carefully juxtapose character and environment in the selective pattern set out in the play. Galsworthy and other playwrights of his time, such as Barker, Shaw and Barrie, were acutely aware of this fact and schooled themselves in the matter of the production of plays so that they might attend to the effectiveness of the production of their works. The quality of acting, especially, was a matter of concern in the English theatre previous to the first World War. Of acting, and particularly starring actors of that period, George Bernard Shaw once wrote 14 John Galsworthy, Castles in Spain and Other Screeds (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1927), p. 260.

18

GALSWORTHY IN THE PRE-WAR LONDON THEATRE

Many star actors have surprisingly little of what I call positive skill, and an amazing power of suggestion . . . (they) will utter your (speeches) with such an air, and look such unutterable things between the lines, and dress so beautifully and move so enigmatically and enchantingly, that the imagination of the audience will supply more than Shakespeare could have written.15 This lack of technical facility on the part of many actors led Herbert Beerbohm Tree, an actor-manager of the period, to establish and endow the Academy of Dramatic Art which, subsequent to Tree's death, became the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. Tree's accomplishment was memorialized by Shaw in an essay, reproduced here in part to indicate the contrast between the older styles of acting and those which the growing modern repertoire of English plays demanded. And here I come to a source of friction between authors and actormanagers which is worth explaining with some care, as it bears on the general need in England for a school of physical training for the arts of public life as distinguished from the sports. An author who understands acting, and writes for the actor as a composer writes for an instrument, giving it the material suitable to its range, tone, character, agility and mechanism, necessarily assumes a certain technical accomplishment common to all actors; and this requires the existence of a school of acting, or at least a tradition. Now we had no such provision in the days of Tree's novitiate. He had not inherited the tradition handed down at rehearsal by Phelps to Forbes Robertson; nor was there any academic institution with authority enough to impress a novice of his calibre. To save others from this disadvantage he later on founded the Academy of Dramatic Art in Gower Street, which now supplies the want as far as an unendowed institution can. But he had to do without teaching himself. Like Irving, he had to make a style and technique out of his own personality: that is, out of his peculiar weaknesses as well as his peculiar powers. And here he sowed dragons' teeth between himself and the authors. For no uncommissioned author can write for an idiosyncratic style and technique: he knows only the classical one. He must, like Shakespeare, assume an executant who can perform and sustain certain physical feats of deportment, and build up vocal climaxes with his voice... .1β 13 George Bernard Shaw, The Art of Rehearsal (New York, Samuel French, 1922), p. 2. 16 Max Beerbohm, Herbert Beerbohm Tree (New York, Dutton, n.d.), p. 247.

GALSWORTHY IN THE PRE-WAR LONDON THEATRE

19

Concern for the training of actors in England of that period extended beyond the establishment of training schools. At the Court Theatre from 1904 to 1907 Granville Barker trained, or retrained, actors to play in the plays of Shaw, Galsworthy, Hankin and others. Though not limited to the naturalistic drama, some of Barker's finest work was in that style. And of his training of actors Galsworthy in later years wrote Barker, "After all, the English stage had produced a better school of acting than some, if not all others - partly, if not mainly, thanks to you. You leavened the lump and the yeast is still working." 17 The nature of the playing at the Court Theatre during those years is recalled by Lillah MacCarthy, Granville Barker's wife and herself an actress engaged in the Court Theatre venture, as being disciplined, original and inspired. Miss MacCarthy attributes this excellence to the relation between the actors, which was that of equality rather than of star and supporting players. In fact, the plays rather than the players were featured and, in particular, the works of George Bernard Shaw, already available in print, were given their first hearing.18 Galsworthy learned of acting in this milieu, since he entered the theatre through the Court Theatre seasons. Further, actors under the direction of Barker gave definitive performances of his first plays. From those first productions until his death the took what steps he could to insure that productions of his plays were properly cast. For instance, one of the stipulations to his allowing Leon Lion to revive certain of his plays in the nineteen-twenties was that he, Galsworthy, have control of the casting of the productions. The Grein-Lion letters, which in edited form compose the body of this work, are ample evidence of Galsworthy's concern in finding the proper actors to perform in his plays. The kind of judgments which Galsworthy made about actors and acting are similar to those which he made about plays and playwriting. He was concerned that there be a degree of art in the playing of the parts sufficient to conceal their theatrical nature. His primary interest was that the size of performance which an 17 18

Marrot, The Life and Letters of John Galsworthy, p. 571. Lillah MacCarthy, Myself and My Friends (New York, Dutton, 1933).

20

GALSWORTHY IN THE PRE-WAR LONDON THEATRE

actor gave, that is, the degree of theatricality used in presentation, be limited. For example, in explaining to Leon Lion why Lion should not wear a wig when playing the character of Falder in Justice, Galsworthy wrote: You gave me one of the shocks of my life yesterday in that golden wig; for it made me wonder whether you realize how the least touch of what looks artificial in the playing of Falder might (I think would) wreck the cycle. Wigs are the very devil; and we can't risk one of any kind in that part, which depends for its life on absolute moving reality. If you could dull your own hair a little and keep it short, it would be all that's necessary, and far-far safer. And certainly no moustache which spoils your very sensitive mouth. L'etat c'est toi - the venture hangs on your Falder. You are in competition with a cherished reminiscence of an intensely real impersonation and the least touch of theatrical artificiality (such as a wig gives) will undo us. I stress this because one doesn't always see oneself as others see one; and I am speaking to one who has never seen a play of mine. When the artificial walks in at the door my plays fly out of the window. I think your impersonation is wonderfully real and moving. I like it very much. But the part must be lived, and it's clear to me that you can't live it in a wig.19 In the same vein, Galsworthy's tribute to the young actress, Meggie Albanisi, upon her death was that, at her best, Miss Albanisi's work on the stage was quite beyond acting.20 Certainly what Galsworthy sought in actors was an ability to respond to situations rather than the more common device of the actor taking the stage. Thus the Times critic noted of the actress who created the role of Ruth Honeywill in Justice, "The little Miss Edyth Olive does she does beautifully." 21 And numerous times throughout Galsworthy's letters to Lion the author questions the producer upon whether a person being cast may not have too much power or strength in presentation to play a part suitably. Thus, to Lion he wrote, "Concerning Falder I still think »· Letter, February 2, 1922. Galsworthy, Forsytes, Pendyces, and Others (London, W. Heinemann, 1935). 21 The Times Literary Supplement, London, September 28, 1906. 20

GALSWORTHY IN THE PRE-WAR LONDON THEATRE

21

you have too much pressure to the square inch for that weak character." 22 Concern with the acting or casting of actors in his plays was only one part of Galsworthy's concern with the production of the plays for, to the extent that they were based upon the interaction of character and circumstance, Galsworthy was also involved in the proper mounting and operation of the production. And Galsworthy, together with the other great playwrights of his period, Shaw, Barrie and Granville Barker, became adept at the planning of productions. The extent of Galsworthy's knowledge of this aspect of the theatre can be determined by an examination of his correspondence with Lion. Only selected examples will be considered here. Galsworthy's measured view toward the technical demands of the theatre, and his respect for those demands, can be seen in the following passage from a preface he wrote to Joseph Conrad's published plays. In writing for the stage the cramp of a hundred and one extra influences comes into play, device becomes trick work, selection is dictated to by physical conditions beyond control. The confirmed novelist, accustomed to freedom and his own conscience, is often given to impatience, and a measure of contempt towards even his own writing for the stage. That merely means, as a rule, that he does not realize the basic difference between the two forms. And, however good a novelist such an one may be, he will inevitably be a less good dramatist. A form must "enthuse" one, as the Americans say, before one can do it justice. One cannot approach the stage successfully without profound respect and a deep recognition that its conditions are the essentials of an appeal totally distinct from that of the novel. 23

Galsworthy's respect for an understanding of the technical limitations of the stage can be seen in the following two examples. The play in the first example, Punch and Go, is a one-act piece by Galsworthy and his description of the setting for it is as follows. The Scene is the stage of the theatre set for the dress rehearsal of the little play: "Orpheus with his Lute". The curtain is up and the 22 23

Letter, August 27, 1922. Galsworthy, Castles in Spain and Other Screeds, pp. 180-181.

22

GALSWORTHY IN THE PRE-WAR LONDON THEATRE

audience though present is not supposed to be. The set scene represents the end section of a room, with wide French windows, Back Centre, fully opened on to an apple orchard in bloom. The Back Wall with these French Windows is set only a few feet from the footlights, and the rest of the stage is orchard. What is visible of the room would indicate the study of a writing man of culture. In the wall, Stage Left, is a curtained opening, across which the curtain is half drawn. Stage Right of the French Windows is a large armchair turned rather towards the window, with a book rest attached, on which is a volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica, while on a stool alongside are writing materials such as a man requires when he writes with a pad on his knees. On a little table close by is a readinglamp with a dark green shade . . .24 In considering the play for production, Galsworthy makes this comment to his producer, Leon Lion: I wish you would consider 'Punch and Go' with me seriously. Snowden tells me their lighting is admirable for the sort of effect we should want at the back of the stage. I do not believe the little play is half so difficult as you think. A backdrop, a tree and a boulder is all it needs, if well lighted, and we can cast it out of the Pigeon Company.25 This strict elimination of scenery requirements by the author himself gives some indication of his lack of interest in the general surround of the production. Of the three scene pieces mentioned the boulder and tree are practical. The drop is a cut cloth allowing an aperture for the lighting effects behind the acting area and a separation of one set of characters, the real ones, from another, the fantastic ones. Galsworthy had a most functional approach to scenery. The second example is more complex from the point of view of scene design and stage management since it concerns the number of setttings necessary for the presentation of three plays in a touring situation. The total number of settings involved is thirteen. The following is a postscript to a letter from Galsworthy to Lion concerning a possible touring of a repertoire of Galsworthy plays through Europe. It seems to me that the tour might profitably begin at Vienna, where 24 25

John Galsworthy, Plays (New York, Scribners, 1928), p. 691. Letter, January 22, 1922.

GALSWORTHY IN THE PRE-WAR LONDON THEATRE

23

I am not unpalatable to the Public; and if you legislated for the Autumn you could probably secure all the cast I have named. Thence to Munich, Berlin, Hamburg, Amsterdam, The Hague, in that order. I believe with ingenuity three sets of scene could stage the three plays. Juggling with windows and doors and furniture, the first set could deal with Justice, Act I, II, IV; Loyalties, Act II, Sc 1, Act III; Skin Game Act I and III. Seoond set with Justice Act III; Skin Game Act II, Sc. 1. Third set with Loyalties Act I, Act II, Sc. 2, Act IV; and Skin Game Act II, Sc. 2.»

Galsworthy has carefully packaged private rooms (bedrooms, dressing rooms, sitting rooms), well kept public rooms (clubs, courts, offices), and heavily used public rooms (prisons, hotel rooms) into three sets. The method of altering the settings to suit the individual requirements of the various scenes of the plays is to re-dress the three sets of scenery as needed. This device of redressing sets is suggested by Galsworthy in the stage directions of the play, Loyalties.27 The principle of stylization, or selective realism, in scenery had been used in the Court Theatre Seasons of 1904 to 1907 where Galsworthy had begun his career as a playwright. Desmond MacCarthy in his book on the Court Theatre seasons 28 notes that the atmosphere created by a few suggestive details in the scene harmonized more successfully with the spell which the words created as the play progressed. A review of Galsworthy's first play, The Silver Box, described the nature of the piece in the term "psychological realism" and distinguished it from other realistic productions of the time which the review termed as "pump handle realism".29 The care which Galsworthy showed in the presentation of the scene in the production of his plays extended to the matter of time lapses in the shifting from one scene to another. Writing to Leon Lion about a revival of Justice Galsworthy noted I have written to Swete [the producer, ed.] about future scenery. N o plays —mine least of all —can stand long waits between the acts. If the performance had been swift in that respect the impression would " Letter, January 13, 1930. 27 John Galsworthy, Plays (New York, Scribners, 1928), p. 436. 28 Desmond MacCarthy, The Court Theatre, 1904-1907 (London, Bullen, 1907). 80 The Times Literary Supplement, London, September 28, 1906.

24

GALSWORTHY IN THE PRE-WAR LONDON THEATRE

have been just about double. And I am afraid you will suffer at the Box Office.»0 It is apparent from the foregoing material that Galsworthy considered the scenery for his plays as a necessary adjunct to the actors, and that its secondary nature required that it be carefully designed with a substantial degree of selection in the detail to be represented. In contemplating the tendency of the British theatre after the first World War, Galsworthy once wrote . . . When seeing a play, I am curiously absorbed in the dialogue the interest, emotions, and suspense aroused by it. However birds may sing, streams flow, and thunders roll, on the stage; however luridly, austerely, symbolically, classically or realistically the scene be architectured, I am seeking the human figure and the words of his mouth. . . . When enjoying a film, a ballet, a book by Mr. Gordon Graig I become uneasy. What if words are doomed - merely to be used to fill in the interstices of architecture, the intervals between jazz music. . . . What if the dramatist is to become . . . a hack hired and commissioned!31 The concern evinced by Galsworthy, and other playwrights of his period, for a more precise and muted representation of their characters upon the stage than actors were previously accustomed to giving, together with a more selective type of representation in the scene, was a necessary consequence of the type of drama which these playwrights had created. This drama, more literary in the sense that it was readable in published form, attempted to indicate its underlying moral or argument through the revealing of temperament in conflict with circumstance. The careful production which such plays demanded created a real need for an able producer who would be sensitive to, and sympathetic with, the problems such plays presented. The more successful actor-managers in London before the first World War were often not interested in such works, and refused to produce this kind of play when it was offered to them. The following excerpt from an essay by Arthur Symons indicates the limitations which surrounded a number of the more successful actor-managers. 30 31

Letter, February 9, 1922. Galsworthy, Castles in Spain and Other Screeds, pp. 89-90.

GALSWORTHY IN THE PRE-WAR LONDON THEATRE

25

. . . the play is at the mercy of the actor-manager, and the actormanager has no mercy. In England a serious play, above all a poetic play, is not put on by any but small, unsuccessful, more or less private and unprofessional people without any sort of reverence for art, beauty, or indeed, for the laws and conditions of the drama. Personal vanity and the pecuniary necessity of long runs are enough in themselves to account for the failure of most attempts to combine Shakespeare with show, poetry with the box-office. Or is there in our actor-managers a lack of this very sense of what is required in the proper rendering of imaginative work on the stage? 32 On the other hand, these same limitations led Galsworthy to refuse to offer his plays for production to such an actor-manager, Sir George Alexander, You were, as you say, so very kind as to ask me to write for your theatre. I have received such requests from other leading actor-managers; but I cannot honestly believe that any play I have written would have been accepted on the condition that I might cast it as I thought it should be cast (without extravagance) to get out the essence of the play. Actor-managers are, I take it, nearly all in management as lovers of the theatre, and believers in themselves - some of them are only magnetic and striking personalities rather than interpreters. Why should they put on plays in which the leading parts are cast as the author feels they should be cast? If I may take two instances, the plays Strife and Justice . . . I should not have the indelicacy to ask even you to put up these plays, taking an inferior role, or not playing at all. You are, of course, the attraction to half your public; and half the commercial value of the play.33 Shaw, Galsworthy, Hankin and others were most fortunate in finding a producer of the calibre of Harley Granville Barker to serve them first at the Court Theatre and thereafter, at the Duke of York's and the Little theatres. Harley Granville Barker began his theatrical career as an actor at the age of fourteen. He had worked under Ben Greet and William Poel when in 1900 he played in George Bernard Shaw's Candida. This was the beginning of the Shaw-Barker relationship. In 1904 Barker entered into management of the Court Theatre with J. E. Vedrenne. During the succeeding four years the new British drama had its first, and some 32

Arthur Symons, Plays, Acting and Music (London, Archibald Constable, 1909), pp. 184-185. 33 Marrot, op. cit., p. 711

26

GALSWORTHY IN THE PRE-WAR LONDON THEATRE

say its greatest, hearing. The repertoire included, among others, Shaw (the supplier of the bulk of the pieces), Galsworthy, Hankin, the Murray translations of Euripedes, and Barker's own work. In an attempt to expand to the Savoy and Haymarket Theatres in 1907 the management went in debt and had to close. Thereafter Barker held managements of the Little and St. James' Theatres and acted as producer for Frohman's attempt at repertory at the Duke of York's Theatre in 1910. In 1913 he produced Shakespeare at the Savoy Theatre after the fashion of Poel's productions and produced in New York in the following year. After World War I he retired from the theatre and devoted himself mainly to his writings on Shakespearian production. Barker's work as a producer at the Court Theatre was marked by a high degree of critical success. Of the seasons when Barker was producer there Desmond MacCarthy has written The aim of the management throughout was truth as opposed to effect. The ideas which regulated every detail, decided the importance of each scene and the prominence of each character was a recognition of the truth that in order to make others feel you must feel yourself, and to feel yourself you must be natural. This not only implied that actors had to be carefully chosen to fill parts which they could sympathize with and understand, but that every speech, dialogue and scene had to undergo beforehand the criticism of rigorous common-sense; in fact that the whole play had to be tugged at and tested in rehearsal until the coherence of its idea and the soundness of its sentiment were perfectly established.34 This high standard of production was aided by Barker's particular method of directing his actors. The careful adjustment of the actor to his part and the precise balancing of the part against all others is described by Hesketh Pearson in the following passage: He tried to make actors conceive their parts, instead of just learning them and making them theatrically effective. To do this he would take an actor aside and sketch the life-history of the character he was studying, even going so far as to mention the character's habits and hobbies, thoughts and tastes, whether he took salt or sugar with his porridge, why he preferred Tennyson to Shakespeare, and so on, all with the object of forcing the actor to think himself into a 54

Desmond MacCarthy, The Court Theatre, 1904-1907, p. 33.

GALSWORTHY IN THE PRE-WAR LONDON THEATRE

27

character, to live it as a whole, not speak it as a part, to earn a place in the story, not shine as a 'star* on the stage . . .S5

Barker's successful method of coaching actors was complemented by his ability in producing plays. His stage designer, Charles Ricketts, observed of him: Together with The Death of Tintagiles I count Philip the King among the few successfully lit scenes I have witnessed; in each case this was due to Barker, who is, in my opinion, the best producer we have had since Irving. To-day most plays are under-rehearsed, and all technical matters affecting scenic production left to chance."

But one of Barker's major values as a producer of the type of drama which he himself and Galsworthy wrote was that he, to the best of his ability, kept true to the intent of the play which he was producing. According to his biographer, C. B. Purdom, "He was a drama producer in the true sense, in contrast to the theatre producer. Irving, Tree, Boucicault, even Barrie, were theatrical producers and their work may be contrasted with his." 37 And of Barker's productions of his own and Galsworthy's plays Hesketh Pearson has made the following judgement, "As a producer of modern plays of the intimate, realistic school, such as his own and Galsworthy's, there was no one to touch Barker, and he has had no comparable successor." 88 It was Galsworthy's good fortune that he entered the theatre with such an excellent producer available to him, for by Galsworthy's own admission he had had no previous training in playwrighting or in theatrical production. He wrote his first play, The Silver Box, in six weeks in February and March of 1906 and Barker accepted it that spring for fall production at the Court Theatre. C. B. Purdom has written of Barker's production of The Silver Box, This production showed Barker's realistic manner of stage production to perfection . . . it made the play, giving it a poetic tragedy-comedy S5

Hesketh Pearson, The Last Actor Managers (New York, Harper, 1950), p. 75. '· C. B. Purdom, Granville Barker, p. 161. " Ibid., p. 59. ω Pearson, The Last Actor Managers, p. 75.

28

GALSWORTHY IN THE PRE-WAR LONDON THEATRE

quality, utterly different from the naturalistic treatment it has since received." From 1906 until the beginning of the first World War Galsworthy wrote eight full-length plays. Of these, the first four, The Silver Box, Joy, Strife and Justice were directed by Barker. Of the four, three were great critical successes, The Silver Box, Strife and Justice. These productions, together with generally less successful productions of Galsworthy's The Pigeon, The Eldest Son, The Fugitive and The Mob, placed Galsworthy in the top rank of modern British playwrights, together with George Bernard Shaw, James M. Barrie and Harley Granville Barker himself. A photograph of the period identifies this quartette as "The British Drama". 40 By 1914 the plays of Galsworthy and his fellow playwrights had become known not only to the well-informed and serious London theatre patrons but had also gained a more general notoriety among a larger audience. This can be seen in the photograph referred to above, in such evidences of general interest as cartoons by Max Beerbohm published in various periodicals, and by the presentation of Galsworthy, Shaw, Barker and Ibsen in a revue skit burlesquing modern drama. At the beginning of the first World War there was every evidence that the renaissance of British drama, begun in the last decade of the nineteenth century and grown to stature in the first decade of the twentieth century, might continue on, at least until the current generation of playwrights ceased to produce. That the fact was less than the anticipation, at least in the case of John Galsworthy, is the subject of the ensuing chapter.

3® Purdom, Granville Barker, p. 59. 40 [Marrot, op. cit., opposite p. 247.]

II GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

After the first World War John Galsworthy wrote ten full-length plays which were given production in London. In addition, the majority of his pre-war plays were revived there. It is the reception of these plays and revivals, particularly those which were produced by Leon M. Lion, with which this chapter is concerned. Galsworthy's reputation as a playwright entered a decline in the decade following the first World War. A count of Galsworthy's plays which were successfully produced before the first World War compared with a count of those which were similarly successful in the post-war years will indicate five critical successes in the earlier period and three in the latter. Further, the proportion of successes to failures in the pre-war period is much greater, being five to three, whereas in the post-war period the proportion of successes to failures is three to seven.1 The measure is somewhat misleading, however, since the three post-war successes were not only critically successful but popularly successful as well. On the other hand, if the number of unsuccessful revivals in the postwar period is added to the number of unsuccessful productions of original plays the ratio of unsuccessful to successful productions rises to nearly twenty to three. And, since the greater part of the revivals were plays which had been critically successful when originally produced, but were not as successful in revival, there seems sufficient evidence of Gals1

The critical successes of the pre-war years were The Silver Box, Strife, Justice, The Pigeon and The Fugitive. The successes of the post-war years were The Skin Game, Loyalties and Escape.

30

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

worthy's declining success as a playwright after the first World War. One of the principal reasons for Galsworthy's decline in reputation as a playwright would seem to be his failure to find in the post-war theatre a producer for his plays of the calibre of Granville Barker. By the end of the first World War Barker had retired from the theatre to devote himself to his work on Shakespeare and to occasional translations from modern Spanish playwrights. For his London producer after the war, Galsworthy chose Basil Dean, a young man he had been acquainted with through productions of Galsworthy's work at the provincial theatres in Manchester and Liverpool. Dean had joined with Alec Rea to create the Reandean management in London. In 1920 they presented Galsworthy's The Skin Game with great success. Thereafter Reandean produced the majority of those plays which Galsworthy wrote in the post-war period, including the original production of Loyalties. But, though it was their intent to revive Strife in the early nineteen-twenties, the Reandean management never revived any of the pre-war Galsworthy plays. The revival of the pre-war Galsworthy plays in London was mostly the work of a second producer, Leon Lion. Lion also produced three of Galsworthy's post-war plays, Windows, Exiled and Escape, the last of Galsworthy's popular successes. Galsworthy's letters to Lion concerning Lion's various productions of Galsworthy's plays are the subject of the body of this work. Until the first World War, most of Leon Lion's life had been spent as an actor. He was a minor figure in the Edwardian theatre. His training had been under such actor-managers as Fred Terry, John Martin-Harvey, and Beerbohm Tree. In 1918 he had entered management himself, fulfilling an aspiration of many years, and followed in the tradition of the actor-managers under whom he had trained. He continued to act in his own productions and, though he was small of stature, his work was characterized by a fire and bravura in playing which was often commented upon. His preference tended toward rather ornate character roles. His diction was excellent, as was his stance, though his movement left something to be desired. At the time he met Galsworthy his

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

3]

contact with the modern drama since Ibsen was limited to playing a minor part in Barker's production of The Master Builder at the Little Theatre in 1911. When he finally came to grips with Galsworthy's plays he had neither played in, produced, nor even seen a presentation of a Galsworthy play. The long producing relationship between John Galsworthy and Leon Lion came about through the intermediation of J. T. Grein. Grein, a sugar merchant and naturalized Englishman of Dutch descent, had, since the eighteen-nineties, been influential in the promotion of the modern drama upon the English stage. In the nineteen-twenties he was the drama critic for the Illustrated London News. The interchange between Grein and Lion which led to the revival of several of Galsworthy's plays by Lion is demonstrative of an attitude toward the theatre which was soon to pass into oblivion. Lion recalls the matter in the following fashion: About 1920, in some such mood of loving rebuke - certainly more in sorrow than in anger - he [J· T. Grein] commented in one of his articles, somewhat caustically, on the disappointment I had proved to him in management. Three years I had been in the saddle, and had done only one first-rate play. . . . Surely, Grein suggested, I was not of the temperament of those "who seek to take out of the pot more than they put in." . . . I was somewhat nettled. . . . I wrote to him: . . . affirming that this lash at me was undeserved, and that moreover, it was easy and cheap enough to rail at artists who did not in Kipling's phrase, "make one heap of all your winnings, and risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss," when you are not called on yourself to do anything so uncomfortable Anyhow, J. T. G., stung in his turn by my letter, replied . . . that if we could agree on any worthwhile theatre activity he was prepared to put up - pound for pound, and penny for penny, with me - any necessary finance.... We met, surveyed the Theatre horizon of 192122, and decided that a cycle of the plays of some representative British dramatist, where they could be seen not only in relation to each other but also in relation to the 'playwright's development,' would be the most serviceable contribution to our calling. We were instant in our pick of, dramatist number one - John Galsworthy... .2 2

Leon M. Lion, The Surprise of My Life (London, Hutchinson & Co., n.d.), p. 237.

32

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

Grein and Lion approached Galsworthy with their plan for a series of revivals of his earlier works. The list of plays which Grein and Lion proposed included The Silver Box, first produced at the Court Theatre in 1906, Justice, first produced at the Duke of York's Theatre in 1910, The Pigeon, first produced at the Royalty Theatre in 1912, The Fugitive, first produced at the Court Theatre in 1913, and The Mob, first produced at the Coronet Theatre in 1914.3 Galsworthy replied that he was in general agreement with their plan but asked that the list of plays to be revived be "left elastic".4 The absence of Strife from Grein's and Lion's list is because the Reandean management planned to produce it after Galsworthy's The Skin Game closed. The Mob, originally included because of a successful production in New York in 1920, was soon removed from the list and there remained the four plays, The Silver Box, Justice, the Pigeon, and The Fugitive. This selection remained the same throughout the autumn of 1921. The original plan for the series of revivals had envisioned the presentation of five Galsworthy plays, each running a month. With the striking off of The Mob the number had been left at four. And meanwhile the problem of casting the female lead in The Fugitive, together with a waning in desire on the part of the producers to make a production, forced the play to the end of the proposed list of presentations. During the autumn of 1921 Galsworthy offered a new play, Loyalties, to the Reandean management, which they accepted for production. The author's own judgement of the piece was that it had every chance of commercial success. At the time Galsworthy offered Loyalties to them, Reandean had produced two Galsworthy plays, The Skin Game, Galsworthy's first commercial success, and A Family Man, a failure. Galsworthy probably considered Reandean a better management for his purposes than Grein and Lion. He had been associated with Basil Dean for ten years, first at the Manchester Repertory and thereafter at the '

4

Ibid., p. 238. Letter, July 25, 1921.

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

33

Liverpool Repertory where Dean had produced. However, either through the tuggings of his own conscience or at the suggestion of Grein or Lion he soon offered them a new play as well. This second new play, Windows, was accepted for spring production by Grein and Lion in the latter part of January, 1922. At that time Justice was in rehearsal, and The Pigeon and The Silver Box, now to be given in that order, were being planned for presentation. Apparently neither the producers nor the author were able to anticipate the success of the season and because of this kept their plans for the whole season in a nebulous state. Not until after the run of Justice could a definite judgment be made. For example, on February 1st, the week in which Justice opened, Galsworthy inquired about a prospective opening date for Windows. He feared that the sequence of Justice, The Pigeon, and The Silver Box would occupy the Court Theatre so far into the season that the new play, Windows, would not get an early enough start to complete its run in the spring of 1922.5 In fact, because of small audiences, each of the plays was finally offered for only three weeks instead of the planned four and Windows was presented at the Court Theatre early in April. In its final form, a form arrived at after the run of the first play of the season, the Grein-Lion "cycle" of Galsworthy's plays consisted of Justice, The Pigeon, The Silver Box, and Windows, which were offered in that sequence at the Court Theatre. Behind this planning always can be seen the lack of knowledge on the part of the producers of the problems to be faced and the limited means with which to face the problems. There was a period of seven months from the time at which Grein and Lion first broached the subject of the revivals to Galsworthy until the production of Justice, the first production in the series. During that time Galsworthy wrote two plays, Loyalties and Windows, and Lion produced four plays, exclusive of Justice, which opened in February 1922. In addition, the theatre which was to house the Galsworthy revivals was changed twice and at the beginning of the revivals there was no clear notion which piece would end the series, or if the series would consist of five 5

Letter, February 1, 1922.

34

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

or four productions. It is plain that the planning which had gone into the project, though as good as it could be under the circumstances, tended to be hasty or haphazard, or both. And then there was the problem of financing the project. The financial problems of producing plays in the commercial London theatre of the nineteen-twenties is beyond the purview of this paper but a single estimate of the costs of production in London at the time may indicate the position in which Grein and Lion found themselves. Maurice Browne estimated that it cost £ 2 0 0 0 in the mid-twenties to raise the curtain on the opening night of a "straight" play with simple cast and setting." Between them, Grein and Lion had subscribed a capital of £. 3000. The first piece of the season, Justice, was a "straight", i.e., not a costume play, but neither its cast nor its scenery are simple. It contains eighteen characters, not including supernumeraries, and requires five differently set scenes. If Browne's estimate had been nearly correct, then Grein and Lion possessed sufficient capital to produce the first show of the sequence and had to trust thereafter to the return at the box office to add sufficient capital for the ensuing productions. Using Justice as the opener for the season may have been connected with the fact that it was the most expensive to produce of the plays chosen. By placing it first the managers were assured of having sufficient capital to pay for the production. And, further, engagement of the cast for the largest piece first allowed the second, and smaller piece, The Pigeon, to be rehearsed while some of the players cast in it earned their livelihood by playing parts in Justice. Since the financing of the series of revivals depended upon the success at the box office of each preceding play to release a sufficient part of the investment to finance the production which was to follow, the production schedule of those plays which were to succeed the first revival could not be set until the success of that play was determined. Justice opened on February 7, 1922, and it was apparent that the initial plan of a four week's run for each play would have to be reduced to three weeks. β

Maurice Browne, Too Late to Lament (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1956), p. 305.

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

35

The reduction of the length of the run of Justice and the subsequent revivals put an added burden upon an already tight production schedule. Lion and Lyall Swete had shared the production burden of the first play, Justice, and each had played a part; Swete, Walter Howe, and Lion, Falder. While preparing the production of Justice they cast The Pigeon, in which Lion was to play a major part, Wellwyn, and Swete to produce and play a part. Justice opened on February 7,1922, closed on February 26,1922, and The Pigeon opened at the same theatre on February 27th. Further, five of the nine persons who appeared in The Pigeon had been playing in Justice while they rehearsed The Pigeon and one of those, Lion, was playing the part of which he wrote, "The most poignant part I have ever played, with intense but nerveshattering enjoyment, was . . . that poor, weak wretch, Falder, in Galsworthy's Justice." 7 Counting the days after the opening it seems impossible that more than one-hundred rehearsal hours might be scheduled. Charles Ricketts' judgment that post-war plays in London were under-rehearsed is clearly justified in this instance.8 To the above facts add that the part of Ann in The Pigeon was not yet cast on February 11th, with the opening just sixteen days away, and that, while Lion played Falder and rehearsed Wellwyn, he was casting The Silver Box for rehearsal as soon as The Pigeon opened. The conditions of production for the revival of these plays were less than satisfactory. With limited funds, limited time to rehearse and a production staff which had clearly over-extended itself, it seems clear that the plays presented could not reasonably be expected to have received a fair showing. One factor which aided the chances of the successful presentation of each of the plays was Galsworthy's continuing concern for the casting of them. Galsworthy's letters to Lion during the fall of 1921 and the first months of 1922 are filled with references to casting the plays. He seemed to be following a rule laid down by George Bernard Shaw, Get your cast right and get them interested in themselves and the 7 8

Lion, op. cit., p. 185. See p. 27 supra.

36

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

occasion, and stage management can be done without. . . . Get your cast wrong, and you wreck your play just to the extent to which the cast is wrong.'

In fact, Galsworthy was so persistent in the matter of casting the revivals that a canard was made upon it by the London drama critic, James Agate, " . . . one is reminded of how Galsworthy in, I think, one of Leon M. Lion's revivals turned down an actor because he was thirty-two and the character . . . was thirty-four".10 However, short of coaching the actors and attending to the details of production, there was little Galsworthy could do to assure himself of acceptable revivals of his plays except find competent actors to play the parts. And it is evident that the agreement between Galsworthy and Lion allowed him to exercise his judgment in this matter. In September of 1921 he wrote to Lion, As to casting generally I would like you to bear in mind that several productions of all these plays have given me a good deal of known material to draw from, and a very definite idea of the types wanted."

And, again, in September he wrote, I don't think you know 'The Silver Box', and I have to warn you that Barthwick is a very difficult part to play. . . . I should feel much safer if this part is entrusted to Hanray, who knows exactly what is wanted of the part, has been in nearly all my plays and knows what you can do with them and what you can't - in other words, the texture, especially of the comedy parts.12

Galsworthy's first effort was to find persons who either had been trained in the playing of Galsworthian drama or who at least had been trained in the method of acting in naturalistic plays. Roughly speaking, this would mean that the actors chosen should have worked under Granville Barker, or under B. Iden Payne at the Manchester Repertory or under Basil Dean at the Liverpool Repertory. If they could have been chosen from these places Gals' C. B. Purdom, Bernard Shaw's Letters to Granville Barker (New York, Theatre Arts Books, 1957), p. 81. io James Agate, First Nights (London, Ivor Nicholson & Watson, 1934), p. 164. II Letter, September 6, 1921. 12 Letter, circa September 2, 1921.

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

37

worthy would have had a rough sense of their quality and training since he had worked with all of these producers before. Within a month of the beginning of the correspondence between them Galsworthy presented Lion with a partial cast list for The Silver Box and Justice. Covering the major characters of the two plays and including seventeen actors, the list suggested the use of fourteen persons who had previously worked in Galsworthy productions. Of the three who had not so worked, one was Lion himself. In the casting of the two serious pre-war plays in the series of revivals Galsworthy was fairly successful in gaining what he saw as necessary in the parts played. In Justice four of the six major parts were in the hands of persons who had played in his plays before. He lost the casting of the protagonist, Falder, to Lion, who as an actor-manager had a certain privilege in playing in his own productions which could not be denied, and the part of Walter Howe to Lyall Swete, who assisted Lion in the management of the productions. In the casting of The Silver Box Galsworthy was even more successful than he had been in Justice. In the end he was able to approve of seven of the nine players in the cast, each of whom had played in a play of his own of which he had seen the production. The exceptions in this case were Louise Hampton in the part of Mrs. Jones, and Hugh Wakefield in the part of Jack Barthwick. Miss Hampton was finally given the part of Mrs. Jones at the urging of Lion. Correspondence concerning the casting of The Pigeon is relatively infrequent in the letters, and in most cases it concerns the possibility of using a particular actor in The Pigeon and in another play of the series. In fact in the cast of The Pigeon as it was finally presented there was no preponderance of actors trained in the Galsworthian drama. This situation probably arose not through any desire of the author but rather from the exigencies of production. All of the cast, except the two women, Ursula Millard and Muriel Pratt, were engaged in at least two of the four plays of the cycle and several were engaged in three. Being a show with a small cast (nine characters) The Pigeon had gained its players from the minor parts of the two shows with large casts which preceded and followed it, Justice and The Silver Box.

38

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

But Galsworthy's concern with the casting of the revivals was not alone enough to assure successful presentations of the plays. The productions seem to have lacked the discrimination in detail which had been one of the notable values of the original productions. The brilliant naturalistic surface of the original productions was not achieved in the revivals. Of the revival of The Silver Box there was no comment comparable to Desmond MacCarthy's judgment of the original production that, "Very seldom has a performance so careful had at the same time so much the air of a play that acted itself." 13 And of Justice there is no comparable comment to the Times' judgment that the trial scene in the original production was the most stunningly real spectacle imaginable and the prison scenes "showed the prison".14 On the contrary, the Times' reviewer of the revival, though calling the production "brilliantly acted and faultlessly produced", 15 felt that it was impossible truly to represent a court room and pleaded incompetence in the matter of judging the realism of the prison. From this breakup of the illusion of reality a series of bit parts seems to have been salvaged. The Times review of the revival mentions that the acting of the jurymen in the court scene and the office staff in the Howe's law office was excellent. Further, the stern and self-righteous Judge of Dion Boucicault in the original production became the "dry and tolerant" 16 Judge of Acton Bond in the revival, just as the unmentioned prosecutor of the original production became the "cynical" 17 prosecutor of the revival. The bare mention of Miss Edyth Olive as Ruth Honeywill in the first production ("The little Miss Edyth Olive does she does beautifully"),18 became a judgment in the revival that Miss Edith Goodall as Ruth was as fine in her reactions to other person's scenes as she was in acting her own.19 What had excited theatre-goers in the viewing of the pre-war productions of Galsworthy's plays seems "

14 15

"

"

18 19

Desmond MacCarthy, The Court Theatre (London, Bullen, 1907), p. 24. The Times, London, February 22, 1910. The Times, London, February 8, 1922. Ibid.

Ibid.

The Times, London, February 22, 1910. The Times, London, February 8, 1922.

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

39

to have been absent from the post-war revivals of those plays. The "poetic tragedy-comedy quality" referred to by C. B. Purdom 20 as present in Barker's production of The Silver Box was lost. And Barker as producer was the one ingredient which was absent in the production of the revivals. All the other factors of production were as good or better than those which had been available to Barker. A majority of the casts for The Silver Box and Justice had played in Galsworthy plays before. Galsworthy himself, more knowledgeable after fifteen years association with the theatre, gave all the help he could. From this it is evident that Galsworthy had failed to find, in Lion, a producer of the calibre of Barker. Where Leon Lion lacked and Granville Barker excelled in the production of Galsworthian drama is difficult to discover. It probably lies in the complementary qualities of the characters of Galsworthy and Barker. These created values in the original productions of the plays which Lion failed to reproduce in the revivals, since he had not seen any of the original productions. One of Galsworthy's principal qualities as a creative writer was a tendency to act out in his works those problems which bothered him as a person. The proximity of his subject matter to the completed work of fiction can be seen in the following letter written to his sister about his first successful novel, A Man of Property. Apart from yourself, Mab, and Mother (who perhaps had better not read the book), who really knows enough or takes enough interest in us to make it more than a two days wonder that I should choose such a subject? Who . . . knows enough even to connect A[da] with Ifrene], especially as I have changed her hair to gold?21 Ada was John Galsworthy's wife. The subject of the book was the marriage laws of England, laws which had kept John and Ada Galsworthy from becoming legal man and wife for nearly a decade. This initial example of Galsworthy's tendency to subsume his personal life in his creative works can be extended throughout his career. Justice arose from his researches in prison practice, The Silver Box from his knowledge of the law of property (he was a barrister), and the practice in the petty courts of London. M

"

Purdom, Granville Barker, p. 195. Marrot, op. cit., p. 182.

40

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

His concerns in social matters were numbered in the scores and ranged from the Minimum Wage to Zoos to The Three Year Average Income Tax. This personal concern for social problems which Galsworthy reveals in his creative work is thought by some to have lessened his stature as an artist. Here is David Garnett's view of the matter. The reason for Galsworthy's revolt against the (middle-class) traditions of his family was that he was in love with Irene (Ada) who was married to his cousin. For several years he was deeply unhappy, and all his best work was written at this time. Finally, after his father's death, Jack and Ada resolved to take the decisive step: she left her husband and went to the man she loved. From that moment Galsworthy was finished as a serious writer. He was happy; he soon became successful and influential, and his natural goodness, his serious desire to assist all the deserving causes near to his heart, ruined his talent.22 Whether Garnett is right or not, this matter of personal commitment is present in Galsworthy's creative writings. In the plays it inheres in the moral or argument and the major characters of each play act out, as in a demonstration, the personal effect of the moral or argument. It is the violence with which these characters act out the consequences of a point of view that is a characteristic of Galsworthy's plays. Of this characteristic he once wrote, with reference to The Silver Box, . . . (Barthwick) goes out and I keep the child's crying, because a physical thrill to the audience at this point is worth any added Barthwick psychology. You know my theory (founded on personal experience) that the physical emotional thrill is all that really counts in a play.23 Granville Barker, as Galsworthy's producer, seems to have complemented this tendency of the playwright to force his characters to action in demonstration of the moral or argument of the play. More subtle and less powerful, Barker tended to accent the telling theatre effect, the minor but acute observation of character 22 David Garnett, The Golden Echo (New York, Harcourt, Brace, 1954), p. 71.

23

Marrot, op. cit., p. 190.

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

41

through detail. This difference between the author and producer can be seen in their difference of opinion on how Galsworthy's play Justice, should end. Originally written to end with the hero's re-arrest, Galsworthy changed the ending to the hero's death by his own hand. The letter is written to Gilbert Murray. Now about the end. I originally conceived a re-arrest only; then it seemed to me that only by going beyond the re-arrest to the pure emotion of something elemental could the full value be extracted. You have put my feeling exactly in your letter. It seems to me that you want to make the spectator feel: Thank God! he's dead - and beyond that awful process going on for ever; out of the hands of men. Only by giving him back to Nature can you get the full criticism on human conduct. Barker is very anxious for me to cut the death and end on the rearrest. For the satisfaction of my conscience I've written that end too. It's very terrible; but there is no discharge of feeling, which seems to me demanded by the desperate grim ends of the first three acts. . . . I'm not altogether at one with Barker on dramatic matters.24 Professor Murray's witty and wise reply here follows, in part: Remember that H[arley] G[ranville] Bfarker] has a curious dislike for great and direct passion, and for elemental things, as his friends no doubt tell him ad nauseam. Also remember this: That our modern dramatic movement, with all its great qualities, has had this one great lack. It has, on the whole, not reached - it has not really attempted to reach the great motives or the sublime kinds of tragedy. I should not wonder if nearly all our Court Theatre set blamed you for Falder's (the hero's) death . . . but I should feel clear that they were wrong - they were in the bonds of their own orthodoxy.25 Barker at last acceded with good grace and the hero committed suicide at the end of the play. The tragic irony of Galsworthy's vision as a playwright superseded Barker's acute but measured view as a producer. At the risk of over-simplification, it might be said that Galsworthy found character revealed through action as the most important matter in his plays, while Barker viewed character as more subject to environment than Galsworthy. Since both char24 25

Marrot, op. cit., p. 252. Marrot, op. cit., p. 253.

42

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

acter and environment are important aspects of Galsworthy's plays, the playwright and producer complemented each other. The value which Barker brought to his production of Galsworthy's plays can be measured in part by its absence from the production of a play in which he had no hand and which was later revived by Lion in the post-war period. The play, The Pigeon, was originally produced in 1912. Interestingly enough the response of the reviewers to this piece is remarkable in its concurrence, both as to the original production in 1912 and to the revival in 1922. Both reviews in the Times found the play fantastic, the earlier reviewer noting it as unreal,26 and the later as "no more than an allegory".27 Each found it well constructed and continuously amusing, and each, as well, felt that it tended to preach to the audience. Each reviewer singled out the actors playing the same characters, that is, Christopher Wellwyn, the protagonist, Ferrand, the raisonneur, and Timson, the largest character part, for commendation upon their portrayal of the parts. And each indicated displeasure with the characters which baldly represent the Bench, the Clergy, and the Social Scientist. In this minor piece it can be seen that production did little to enhance or detract from its presentation. It is problematical what Barker as its producer might have done with it. However, the similarity of reception of the piece in both the pre- and post-war periods adds some evidence to the point that Barker was peculiarly equipped to act as a producer of Galsworthy's plays, and that Galsworthy did not find his equal in London after the first World War. Galsworthy wrote three plays in the nineteen-twenties whose popular success when produced would seem to contradict the notion that Barker, of all Galsworthy's producers, was peculiarly able to bring that author's work to successful production. Two of these plays, The Skin Game and Loyalties, were produced by Basil Dean. The third, Escape, was produced by Leon Lion. In fact, these three plays differ markedly from other plays written by Galsworthy and it is that difference which aided their success28 27

The Times, London, March 21, 1912. The Times, London, February 28, 1922.

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

43

ful production. In these plays the outlines of the characters are both simpler and more broadly drawn. The dependence on device and complication in the plots increases. And the statement of the moral or argument of the plays is less integrated. In Justice, written in 1910, the initial complication creates the sequence of events from which the first act is formed. Thereafter the play proceeds to demonstrate the sufferings caused to a single inmate of the British penal system. In The Skin Game, written in 1920, the initial complication, a breach of an oral commitment made by one character to another, leads to a series of further complications, the last of which is the revelation of the antecedents of one of the female characters. Though skillfully done, there is in the play an echo of the "society" drama of the eighteen- nineties as purveyed by A. W. Pinero. The tendency toward plot device is even more evident in Loyalties, written in 1922, wherein one character stakes his reputation upon the fact that another character has committed a crime. The element of proof which is not evident is motive. The motive, a woman, is revealed in the middle of the third act, leaving just sufficient time to dispose of the characters in an appropriate fashion. Loyalties is excellent melodrama and was so identified by the critics who reviewed the original production. The third successful play by Galsworthy, Escape, is even more extreme in its use of complication and device, and because of this it demonstrates most clearly Galsworthy's tendencies in play structure during the post-war years. Escape is the story of Matt Dennant, war hero, bachelor, who kills a policeman, is convicted, sent to prison, escapes and finally gives himself up. The play is presented in a prologue and nine episodes. There is provision for intermission between the third and fourth episodes. The American edition of Galsworthy's Plays 28 includes an additional episode inserted between episodes six and seven. This was not used in either the original production nor in the revivals. With the exception of the prologue Escape is concerned with a series of discrete situations in which the escaping prisoner finds »

Galsworthy, Plays, pp. 628-629.

44

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

himself. In each he must either avoid revealing himself or, it discovered, evade arrest. By eliciting the audience's sympathy for the hero the playwright can then engage its interest in whether the subsidiary characters will abet or hinder the hero in his escape. The point of attack in Escape is much earlier than in Galsworthy's previous plays and is the culmination of a tendency evident in his previous successes, to show a greater part of the fable upon the stage. In the pre-war plays the initial complication usually has taken place before the play begins. In Strife the protagonist and antagonist have encountered each other before and the meeting on stage is a result. In Justice the hero has committed the crime of which he is convicted before the curtain rises. But in The Skin Game the antagonist demonstrates upon the stage his breach of his agreement with the protagonist. And in Escape Galsworthy spans a time lapse of a full year so that he may show the killing of the policeman by the hero. Galsworthy conceived the initial complication of a drama in terms of character and identified the complicating act as "original sin". Thus, in speaking of character as plot he wrote, "They come by original sin, sure conception, and instinctive after-power of selecting what benefits the germ." 29 By pushing the point of attack backward, as he did in some post-war plays, to include the initial complication, he put increasing emphasis on the major character and the personal element in that character's conflict with his environment. And with increased emphasis on the hero's action, the amount of time available to delineate the surrounding characters was diminished. The most extreme example of this is Escape, in which no character other than the hero has either a given or a surname. This concern with the incidents which composed the plot of the play can be seen in the various responses to the play before its production. James M. Barrie caught the sense of the script when he wrote, "I once joined in the long pursuit of a thief in Oxford Street, but it was nothing like as vivid as this, and I feel as if I had been on the heels of Matt the whole time (propelling him forward as my St. Bernard used to do when the rabbit he was pursuing 2i

Galsworthy, The Inn of Tranquillity,

p. 193.

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

45

wouldn't go fast enough)." 30 Further, throughout the period of composition and preparation for production of Escape many of Galsworthy's conversations about the play turned on the matter of the plotting. The genesis of particular plays is often hard to determine. Playwrights work from vast stores of material which may become available to them through some minor circumstance which is unrecorded. At best, a rather ill-founded surmise may be made. But Galsworthy was more transparent in his sources than most and there is some possibility of indicating his train of thought in the matter of creating Escape. One of the greater artistic successes of the London season of 1925 had been a production of Eugene O'Neill's Emperor Jones. Based on the melodramatic device of the chase, but also focused upon the person being chased, it may well have been a starting point for Galsworthy's thinking upon Escape. This would seem supported by a conversation recorded by Rudolph Sauter, Galsworthy's nephew, during a stay at Southern Pines in November 1925. James Boyd, the American author, and Galsworthy discussed the various techniques of the novel and the play. Boyd held that there was too much for one man to encompass in both forms, but Galsworthy felt that there was nothing essentially different in dialogue and action for either form. To make his point he used his own novel, Fraternity, as an example, pointing out that certain scenes between the main character, Hilary, and the model, Ivy, could be translated directly to the stage. Fraternity deals with the trouble to which Hilary comes by helping a poor young model, Ivy. Further, within the novel there is a scene in which a character lashes out with a cane at a person who is hurting an animal. The act is considered as involuntary. These are the beginnings of Escape, in which a man, Matt Dennant, in conversation with a prostitute, strikes an officer who tries to take the prostitute to jail. His act, described as involuntary, causes the accidental death of the officer. Within a week or so of the conversation with James Boyd, Rudolph Sauter records another conversation between himself and »» Marrot, op. cit., p. 574.

46

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

Galsworthy. Sauter held that warm-heartedness was a distinctive characteristic of Americans, to which Galsworthy replied that he felt that it was rather warm-manneredness and cold-heartedness. This might imply that he felt the converse true of the English, cold-mannered but warm-hearted, a view which is demonstrated in Escape. In January of 1926 Galsworthy had begun to plot Escape and the first draft of the play was completed by the end of February, the actual writing taking just two weeks. There was a fallow period previous to Galsworthy's writing jEscape.31 Upon his first reading of the play to his immediate family Galsworthy noted that the ninth and last scene was short and wanted extending so that it might overtop those which came before. This re-writing he did before the first of April when he presented the script to Winthrop Ames in New York. Ames approved of the play but felt that the second half, the script having but one intermission, did not maintain the necessary suspense. Ames felt that Galsworthy was using the second half of the show merely to display a gallery of characters and that there must be a greater development of the major character, Matt Dennant. He further suggested that Dennant must take action against his pursuers at some point in the play. Galsworthy's reply was that under the stress of such an emotion as fear a man is apt to lose his identity. Further, he conceded in part that he was more interested in the reaction of the persons. And finally, he noted that he thought the nature of the chase itself would provide sufficient suspense to hold the audience. Ames disagreed, arguing that the audience must know that the hero would not be caught until the end.32 There seems to have been some revision of the script between the time Galsworthy talked to Ames and his return to England. However, once the script was delivered to Lion for consideration and Lion had accepted it the same question arose in his mind as to whether the second half of the script would hold the attention of the audience. Specifically, Lion was worried about the fifth 31 B2

M a r r o t , op. cit., p. 571. M a r r o t , op. cit., p. 573.

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

47

episode, the sixth scene of the play, wherein four picnickers are accosted by Matt Dennant and he steals their car. The scene is not only somewhat more muted than other of the scenes but also there are more persons involved, five being on the stage at one time. Galsworthy's reply to Lion was that with half the play still to run one could not start the play at the same pace after the intermission as it had left off at the beginning of the intermission since there was a slackening of pace needed to allow for a build to the final scene of the play.33 It might also be noted that in his withdrawing of the forward movement of the chase Galsworthy substituted character delineation to hold the attention of the audience. Though, as he himself stated, the backbone of the play was the chase.34 The concern with plot device in Escape, together with the use of stereotypic characters, the emphasis on the hero and the early point of attack indicate the romantic nature of the play. The classification of Escape as a romantic drama, derivative from nineteenth century British plays of that form, is further supported by the way in which it was originally cast. With Galsworthy's concurrence, many of the parts in Escape were doubled. It is the only original production of Galsworthy in which Lion doubled characters. In Windows, produced in 1922, there is no need since the persons of the play number only nine. But in Exiled, which Lion produced in 1929, there is a cast of twenty-three characters, just the same numbered on the playbill for the London production of Escape. However, in Exiled there is no doubling in any parts. It would seem a little hard to justify doubling on economic grounds in the case of two plays, one a financial success in which doubling was used, Escape, and one a financial failure, in which doubling was not used, Exiled. The practice of doubling parts in a play brings into relief a theoretical problem of naturalistic playwrights. Many of them maintain that what passes before the eyes of the audience is the truth. This continued return to visual truth is to be found in the writings of Galsworthy and in the reviews of his plays. But it is M

"

Lion, op. cit., p. 124.

Ibid.

48

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

possible with doubling to get an altogether different effect in a play. The late Victorian and Edwardian actor-managers, if they were able and inclined, often doubled parts in their own productions. Their appearance in two parts, preferably with most diverse characteristics, was a treat to the audience and the shock of recognizing the actor under the mask of the second part was a legitimate joy of the theatre. This value could hardly have been accepted by the naturalistic playwrights, for it obtruded the actor upon the play. It would seem that the ideal situation for the naturalistic playwright would be a different actor for each part. Doubling of parts in naturalistic plays seems to have continued on the basis of economic necessity. But this appears to be mere cheese-paring on the part of English producers. A comparison of the cast lists of the London and New York productions of Escape indicates that though there was some doubling in the New York cast, it was not as great as in the London cast, and yet the productions were, otherwise, almost complete in their similarity, since Winthrop Ames, the New York producer of the play, secured not only Lion's prompt script but also scale models of the London production. In fact, in the New York theatre, a theatre not noted for its interest in such bravura playing of multiple roles, Lawrence Hanray was commented on most favorably by Brooks Atkinson for his dissimilar handling of the three roles he played.35 On the other hand, there is no mention in the London reviews of the play of the doubling of the cast. The convention of doubling was so completely accepted there as to be a commonplace. But though doubling of parts might be commonplace in the London theatre the pattern of doubling in Escape is most interesting and gives some indication of the intent of the author as to the playing of the parts. The following item is a suggested cast list for Escape from Galsworthy to Lion. It indicates the possible doubling of parts. In another letter Galsworthy entered a qualification to these suggestions. He wondered if Miss Halstan could play broadly enough so as to differentiate the Shopkeeper's Wife from Miss Dora, and whether Miss Codrington could add the ne55

New York Times, October 27, 1927.

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

49

cessary twenty years of age to differentiate the playing of the Shopkeeper's Sister from Miss Grace.3· Cast Leon M. Lion Nicholas Hannen Molly Kerr Phyllis Konstam Anne Codrington or Dorothy Martin Margaret Halston Stafford Hilliard Hardingham Baron Freeman Austin Trevor

Fellow Convict Old Gentleman Farmer Matt Girl of the Town Shingled Lady Maid Average Wife Shopkeeper's sister Miss Grace Shopkeeper's wife Miss Dora Man in plus-fours Warder I Shopkeeper First Laborer Warder II Captain Bell ringer Plainclothes man Village constable Parson

Non-speaking walkers on

Little girl Second policeman

Call boy and stage hand

Second Laborer Two tourist youths

The principle Galsworthy used in doubling parts in Escape seems to have been the same as that which he used in the creation of pairs of contrasting characters in some of his plays. In The Pigeon the raisonneur of that play, the tramp Ferrand, explicitly compares himself and his fellow down-and-outs to three other persons of the play, the clergyman, the Tory justice of the peace and the young lady of the house in which the play takes places. He says »· Letter, July 11, 1926. " Enclosure in letter, July 11, 1926.

50

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

that with some money the ne'er-do-wells of the story would be acceptable citizens, the tramp, a man with "a soul above commerce, travelling to see the world", the demi-mondaine, "that charming lady, very chic", and the drunken old coachman, a "good old-fashioned gentleman-drinking his liquor well".38 In Escape Galsworthy's doubling of parts makes the same comment upon the characters. Thus, the Old Gentleman (a judge) might have been a convict or a farmer, just as the Average Wife in other circumstances would have been an excellent maid. The elegant Shingled Lady might have become, instead, a girl of the town, as did the heroine of another of Galsworthy's plays, Clare Dedmond, in The Fugitive. And the two gentlewomen, Miss Dora and Miss Grace, without their independent means might have met and clashed under the protection of a shopkeeper, instead of under the protection of a limited trading company in which they hold shares. Bonamy Dobree, reviewing the London production, noted that "Escape might have been a film", and judges the persons of the play as being "too much like life".39 A high degree of versimilitude in character delineation together with the swift change of locale are techniques which the film received from nineteenth century romantic theatre. Another device of that theatre was a plentiful use of doubling in parts. In one sense Bonamy Dobree was right. Both Escape and many films of the post-war period are derivative from the popular romantic drama of the ninteenth century British theatre. The subsuming of the plot in the character of the hero, a high degree of versimilitude in the delineation of character, the swift changes of locale and the doubling of parts for theatrical effect are all present in the romantic dramas of the British popular theatre before the first World War and present in motion pictures after the first World War. Primarily, Escape is a popular play because it treats life as an episode dominated by an attractive personality. By identifying with the hero a large group of persons may experience things they 38 38

Galsworthy, Plays, p. 213. The Nation & Athenaeum, August 21, 1926.

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

51

would never otherwise have much knowledge of, being approached by prostitutes, striking policemen, escaping from prisons, hiding under good-looking women's beds, asking parsons questions they cannot answer and, finally, giving oneself up to return to prison, and this for a decent reason. The sequence of incidents, joined by the character of the hero, indicates the popular, romantic nature of the play. And this nature may be further seen in the following letters concerning a request to alter the text of the play. A second touring company of Escape found their returns from the play dwindling and requested a change in the ending of the play, preferably one which would save Dennant from capture. Bury House January 23, 1928 My dear Lion, Molesworth Tour On the contrary, I leave the modification in terms to your judgment. As to modification of the end of the play, I have thought it over, and I don't see any harm at all in letting them play the end as I have written it in the enclosed copy. It sacrifices nothing of the meaning and though inconclusive, has the advantage of leaving "the stag" still running. We enjoyed our lunch awfully! and send you our blessing. Yours always John Galsworthy Of course they must play it exactly as I've rewritten it, to the syllable.

But after thinking the matter over Galsworthy made another alteration in the new ending. Grand Hotel Biarritz, France Feb. 11, 1928 My dear Lion Referring back to that alteration at the end of Escape I had no intention of minimizing the effect of the line "It's one's decent self

52

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

one can't escape" by it, only of removing the actual arrest from the eyes of the suffering public! On second thoughts, it occurs to me that some people will go away thinking that he has escaped, and I therefore make the condition that if the new end is to be used, a View holloa' is given as soon as Matt is clear of the vestry, and the cries of pursuit liven up again. This necessary, I think, to show that Matt knowingly goes out of the vestry into the jaws of the lion; this also gives the parson a finer opportunity of facial expression. Will you therefore please insist that this is all done, or they must revert to the old ending, which I personally think they are foolish to abandon. I do hope your new plays are doing well, and that you yourself are in good shape. We have been having a week of fine weather here, and enjoying ourselves. Our affectionate greetings. Yours always John Galsworthy The letters about the alteration of the ending of Escape have the same tenor as Galsworthy's argument with Granville Barker over the ending of Justice. In both cases, but for different reasons, the producer of the play requested that the hero of the play be left at the mercy of the environment in which he ultimately found himself. In both cases, and after some vacillation, Galsworthy refused to allow this to happen to his hero. Instead, he required that the hero make a judgment on that environment by acting with reference to it and at the same time deciding his own fate. In his serious plays Galsworthy steadfastly refused to admit that his hero was the pawn of circumstance. The interplay of character and circumstance is the theme throughout all of his plays, but always character vindicates itself. It is Galsworthy's emphasis upon character and upon the notion that character has its own integrity that his popular successes of the post-war years are founded. The characters of Hornblower and Hillcrist in The Skin Game, of De Levis and Twisden in Loyalties, and of Matt Dennant, The Shingled Lady and The Parson in Escape, are all deeply conceived and brilliantly drawn. In reply to a colleague's judgment that Escape was an indifferent play and that only Nicholas Hannen's fine playing of Matt

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

53

Dennant carried it, Leon Lion, the play's producer, responded that surely Galsworthy had a right to such a performance when he had created such a magnificent part for the actor to play. It may be said of Galsworthy after the first World War that he did what he had not been able to do before the war, write plays which were popular successes. But this was not done without some loss. The loss is to be found in the decline of the power of the moral or argument in the post-war plays, and a concomitant increase in dependence upon plot device to sustain the audience's interest. These new emphases had a threefold effect. First, judging from the ratio of post-war successes to post-war failures, the material available to Galsworthy which he found amenable to such treatment was limited. Second, the post-war successes, depending as they do on plot and character, were much easier to produce. And third, these successes, The Skin Game, Loyalties and Escape, with their limited use of argument seem less able to evoke that sense of moral certainty through an illusion of reality which had been Galsworthy's greatest power. Retirement from the theatre of major theatrical figures was the rule rather than the exception in London during and after the first World War. Few, if any, of the great actor-managers of pre-war London continued into the post-war period. Their place was filled by syndicates of investors who, at most, were interested in a single good production so that a return might be got on their investment. The mortality of playwrights was nearly as great as that of actor-managers. Pinero, Jones and Sutro continued writing, but without success. Barrie's post-war efforts were unsuccessful. And Granville Barker did nothing else for the theatre except some translations. The only major pre-war London playwrights who continued successfully to produce in the nineteen- twenties were Shaw, Somerset Maugham and Galsworthy. The change in persons active in the post-war London theatre was evidence of the changing audience to which the theatre appealed. The advent of the long run, the emphasis on musical theatre, together with farce and melodrama, and the popularity of the motion picture, were other indications of this change. There is also the testimony of theatre persons themselves. Among others,

54

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

Shaw complained of the poor quality of theatre audiences after the first World War. And James Agate wrote, " 'Is it a fine work?' used to be the foyer's question. 'Is it a winner?' is the query of our more vulgar age." 40 Galsworthy concerned himself with the matter of a post-war audience for his plays in his correspondence with Lion. He suggested circularizing the British Drama League and mentioned such special interest groups as the Howard League for Penal Reform in connection with the presentation of Justice. He also realized that his pre-war plays still appealed to a select audience only and of that audience he wrote, . . . the selling problem . . . is that of getting m y public . . . together quickly enough. They generally rub their eyes and begin to say "Oh! I must go." about the last day. 4 1

It is evident that that portion of the post-war popular audience which was interested in the legitimate theatre was smaller than it had been in pre-war London. And it followed from this diminution that there tended to be less chance of gathering from that smaller theatre audience an even more select group which was interested in viewing revivals of pre-war British plays. Previous to the first World War the London theatre served a large popular audience, as yet little diminished by motion pictures. Within the popular audience there were a number of more select audiences which were interested in particular kinds of drama. One of these audiences had been served by the Court Theatre seasons of 1904-1907. This audience, according to Holbrook Jackson, was composed of persons who "belonged very largely to the literary fringe of the Fabian Society and other reform and revolutionary organizations . . .".42 It presumably was composed of young persons, mainly female, of the upper middle class who had the leisure to go to matinees, for matinees were generally more commercially successful at the Court Theatre than evening bills. Such an audience would seem to have been more subject to 40

James Agate, At Half-past Eight (London, Jonathan Cape, 1923), p. 57. Letter, January 31, 1922. 42 Holbrook Jackson, The Eighteen Nineties (Harmondsworth-Middlesex, Penguin, 1939), p. 211. 41

GALSWORTHY IN THE POST-WAR LONDON THEATRE

55

change with time than many others. Increase in age would be a major factor, together with the increased liberty allowed young, unmarried women in the post-war years. Still another cause of the diminution of the Court Theatre audience lay in the very plays which were staple fare at the Court. The plays posed problems and, directly or indirectly, sought solutions. It is to the credit of such plays that they tend to dispose of the problems they pose. An example of this is Galsworthy's play Justice. Though it is by no means a mere tract for penal reform, it was written out of a deeply felt desire to see certain reforms in British penal practice and, as such, was part of a successful course of action by Galsworthy to effect those reforms. Once the reforms were carried out, plays like Justice, dealing with a problem which they had helped to solve, became uninteresting to audiences which had previously found them compelling. The changing social scene tended to obscure for a time the more enduring qualities of such plays. In conclusion, it can be said that Galsworthy experienced some decline in success as a playwright during the years succeeding the first World War. Though during this period he produced the only generally popular plays of his career, these plays show definite departures from the method of writing which characterized his successful earlier work. Galsworthy's declining success can be attributed to the personal factor that he failed to find a producer for his plays in the post-war period and to the general factor that there was distinct change in the size and quality of the post-war audience. In his popular post-war plays Galsworthy tried to temper his art to a new time and did so with success. But the success is limited when compared to the number of Galsworthian revivals and new plays which were unsuccessful.

UI THE PLAYWRIGHTS DEVELOPMENT

The eclipse which John Galsworthy suffered as a dramatist in the decade after the first World War was but a small part of that general eclipse he suffered as a writer at the end of that decade. The reasons for this more general critical eclipse are to be found in the literary scene of post-war London. The determined opposition of Virginia Woolf to the naturalistic mode of writing, and to, among other writers, John Galsworthy, is the easiest of the reasons to identify. Mrs. Woolf was an excellent critic, a successful novelist in her own right and the hub of that most prestigious literary and intellectual group of the twenties and thirties, the Bloomsbury set. Her antipathy to the naturalistic mode of novel writing practiced by Galsworthy can be seen as early as 1908 in a letter to Lytton Strachey.1 And this antipathy was formalized in such writings as Mr. Bennett and Mrs. Brown, 1924, and The Common Reader, 1925. D. H. Lawrence, though not of the Bloomsbury group, was in accord with Mrs. Woolf's distaste for Galsworthy. His opinion caused further defections from Galsworthy amongst more critical readers. As important as the judgment of the Georgian writers, a name which Mrs. Woolf had coined to separate her generation from Galsworthy's, was Galsworthy's steadfast refusal throughout his career to become embroiled in partisan politics. Since he held relatively advanced views as to personal rights at law, and backed these views with acts intended to translate the views into law, he was constantly mistaken for a socialist, an error of which he was 1 Virginia Woolf and Lytton Strachey: Letters, L. Woolf and J. Strachey (eds.) (New York, Harcourt, Brace, 1956), p. 4.

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

57

careful to disabuse each inquirer. On the other hand, Galsworthy was extremely unwilling to approve of force or violence in the area of social change. Thus, before the first World War he had held grave doubts concerning the Liberal bill in Parliament to take the veto power from the House of Lords, because it would establish a unicameral legislature and thus increase the strength of the party in power. A similar instance is found in Galsworthy's attempt in 1911 to bestir the governments of Europe to ban aerial warfare. In concert with the International Arbitration League he tried to induce a number of writers of international stature to sign a memorial to the governments of Europe. The refusals to his solicitations were numerous and included such writers as Chesterton, Bennett and Shaw, who replied, in part, "The really interesting question is how far the new development will make an international combination against war irresistable." 2 Mr. Shaw did not live long enough to measure the resistance of national states to a ceding of their sovereignty. By the nineteen-twenties, the general tenor of political thought was against a rational approach to political problems. Men of such stature as George Bernard Shaw and D. H. Lawrence could turn to fascism without creating undue comment. And younger writers turned to Communism, most often as fellow-travellers. Herman Ould, Galsworthy's friend and one of his biographers, attempted to make Galsworthy out a writer of propaganda. This attempt at apology was sternly rebuked by Marrot, Galsworthy's official biographer. In the intellectual climate which followed on Galsworthy's death it was as misleading to call Galsworthy a writer of propaganda, and by implication a Marxist, as it would have been to have called him a Freudian because he was a psychological novelist. He did not pose the problems he saw in terms of either economic determinism or psychoanalytic theory. And since he did not, he became unclassifiable and lost value as literary currency. But though Galsworthy was not much appreciated by literary persons during the thirties and, even today, has not received much critical consideration as a novelist, his position as a playwright 2

M a r r o t , op. cit., p . 701.

58

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

has been given some recognition. William York Tindall 3 finds that of the dramatists of his period, Galsworthy stands below Shaw alone in excellence. If true, such a judgment must be founded on the quantity and quality of Galsworthy's work as a playwright. In the number of plays composed Galsworthy compares favorably with other modern British playwrights. He wrote plays for twenty-five years, from 1906 to 1931. In that time he composed twenty full-length plays and seven short plays, leaving one play unfinished. This is somewhat more than half the production of Shaw during his career as playwright and Shaw's career extends over forty years, unencumbered by a major body of writing in any other form, unless one considers the prefaces of his plays separate from the plays themselves. A more equable comparison might be made between Galsworthy and Somerset Maugham who, as a successful novelist, also pursued a career as successful playwright. Maugham, writing his first play in 1903, continued producing for the theatre until the nineteen-thirties. The number of plays he wrote is roughly the same as Galsworthy. In the range of problems considered in his plays Galsworthy is not exceeded by any playwright of his period. He began with the variances in the administration of the law for rich and poor in The Silver Box, proceeded to the egotistical nature of love in Joy, posed the problem of capital opposed by labour in Strife, and the convict and the penal system in Justice. Then, turning to more personal aspects of drama, he composed a short idyll of alpine Switzerland and the maturing of a girl in that setting, The Little Dream. This was followed by The Pigeon, a comic demonstration of charity in the fashion of Tolstoy; by The Eldest Son, a study of the moral problems of bastardy; and by The Fugitive, a similar study of the training of women to gentility. The Mob and A Bit o' Love concern themselves with the relation of the individual man to the group in which he lives and the group's treatment of the individual when he opposes it on a matter of principle. The Mob is concerned with nationalism, A Bit o' Love with institutional religion. The Foundations is a prophecy of the economic depression 3

W. Y. Tindall, Forces in Modern age, 1956).

British Literature

(New York, Vint-

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

59

of Britain in the twenties. The Skin Game is a study of the conflict between the landed gentry and the urban middle-class; A Family Man a study of a successful urban middle-class family; and Windows a study of the family of a successful writer. Loyalties shows the net of loyalties which enmesh the upper middle-class when one of their number is accused of a crime. The Show is a study of the faults of a sensational press; and Exiled embodies Galsworthy's solution for England's economic plight, emigration. The Forest and Old English are evocations of the past and primitive grandeur of British Whig imperialism. Escape and The Roof deal, respectively, with the reactions of a group of persons to the threat of an outlaw and of a fire. This extensive range of subject matter seems to have been possible because of Galsworthy's personal philosophy. Seeing the world composed of multiple dichotomies, such as town versus country, class versus class, man versus woman, individual versus the mob, outlaw versus citizen, Galsworthy continually demonstrated the inability of these opposing factors to do anything but war with each other and thereby destroy the individual man. It is this intransigent conflict which creates the most painful dichotomy of all, which Galsworthy identifies as the finality of fact opposed to the finality of feeling. Seeing the world bifurcated in each of these various manners, Galsworthy the artist, wishes it were unified. Viewing the world in this way allows Galsworthy to essay an infinite variety of subject matters while maintaining a point of view which unites each subject to every other. Opposition is found in the subject explored but the desire for unity is always present in the author exploring the subject. Galsworthy describes it as "the thin, poignant spirit which hovers up out of a play . . . A man may have many moods, he has but one spirit." 4 This method of dichotomies when applied to character delineation allowed Galsworthy an extensive range. Sexual difference, birth and breeding in various combinations, permitted a vast range of types to be represented. An example of that range can be seen by examining five of Galsworthy's plays, Justice, The Skin Game, Loyalties, A Family Man and Escape. The total number of char1 Galsworthy, Inn of Tranquillity, p. 197.

60

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

acters in these plays is well over eighty. And the range of characters is uncommonly great, embracing as it does convicts, personal servants, streetwalkers, clerks, petty shopkeepers, minor officials, policemen, solicitors, barristers, judges, the military, city men, newly rich industrialists, old county families, medicine, the church, gaolers and foreigners resident in England. William York Tindall finds that Galsworthy had little to do with science, though Galsworthy thought himself "pickling a species for some museum".5 The analogy is apt since Galsworthy follows Aristotle in method. And the results have the tone or quality of taxonomy. The cast lists which follow are examples of the systematic classification which Galsworthy used in the delineation of character. The cast lists were composed by Galsworthy in two attempts to form suitable companies of actors to play his plays. Galsworthy's care in casting his plays has been dealt with in a previous chapter. Each cast list which the author made is composed of three plays and in each cast list there is a play common to both. Further, many of the major parts in each list are cast with the same actors. It is thus possible to examine Galsworthy's view of the similarity of characters in different plays as well as his view of the differences between characters in individual plays. The cast lists follow on pages 61 and 62. Considering the major male characters first and in terms of their physical appearance, Dancy in Loyalties, Dennant in Escape, Falder in Justice and Rolfe in The Skin Game, are blondes. All except Dennant are so described in the plays and Dennant was played by blonde actors in both the original London and New York productions. In the case of two of these characters, Dancy and Falder, the set of the eyes is also described. Beyond the leading men there are three clearly distinguishable sets of male character parts. The first, and least heavily drawn, is a representation of the professional man or landed gentry and includes General Canynge in Loyalties, The Parson in Escape, Herringhame in A Family Man, the Judge in Justice,18 and Hillcrist 5 β

Tindall, op. cit., p. 144.

There is no description of the Judge since he was probably drawn from life. See Marrot, op. cit., p. 192.

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

61

in The Skin Game. They are all thin, self-contained and generally pleasing in appearance. The second group, and most heavily drawn, are Twisden in Loyalties, the Old Gentleman (a Judge) in Escape, the Mayor in A Family Man, Cokeson in Justice and Dawker in The Skin Game. These more broadly drawn characters tend to be described by animal characteristics, particularly dogs and birds. Thus, Cokeson is described as a bull-dog and Dawker as a terrier, while the Mayor is a poll-parrot and the Judge gives "bird-like" glances. Only Twisden had no animal characteristics. He is described as thin, narrow, and long-nosed. His nose twitches. The third, and less distinct, sequence of characters are composed of men of middle age or older, who tend to be short or heavy and wear dark clothes. They are St. Erth and Gillman in Loyalties, the Shopkeeper in Escape, Topping in A Family Man, James Howe in Justice and Hornblower in The Skin Game. With these characters one has a sense of weight and the weight is not only physical but psychological. They are all humorless. Sequences of secondary younger male characters are either mildly sympathetic, such as Graviter in Loyalties, Ralph Builder in A Family Man, the Young Advocate in Justice, or mildly antipathetic, as Colford in Loyalties, Constable Moon in A Family Man, the Detective in Justice and Charles Hornblower in The Skin Game. Of a slightly higher social rank and also mildly antipathetic is the sequence which includes Boring in Loyalties, the Man in Plus-fours in Escape, Chantry in A Family Man and the Chaplain in Justice. There are relatively few women in the plays and they seem to arrange themselves into three different sequences of characters. They might roughly be classed as the passionate ones, the misguided ones, and the successful ones. The passionate ones are visually arresting and brunette, though often with fair skin. They include Margaret Orme in Loyalties, the Shingled Lady in Escape, Athene Builder in A Family Man, Ruth Honeywill in Justice, and Chloe Hornblower in The Skin Game. The misguided female characters tend to be small, young and attractive, though not beautiful. They include Mabel Dancy in Loyalties, the Girl in the Park in Escape, Camille in A Family Man, and Jill Hillcrist in The Skin Game. The successful female characters are all ladies.

62

THE PLAYWRIGHT S DEVELOPMENT

JUSTICE

LOYALTIES

Leon Μ. Lion

De Levis

Lawrence Hanray

Cokeson

Twisden

Actor

THE SKIN

GAME

Dawker

St. Erth Austin Trevor

Judge Prison

General

Hillcrist

Canynge

Governor Minster

Falder

Dancy

Rolfe Henry (Stranger)

Irwin

James Howe Moaney

Inspector Deedes Oilman

Hornblower

Ronald Kerr (Stage Manager)

Young Advocate Chaplain Old Advocate Clipton Cashier Warder Detective Walter Howe O'Cleary Doctor

Graviter Solicitor Borring Young Footman Triesure Jackman

D. J. Williams

Richard Grey Patrick Waddington

Mabel Terry Lewis Joyce Kennedy

Ruth Honeywill

Jean Shepheard

Ricardos

Auctioneer

Colford Young Clerk Winsor Constable

Charles Hornblower

Lady Adela

Mrs. Hillcrist

Margaret

Chloe

Mabel Dancy

Jill

Fellows 2nd Stranger

Leaving uncast: In Justice, Office Boy In Loyalties, Club Footman In Skin Game, Mrs. Jackman, Anna. 7 7

Letter, January 13, 1930.

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

Actor

LOYALTIES

ESCAPE

Leon M. Lion

De Levis

Old Gent

Hannen

Dancy

Matt

Molly Ken-

Margaret Orme Shingled Lady

Mary Grew

Mabel Dancy

Austin Trevor

Gen. Canynge Parson

Girl in Park

Italian

A FAMILY

Athene Camille Guy Herringhame

Ricardo Hanray

Twisden

Frederick Lloyd Stafford Hilliard

Anne Codrington

Farmer (Old Gent & Convict when you are away) Winsor Warder & Captain Borring Plus Fours Young FootmanBell Ringer Warder Lady Adela

Yvonne Rorie Makeham

The man who

Lord St. Erth Gilmanthe Grocer Inspector

played Harris in

Grace Dollie Little Girl Shopman

Detective

Mayor

Builder Chantrey

Mrs. Builder Maud Topping

Harris

Labourer

The Family Man

?

? ?

8

Ralph Builder

Graviter Colford

Letter, December 7, 1927.

Constable Miss Dora Fanny (the maid) 8

63

MAN

64

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

The majority are married. They pay for their success by masking their feelings. Their faces are like masks, or are clearcut, or like porcelain. There are numerous other characters in the plays but most of them might be described as general utility characters having not sufficient delineation as to admit of more than the most general characteristics of type. (One character fits no sequence. He is the Jew, De Levis, in Loyalties. He is sui generis and a necessary function of the plot of a particular play, Loyalties. There are no characters in the plays under discussion which are comparable and in other Galsworthy plays only the character of Jones in The Silver Box and David Roberts in Strije, both Welshmen, have the same vicious tenacity.) Of the major male characters, Dancy, Dennant and Falder, all act impulsively under great stress. Their sins have a sense of inadvertence about them. No one of them seems to care greatly about the damage which is caused by his act. Rather, the situation forces an issue to be made. Each of them seeks a way out of pain or uncertainty for a woman and is caught up in the means he uses. Falder steals for Ruth. Matt strikes to save the Girl in the Park. Dancy steals to keep his wife from knowing his past. Having been caught up in the consequences of their acts each of these characters takes forceful action to acquit himself of his burdens. Two of the three commit suicide. The third gives himself up. Unable to fight without hurting others, each turns upon himself. In contrast to these major masculine characters is the first sequence of male characters. These are men bred to their position and more or less comfortable in it. They represent the army, the law and the gentry. With the exception of Herringhame in A Family Man, they are middle-aged and older. Their counterparts are the younger men represented by Graviter in Loyalties, the Young Advocate in Justice, the Solicitor in The Skin Game, and Ralph Builder in A Family Man. These younger men are also bred to the professions and differ from their seniors only in length of experience. They are also strongly attached to their stations in life. One step lower on the professional scale are the respected servitors of the professions, the solicitors, politicians, land agents,

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

65

farmers, law clerks. These men are old and practical of outlook. They are shrewd and honest and tend to crotchets. Somewhat parallel to them are the tradesmen, Gillman in Loyalties, the Shopkeeper in Escape, and Hornblower in A Family Man. These men are humorless and this bespeaks their lack of imagination. The press of getting and spending does not admit of much wit. The sequence of women characters are somewhat simpler, since they do not act in the society so much as they suffer from society's actions. The number of stations to which a female may be called is four, that of a girl, a lady, a person or a prostitute. In the sequence of plays under discussion, and in fact, in all of Galsworthy's plays, there are hardly any women who are not pleasing to look upon. Further, in all but one play, The Fugitive, Galsworthy's women are not allowed to kill themselves. There are attempts, as Chloe's in The Skin Game and Guinevere Megan's in The Pigeon, but they are unsuccessful. The passionate women characters, predominantly brunette, may or may not be married, may or may not be ladies, but are all in their majority and are of average or larger stature. They have a particular position which they hold and to which they cling, never shirking. The position or attitude which they hold involves their judgment of a man. Thus Ruth Honeywill in Justice, and Chloe in The Skin Game, love the men to whom they are allied and unblinkingly stand by them. The Shingled Lady in Escape, and Margaret Orme in Loyalties, each support a man who is recognizably bred to a particular class. And Athene Builder in A Family Man stands against a condition of man, a husband, because she hates her father. These women unflinchingly support their own judgments and cannot be imposed upon. Even Chloe Builder's attempted suicide fits the pattern, since Chloe would turn upon herself rather than hurt her husband. The second sequence of female characters is younger. They are attractive rather than beautiful or striking. They would also seem to be smaller than the first group, and possibly younger. In one way or another they are imposed upon. Most often they have convictions which they cannot support to their logical ends. Thus Camille in A Family Man, would flirt with her employer, Builder,

66

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

but when Builder offers her a more substantial alliance she reneges. The Girl in the Park in Escape would solicit Matt Dennant's company for the evening but tries to keep him from protecting her from the policeman. Jill Hillcrist in The Skin Game to the very end will not recognize that her father and her family have done something wrong in their actions against the Hornblowers. And Colford says of Mabel Dancy in Loyalties, when she has fainted after her husband has taken his life, "Leave her! The longer she's unconscious, the better." 9 It is necessary that Margaret Orme, a stronger character, continues to the end of the play and makes the final statement on the meaning of the death of the protagonist. The final sequence of female characters is the successful ones. Three of them are married and the fourth is much attached to the church. Their masklike countenances have been noted above. They are all ladies. They are all reserved. And they are all, in great part, in control of the situation in which they live. In many ways they seem like the first group of female characters grown older and having come to the end toward which the first group of characters strive. Galsworthy once described one of their kind in the following manner, "As to Mrs. Barthwick, you don't seem familiar with the type - a fairly and increasingly common one in the uppermiddle and upper class - the grey mare the better horse. The hard-mouthed woman. You see them by the dozen in Harrods Stores, and I could give you several instances from my personal acquaintance. They are uncompromising and have courage. . . . I would almost say they are now the typical type of woman . . . [she] will be familiar enough to the London Staff audience." 10 Andre Chevrillon has described the range of characters in Galsworthy's novels as a natural history or a zoology of Victorian England.11 And this is true of the plays, as well. Galsworthy was able to delineate a stable society at the height of its powers. His abilities found a proper subject and his acute examination of 9

Galsworthy, Plays, p. 464. Marrot, op. cit., p. 190. 11 Andre Chevrillon, Three Studies in English Literature mann, 1923), p. 150ff. 10

(London, Heine-

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

67

human types gives his plays a parochial quality which makes them hard to visualize out of their time. In this his plays are similar to Ben Jonson's. But zoology, however methodical, is not sufficient to create a dramatic action. Some factor must be injected into the inherent stability to create that action. In all of the plays under present examination this exterior impulse is a woman. In four out of the five cases, the woman is shown upon the stage. And in all five cases she is represented or described as beautiful. The nature of this beauty seems significant. It is exotic. Galsworthy's definiteness in the matter of the locality from which these women characters arise defines the locale of the action of the plays in which they appear. Galsworthy does not write about all of the British Isles, but only about southeast England and its environs, the seat of British middle-class power. Into this insular society Galsworthy introduces beauty in the form of women. Ruth Honeywill in Justice is from the west of England. The Builder women in A Family Man, are from the Isle of Jersey, and the maid in the Builder family who is the proximate cause of the trouble, is French. Dancy's mistress, whose request causes him to steal, is Italian. Only the Girl in the Park in Escape, and Chloe Builder in The Skin Game, are not identified as having come from foreign parts, though their activities have placed them in a land which is as exotic as any other, the demi-monde. Of this tendency to insularity in subject matter in the plays, William Lyon Phelps wrote that, "Galsworthy's extensive travels seem to have made him see England more clearly. . . . This fact accounts for the insularity of his subjects." 12 This is improbable since Galsworthy wrote on foreign climes in other forms, particularly the short story and the essay. Rather, Galsworthy's adherence to the naturalistic form of composition in his plays, together with his belief in the careful articulation of plot and argument, led him to insular subject matter. The exotic women who incite men to action are present in these plays as a function of the argument. A.R. Skemp correctly identified the philosophy which 12

William Lyon Phelps, Essays on Modern Dramatists Millan, 1921), p. 101.

(New York, Mac-

68

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

informs his plays. Skemp identified Galsworthy as a Platonist. 13 The beautiful women are but one aspect of beauty which men love and which could lead them on to wider and more intensive love. In each of the plays the insular characters are foils to this beauty. They are all struck by it, but none can respond to it properly. And if one of their insular number attempts to respond he is immediately caught in the toils of a society which has no use for beauty. William Lyon Phelps noted that all of Galsworthy's dramas were expositions of Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians.14 A more apt source for such an epitome would be Plato's Symposium, for it is from Socrates' definition of love that Galsworthy draws the morals or arguments of his plays. Within the plays, the characters each demonstrate a particular rung on the ladder of love and are limited in understanding by the limits of their love. Thus in the play Justice, the greatest number of the characters are servants of the law and, to the extent that they see no other beauty, they are mean and narrow-minded. In the same sense, the carnal lovers of the play, Falder and Ruth Honeywill, see nothing but the love they bear each other. These disparate loves, reckless of each other, are joined in Cokeson, the ancient law clerk in the office which Falder has robbed. Stirred, he knows not how, by the beauty of the lover and his beloved, yet devoted to the law, it is Cokeson who attempts to sing the funeral lay over the broken body of Falder. The attempt is devastating, for all he can dredge from the depths of his non-conformist soul to match the pity he sees before him are the words, "No one '11 touch him now! Never again! He's safe with gentle Jesus! " 15 Plato's Symposium is also memorable for the presence of Aristophanes who relates a story of the genesis of love which uses the notion of bifurcation as the origin of longing in the human breast and warns of a further division of man if he does not respect love. In each of Galsworthy's plays the implicit argument is 13

A. R. Skemp, "The Plays of Mr. John Galsworthy", Essays & Studies by Members of the English Association (Oxford, Clarendon, 1923), IV, p. 151. 14 Phelps, op. cit., p. 104. 15 Galsworthy, Plays, p. 173.

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

69

that failure to love diminishes man by the extent of his failure. Thus in Galsworthy's second play, Joy, subtitled "A Play on the letter Τ ", the author is concerned with the egotism inherent in the love between man and woman. And Strife is a study of the love of battle, embodied in a leader of capital and a leader of labour, both brought low by the lesser self-loves of their followers in battle. The Eldest Son (even its title implies the Judeo-Christian greater love for the man-child, as well as the common law preference for the first-born male), is concerned with a girl whom an eldest son has got with child. The father of the girl speaks the decisive ironic line, refusing marriage, to the son "I'll have no charity marriages in my family." 18 In Justice, love of the law makes lesser men of most of the persons of the play and the consequence of this love of law, but not of justice, is the death of the protagonist. Even more revealing than the examples cited above is A Bit o' Love. Originally called The Full Moon, it was re-titled by Galsworthy when he discovered Lady Gregory had previously published Rising of the Moon. The story deals with Michael Strangeway, a parson, who lets his wife go to another man and thus incurs not only the contempt, but also the active hostility of his parishoners. He regains his position in the community by physically beating one of his tormentors. The original title of the play is and allusion to the Symposium and Aristophanes' fable therein that true lovers are the children of the moon. Strangeway's curtain speech supports this notion, "God of the moon and the sun; of joy and beauty, of loveliness and sorrow - Give me strength to go on, till I love every living thing! " 1 7 The title which the play bears is as interesting, alluding, as it may, to the Christian parable of the grain of mustard seed, and thus comparing and contrasting the concepts of Christian faith and pagan love. Galsworthy's personal philosophy, which kept him at some distance from the more popular intellectual positions taken by other playwrights of his time, limited the audience for his plays, since the number of persons interested in Greek philosophy and " "

Ibid., p. 134. Ibid., p. 314.

70

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

the theatre are necessarily a small group, and those interested in social problems are not much greater in number. However, his philosophy will assure Galsworthy a continuing audience for his work, since the basic argument of the plays is as timeless as the mainstreams of Western thought of which it partakes. The nineteenth century was a time of conflict in the realm of ideas. Some, such as Shaw, found their place espousing the economic determinism of Marx and an escape from that same determinism in the theories of natural selection of Lamarck. Galsworthy's continued theme throughout his plays is the examination of the Christian ethic, as exemplified in middle-class British practice. He made the examination in the light of the classic Greek philosopher, Plato. His arguments or morals in the plays are, in his own terms, "negative", that is, a discovery of the moral position of the author from something other than the action of the play. This is in distinction to a positive moral discovery wherein the action of the piece flows directly from premises set forth. In Galsworthy's case the "negative" discovery means that it must be made from a comparison between the act done and the words spoken. In the divergence of the two lies the point Galsworthy wishes to make. In other words, in his plays John Galsworthy is an ironist. A. R. Thompson 18 classifies irony into three forms, verbal irony, the irony of manner, dramatic irony and an emergent fourth form, which he identifies as Ibsenian irony. This emergent form he defines as, "the irony which uses a complete dramatic action to contrast the 'surface likeness' and the hidden truth". 18 It is philosophical irony in the sense that it is a mockery of ideals and is consciously constructed by the playwright to cause the observer to perceive painfully a potentially comic situation which sets at naught a deep belief held by the observer. Although, according to Thompson, irony of this sort may assist in social reform, it is of limited use as a positive weapon since few understand it and fewer yet appreciate it, for in becoming aware of it they are repelled. Galsworthy, as an ironist, measured the ideas of his own age 18

"

A. R. Thompson, The Dry Mock (Berkeley, U. of C. Press, 1948). Ibid., p. 244.

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

71

against the classic Greek philosophy of the fourth century. In this he followed many of his literary precursors in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Galsworthy was quite conscious of what he was doing and recognized the necessity of an audience which had been educated to understand his references. As he once wrote, The use of the satiric vein is nowadays more or less of a private luxury . . . in countries whose governors become less and less literate with every generation . . . [the writer's] direct influence has been lost in the whir and drive of Sport, Machinery, and Economics.20 In one sense, then, irony is not the hardy plant which first blooms in desolate Sharon, but is rather a parasite requiring a host, that is, a strong antecedent tradition which has been generally communicated but which is not currently in use. One of the problems of irony in dramatic literature, as noted by Thompson in his treatment of Euripedes, is that of detecting its presence. Even the presence or absence of irony in Galsworthy, a modern writer, is hard to determine, and this interpretative problem can be seen in the following story concerning the playing of Justice. The old lawyer's clerk, Mr. Cokeson, originally "created" by Edmund Gwenn in 1910, and again notably played in several of my revivals by that grand veteran, Lawrance Hanray, is well-nigh the most important part in the play, and certainly the most difficult to cast. For he is both the exponent - subconsciously - and the horrible illustration of Galsworthy's main theme and purpose in the play - inasmuch as he represents that weak and wobbly good nature which perceives, through sentimental tears, the workings of evil, but is too indigenously futile to grapple with it, and reconciles himself to being an accessory to the evil acts through piously throwing the responsibility on "the Good God", or "Gentle Jesus". Galsworthy was always insistent on this aspect of the character being firmly stressed, though without any sacrifice of simplicity and sincerity. On one occasion a most admirable actor was playing Cokeson, and, being deeply and profoundly moved - as no one on the stage could fail to be - in that final scene where poor Ruth Honeywill kneels by the body of the dead boy, he spoke those final lines with the evangelical zeal of a - well, think of the finest preacher in the pulpit you have ever heard, and there's my image. Some readers may 20

John Galsworthy, "Preface", Satires (New York, Scribners, 1927).

72

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

remember the lines, but permit me to quote them here to clarify the point of my story: Ruth (leaping to her feet): No, no! No, no! He's dead! (The figures of the men shrink back.) Cokeson (stealing forward, in a hoarse voice): There, there, poor, dear woman! (At the sound behind her Ruth faces round at him.) Cokeson: No one'll touch him now! Never again! He's safe with gentle Jesus! (Ruth stands as though turned to stone in the doorway staring at Cokeson, who, bending humbly before her, holds out his hand as one would to a lost dog.) (Curtain) The curtain fell in silence, the audience stunned by pity and terror, and that petrifying exaltation such emotions induce. It seemed minutes - though, in fact, it was only forty seconds or so - before they could recover sufficiently to burst into thunders of applause. Meanwhile Galsworthy had hurried round to me in harrassed anguish. "My dear Leon," he murmured distractedly, "you must get Cokeson to give those last lines differently. His present rendering stultifies the whole purport of my play. One might suppose it was my voice, canting 'He's safe with gentle Jesus,' when you know my purpose was to show up that snivelling futility, and especially underline the horror of this useless sacrifice of a life." I sympathized with Galsworthy completely and, of course, I did my best with gentle reasonings and persuasions to get the rendering modified. But the sensitive actor in question was not, au fond, a comedian, and was genuinely so emotionally overwhelmed by the situation that he was never able to set against it that cutting edge of ridicule which Galsworthy intended. 21 Certainly irony is not the most viable product for the stage. But if irony is to be used it would seem that that form identified by Thompson as Ibsenian irony is best since it is inherent in the structure of the play and gives the quality of tragi-comedy which is most distinctive. This is the f o r m of irony which Galsworthy uses in his better plays. It is, in his own terms, the manipulating of procession of delicate symbols under a surface of reality. 22 It is through the contrast of symbol and reality that the argument of the play is stated negatively, ironically. 21 22

Lion, op. cit., pp. 118-119. Galsworthy, The Inn of Tranquillity, pp. 200-201.

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

73

The devices which Galsworthy uses for this opposition of ideas are several. The simplest is a contrast of stage settings. Thus the second act of The Silver Box is composed of two scenes. The first tells of a workman interrupted at his dinner by an officer sent to arrest him. The second tells the same story of a young gentleman of the upper middleclass. (The workman's home is on Merthyr Street. The welsh word for martyr is apt here, especially since the workman's name is Jones.) The setting in each scene is the evening meal. The scene in the worker's house shows the beginning of the meal, its preparation, and ends with the worker being removed to the police station before he has eaten. The scene in the middle-class home shows the ending of the meal. The implication is merely that people of substance are not bothered at feeding time. Also, there is a contrast present in the ritualistic nature of the meals, the actions involved having been carefully described. The ritual in the workingman's home is found in the preparation, the making of tea, the unwrapping of parcels done up in newspaper, the peeling of vegetables. The ritual in the middle-class home is composed of the consumption of the food, the cracking of nuts and the passing of wine and biscuits to and fro. A more elaborate scenic irony is found in the first act of The Pigeon. The scene is an interior, with fireplace and windows, on Christmas Eve. There is a short stairway at the side of the stage opposite the fireplace. A street lamp glows through the frosted and snow-bedizened windows. By the glow of the fire one sees a drunken old coachman, a spilled glass of liquor, and a tramp and a ragged woman in embrace. As a clock strikes twelve the young lady of the house, hair down, dressed in a blue robe and carrying a candle, appears at the head of the stairs. This is the nineteen hundred and thirteenth year after the birth of Christ and human progress in that time is such that young ladies who are cared for may look like proper Christians, but for most of humanity love is still passion and superannuation is best taken care of by drunken forgetfulness. The dialogue continues in the following fashion: Ann: Look! (indicating the man and woman) Wellwyn (who has appeared behind Ann): Yes, yes, my dear! It - it happened.

74

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

Ann (with a sort of groan): Oh! Daddy! (The church clock ceases to chime) Ferrand (the tramp): (Softly, in his ironic voice) H E is come, Monsieur! 'Appy Christmas! Bon Noel! (There is a sudden chime of bells.) (The stage is blotted dark)

The verbal irony of the foregoing scene is apparent. Another form of irony is the irony of manner in which a startling contrast of character is exhibited. This form is often used by Galsworthy. The device he employs is that of similar characters in different circumstances. This device has been called shadowing,23 and Galsworthy used it with great precision. The notion behind such a device is explicitly stated by the character of Ferrand in The Pigeon. Ah! Monsieur, I am a loafer, waster - what you like - for all that poverty is my only crime. If I were rich, should I not be simply veree original, 'ighly respected, with soul above commerce, travelling to see the world? And that young girl, would she not be "that charming ladee," "veree chic, you know!" And old Timson - good, oldfashioned gentleman - drinking his liquor w e l l . . .24

Such dramatic paradigms are Jack Barthwick and Jones, the idle son of the rich and the working man, in The Silver Box; David Roberts and John Anthony in Strife; and William Falder and Walter Howe in Justice. In The Pigeon the middle-class characters of Calway, Hoxton, Bertly and Ann Wellwyn have their parallels in the demi-monde composed of Ferrand, Timson, Megan, and Mrs. Megan. And in the same way the characters are paired in Windows with the March family, Geoffrey, Joan, Mary, and Johnny, shadowed in Mr. Bly, Cook, Faith Bly, and Blunter. The actions of the paired characters are different. Their backgrounds and present circumstances are different. But each pair are similar types. This irony of manner is subsumed in the plays by dramatic irony, that is, a situation in which the outcome of the play is incongruous to the expectation, with painfully comic effect. The 2

» R. H. Mottram, For Some We Loved (London, Hutchinson, 1956), p. 86. 54 Galsworthy, Plays, p. 213.

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

75

ending of Strife in which the terms of agreement between the strikers and the mine owners are the same as when the play started; the end of The Mob in which a statue to the protagonist, killed by the mob, has been erected with the superscription, "Faithful to his ideal"; and the end of Justice in which the protagonist, having killed himself, is eulogized as being "Safe in the arms of gentle Jesus". Thompson, in describing the irony in Henrik Ibsen's plays, writes of an irony "which uses a complete dramatic action to contrast the 'surface likeness' and the hidden truth". 25 This joining of the argument or moral of a play to the action in ironic form is also found in Galsworthy's plays. It is present in his first play, The Silver Box, and thereafter, with greater or lesser force, in every play he wrote. The action of The Silver Box concerns the arrest and conviction of a labourer who has stollen a silver cigarette box and a lady's reticule containing money from the sitting room of his wife's employer. Parallel to this main action is the story of how the son of the employer had stolen the lady's reticule from a streetwalker. The two thieves appear in court, the son as a prosecution witness against the worker. The final irony comes in the fact that the employer, having prosecuted the theft must, against his instincts, also deny the wife of the workman help, for to give her aid would seem to encourage violation of property rights. The two thefts in The Silver Box are the point at which the parallel actions join. Galsworthy's insight as to the psychological motive of both thefts is excellent. Acquisition is not the motive in either case. Both the son of the middle-class and the worker steal to deprive the person stolen from. Their thefts are malicious acts born of rage or envy. Conversion of the goods to the thief's use only occurs in the case of the worker, and there only because he has financial demands made upon him. The son of the middle-class has no such needs. In fact, the workman's conversion of the stolen goods appears, in the context of the play, to be one of the more decent things he does, since the money is used to put a roof over the head of his wife and children. In Strife, the initial complication in the action is also the taking 85

Thompson, op. cit., p. 244.

76

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

of goods, though a less palpable kind. The strife between Roberts, the labour leader, and Antony, the Chairman of the Board of the mine works, has arisen from an argument over what Roberts should have been paid for a technical improvement in the operation of the mine. The view of Antony had been that anything the company gave Roberts was a gratuity since the company had a right to the results of Roberts' labour. Roberts, on the other hand, felt he had been paid too little. From this interesting problem in distributive justice the strife between the two men developed and spread to include the whole of the mine operation. Rage, envy, and a desire for power are the emotions which dominate. At the end of the strike the terms of employment are the same as those which had been negotiated before it began. A woman has died and Roberts and Antony are broken. As one of the characters asks, "All this - all this-and-and what for?" To which another replies, "That's where the fun comes in." 26 The fun, presumably, is the strife itself. The strike in the play is a horrid misapplication of the energies of two dominating men, the proximate cause of which is the equitable distribution of property rights. But it is the ultimate cause, the fight between two men for control of the company, which interests Galsworthy. In 1909 he had anticipated a problem, control of the productive process, which continues to plague industrial societies fifty years later. In Justice, the initial complication is a theft by forgery. The hero of the play alters a check and takes the money beyond the original amount for which the check was made to help a woman with whom he is in love. In the play the hero is made more culpable by the fact that his theft has cast suspicion upon a fellowworker who is not present to defend himself. For his crime the hero is prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned. Upon release he finds the woman, deprived of his support, has become a prostitute and that if he enters a relationship with her he will not be re-hired by his former employer. Further, he has not reported to his parole officer. Captured by the police, he kills himself rather than return to prison. The philosophical nature of the irony in Justice can be seen in a comparison of the first and last scenes of the play. They 28

Galsworthy, Plays, p. 105.

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

77

have the same locale and the same cast of characters. In the first scene these characters diligently gather the evidence which causes the hero to be sent to jail. In the last scene these same characters just as diligently try to restore the hero to the same position in society which he had had before the theft, as though the time between had never existed. And when this is not possible and the hero kills himself, these same people consign him to a place where time never exists, "safe in the arms of gentle Jesus". This careful joining of argument and plot in ironic contrast is not so apparent in the plays written after the first World War. In The Skin Game, Loyalties and Escape, Galsworthy is less concerned with the careful articulation of argument and plot. The emphasis in these plays is upon incident, and because of this the author was forced to a positive statement of the argument in each of these plays. This positive statement leaves little room for a suggestive contrast of ideas and through such a contrast to an implicit criticism of moral standards. Thus in The Skin Game, where landed gentry and wealthy townsmen fight to possess a piece of land, the irony is limited to the fact that the argument began with the dispossessing of a cottager, and thereafter proceeded to a bare knuckled fight over other property rights. And in Loyalties, where a social outsider successfully prosecutes a charge of theft against a war hero, the irony which is implicit in the final scene of the play has not been sufficiently developed previously to allow much impact. In fact, there is no indication in the reviews of the initial production that any irony was perceived. The play, dealing with degrees of loyalty, just as Plato's Symposium deals with degrees of love, fails in its examination of absolute loyalty. Absolute loyalty is represented in the form of a fellow-officer, but there is no examination of the basis of this loyalty felt by the fellow-officer for the war hero protagonist which, to be effective, the final scene demands. In the final scene the war hero kills himself leaving a note to the fellow-officer explaining that he, the hero, has hurt his young wife enough and will avoid further harm to her by killing himself. He admonishes the fellow-officer to care for her. The scene ends with the implicit notion that the fellow-

78

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

officer will marry the young widow as soon as she recovers from the faint in which she is lying at the time, and that he will do it under the impression that he is executing the wishes of the dead hero. The possibilities of the argument in this play have been slighted in favour of an elegantly wrought plot. The lack of the ironic development of the war hero and his relationship to the fellow-officer in Loyalties shows itself as a progressive tendency in Escape, Galsworthy's last successful play. Here the protagonist is another war hero, and in the play he has no continuing relationship with any other character. He is a device to which others respond. Galsworthy's justification of his lack of character was that a man in flight is characterless. In such a situation the chance for irony is small, and in the place of irony Galsworthy has done a series of satiric sketches of the inhabitants of the area in which the prison escaped from is located. As in the other successful post-war plays, incident supplants argument. And, as in the other successful post-war plays, the final statement of the argument is positive rather than negative. The protagonist gives himself up to the hue and cry saying, "It's one's decent self one can't escape." 27 It is Galsworthy's ability as a craftsman together with his change in emphasis on argument and plot that has caused such divergent opinions as to the relative value of his plays. Testimony to his ability as a craftsman can be seen in Ernest Reynold's statement that the plays show Galsworthy's "careful schooling, not merely in Ibsen, but in the 'well-made' tradition of Sardou and Pinero".28 Of himself Galsworthy wrote, "I came into theatre-land quite free from the influence of any dramatist or any kind of stage writing."28 And of Ibsen particularly, he wrote, "I had never seen an Ibsen play (before I wrote The Silver Box) and only read four or five (some years before) without either understanding or appreciating them - he suffers very much in translation, and both his types and his symbolism appeared to me, 27

Galsworthy, Plays, p. 638. Ernest Reynolds, Modern English Drama (Norman, U. of Oklahoma Press, 1951), p. 136. 29 Marrot, op. cit., p. 714. 28

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

79

then, crude, provincial, and far-fetched." 30 Galsworthy's technical excellence was a result of his novel writing and when he transferred that excellence to the play form the result was immediately and continually successful. It is the change in emphasis from argument to plot after the first World War, and the resulting lack of irony in the later plays which is the cause of such divergent judgments in the relative value of his plays. William York Tindall finds the post-war plays as good as the pre-war plays and marks Loyalties as the finest of all Galsworthy's work.31 To the contrary, George Rowell 82 finds the post-war plays a reversion to well-tried dramatic forms, such as melodrama, and thus a distinct retreat from the more naturalistic mode of the pre-war plays. Similarly, Rowell finds the later plays marred by lack of compassion, while Ernest Reynolds finds the author's impartiality in all of the plays so great as to preclude real sympathy being aroused for any character. All three critics are agreed upon the clarity with which Galsworthy composed. Tindall adverts to the plays' "monolithic simplicity of treatment";33 Rowell, to Galsworthy's "restraint and simplicity of treatment"; 34 and Reynolds describes the plays as "admirably clear-cut".35 And each critic has his own term for the author's attitude toward his characters. Rowell calls it compassion. Reynolds defines it as ironic pity. And Tindall defines it as sentiment. The plays which Tindall finds marred by sentiment, Rowell finds full of compassion, and the plays Tindall finds best are those which Rowell sees as lacking compassion and depending upon plot for their popularity. On the other hand, Reynolds sees all of the plays as popular because of their careful exploitation of theatrical effect, while Tindall finds the plays examples of "monolithic simplicity". Reynolds, though he names nearly a dozen major characters from Galsworthy's plays and can only cite three or four from other dramatists of the same period, declares Gals'» 31

>2 33 34 35

Ibid. Tindall, op. cit., pp. 41-42. Rowell, The Victorian Theatre (London, Oxford, 1956). Tindall, op. cit., p. 41. Rowell, op. cit., p. 135. Reynolds, op. cit., p. 136.

80

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

worthy's characters unexciting, while Tindall cites Old English, a vehicle for George Arliss in the United States, as an important play. This multiplicity of views (and they are but a few) can be reconciled only through granting the essentially ironic nature of the majority of Galsworthy's plays. It is well to recall what Purdom described as the "poetic tragedy-comedy quality" which Granville Barker achieved in the production of Galsworthy's plays, an achievement, according to the testimony of both Purdom and Hesketh Pearson, which has not since been repeated. Clearly, the monumental simplicity which Tindall sees in the plays is as specious as the theatricality which Reynolds finds. Of these three critics, Rowell's notion of the decline of compassion and the rise of incident in the later plays comes nearer the truth, but the word irony must be substituted for compassion, for there is a detachment in Galsworthy which does not allow for the commitment which compassion implies. There still remains the question of why Galsworthy changed his style of composition in the post-war period. Hermon Ould was of the opinion that since Galsworthy was essentially a reformer he wrote in a coarser style in the later plays so that the public might not miss the moral which they pointed.36 Marrot notes the relative coarseness of the post-war successes but does not give a reason for Galsworthy's change in style.37 And R. H. Mottram reports Galsworthy decided that in the post-war period he would only essay subjects in his plays which had current interest.38 At first glance there seems some similarity in Ould's and Mottram's positions. However, Mottram's view suffers from the fact that Galsworthy wrote the only two retrospective plays of his career in the post-war period. And Ould's opinion is not satisfactory because the post-war plays generally deal with problems which do not admit of solutions. However, Mottram's position becomes tenable if Galsworthy's post-war plays are viewed as essays in 36 Hermon Ould, John Galsworthy p. 131. 37 Marrot, op. cit., p. 493 passim. 38 Mottram, op. cit.

(London, Chapman Hall, 1934),

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

81

types or styles of popular realistic drama. In this view, such post-war plays as The Skin Game, Loyalties and Exiled become well-wrought melodramas using such subjects and locales as would pique the public's fancy, landed gentry against rising industrialist, scandal in Mayfair, and horse-racing. The historical pieces, Old English and The Forest, attempt to trade on the popularity of a generation just out of memory, the bankers and industrialists of Victorian England. And Escape and The Roof are essays in a looser structure much like the motion picture. All of the plays are attempts to find a wider audience by being more amusing and less didactic. In this way Galsworthy sought and found a degree of popularity in the post-war British theatre. This change in attitude on the part of Galsworthy, which is evinced in his change of style in the post-war plays, can be seen elsewhere in his writings. His credo as an artist in the years before the first World War can be seen in the following excerpt, But there is one great reason why, in this age of ours, Art, it seems, must flourish. For, just as cross-breeding in Nature - if it be not too violent - often gives an extra vitality to the offspring, so does cross-breeding of philosophies make for vitality in Art. I cannot help thinking that historians, looking back from the far future, will record this age as the Third Renaissance. We who are lost in it, working or looking on, can neither tell what we are doing, nor where standing; but we cannot help observing, that, just as in the Greek Renaissance, worn-out Pagan orthodoxy was penetrated by new Philosophy; just as in the Italian Renaissance, Pagan philosophy, reasserting itself, fertilised again an already too inbred Christian creed; so now Orthodoxy fertilised by Science is producing a fresh and fuller conception of life - a love of Perfection, not for hope of reward, not for fear of punishment, but for Perfection's sake. Slowly, under our feet, beneath our consciousness, is forming that new philosophy, and it is in times of new philosophies that Art, itself in essence always a discovery, must flourish. 3 ·

In the re-echoing of Platonism through the Western tradition, Galsworthy sees the salvation of the modern age. Science is no threat in the renaissance he envisions, for in it he sees a stirring towards perfection which is suggested by Socrates' description of the science of love in Plato's Symposium. "

Galsworthy, The Inn of Tranquillity, pp. 159-160.

82

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

It was in the same year in which Galsworthy wrote the piece quoted from above that he attempted to gain support from his fellow-writers for the limiting of aerial warfare. And within three years the first World War began. The Galsworthys spent the war years in Britain and France, where he acted as a masseur and his wife as a seamstress in a rest home for wounded French soldiers. Throughout this time Galsworthy wrote and published, mostly in America, turning over all proceeds to charity. Marrot estimates that three-quarters of Galsworthy's annual income was given away during these years.40 Though his own contribution to the war effort was great, so great that he was offered a knighthood at war's end, which he refused, Galsworthy was prey to a grievous personal anxiety that, even had he been fit and of proper age, he would have been unable to volunteer for service and leave his beloved wife. To allay this doubt, he wrote and contributed to War Relief the proceeds of the sale of his writings. Galsworthy's deep sense of personal failure was augmented by a tide of events over which he had no control. His brother-in-law and his nephew Rudolph Sauter, his sister Lily's son, were interned as enemy aliens and he could not effect a release. R. H. Mottram, a close friend, was in combat, and embittered by the attitudes on the home front. Edward Garnett, Galsworthy's first literary mentor, was engaged in agitation to stop the war, a position to which Galsworthy could not subscribe. In addition to these personal and political anxieties Galsworthy found his war-time writing received a much less favourable critical reception than had been customary. Always a writer who took criticism seriously and gave it in the same vein when asked, he was deeply affected by this turn of events. These various impingements upon his personality as a man and as a writer seem to have urged him to a decision. Broadly stated, Galsworthy determined that he would in the future eschew broad political subjects and devote his energies to the perfection of his art. He wrote to Gilbert Murray in later years, 40

Marrot, op. cit., p. 448.

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

83

The war has killed a lot of - I don't know what to call it - selfimportance, faith, idealism, in me; and I am not helped to the recovery thereof by seeing how far the 'leaders' (or some leaders) of thought are in the air. They play the game, but I doubt if they touch the real life of the world.41 Galsworthy's decision as to his goals as a novelist was made in the autumn of 1918 when he determined to continue the fabulous history of the Forsytes begun in A Man of Property in 1906. The immediate cause of the decision was the excellent critical reception of Five Tales, recently published, in which he had returned to the subject of the Forsyte family. Galsworthy's decision upon what course he would take as a playwright in the post-war years is less clear, and was made at a later date, though, like his decision in the novel form, it depended upon an initial success, The Skin Game. During the war years Galsworthy was much vexed by the lack of popularity of A Bit o' Love and The Foundations. Writing of the latter to his sister, Mrs. Reynolds, he remarked, It has become quite clear that I can never hope for a financial success with a play in London - it's an unspeakable public. I think I must certainly hold the dramatic record for all countries - eleven plays produced, and not one {in Londen) has made a penny for the management that produced it.42 There is implicit in the quotation above Galsworthy's recognition of the need for financial success if future plays were to be accepted for production by London managers. The Foundations had been refused by three managements before it had been taken by J. E. Vedrenne, Granville Barker's former colleague. After returning from a lecture tour of the United States in 1919 Galsworthy composed The Skin Game, which he called a tragicomedy. The origins of this play are not clear, but its form shows numerous departures from the earlier Galsworthy plays. The plot, with its use of the secret shame of a major character brought to light, suggests the dramaturgy of Pinero. The conscious inclusion of the audience in the auction scene seems somewhat like a parody 41 42

Marrot, op. ext., p. 803. Marrot, op. cit., p. 429.

84

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

upon Galsworthy's own avowed aim of creating an illusion ot reality. And the delineation of Mrs. Hillcrist as a wicked, scheming, upperclass woman, though an extension of Mrs. Barthwick in The Silver Box, recalls Somerset Maugham's Pearl Grayston in Our Betters, produced in New York in 1917. Of Loyalties Galsworthy wrote when he had finished it, "No manager will refuse this." 43 A better play than The Skin Game, Loyalties also depends upon what fascination the audience may have for its betters. But beyond this Galsworthy constructed an elegant and melodramatic plot of crime and detection, though the argument of the play is lost for lack of time to develop both argument and fable. Galsworthy prudently emphasized incident rather than argument and gained another popular success. Escape, written four years after Loyalties, is more clearly melodrama but even in this play with its sequence of exterior scenes there is the feeling that the fleeing war-hero protagonist speaks only to those persons he might meet in a drawing-room. Those who help him in his flight are of his class. Those who hinder him are not. To the former he reveals himself. From the latter he escapes. In form, Escape is the logical extension of The Skin Game, where the inclusion of the audience in the auction scene is an attempt to add novelty to the other pleasures of the play. The novelty in Escape is much greater and the planning and juxtaposition of the scenes is a mark of Galsworthy's technical excellence as a playwright. But, again, as in The Skin Game and Loyalties, the argument of the play has been sacrificed to incident. Galsworthy's unsuccessful plays in the post-war period are numerous and yet each seems an attempt to please his audience. Each is a new essay of technique. Windows is an attempt at drawing-room comedy, replete with "younger generation" in revolt against its parents. It fails for lack of action, just as its precursor, The Pigeon, failed. In Exiled, another failure of the postwar period, Galsworthy attempted to construct a play along the lines of a then popular melodrama form called a "racing play". In Exiled the hero has a horse which must win a race if he is not 43

Marrot, op. cit., p. 508.

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

85

to be exiled from England. The horse is maliciously lamed. Suspicion is cast on a wealthy industrialist who has a horse entered in the same race, but a tramp is discovered to have done it in a fit of rage and despair. The hero, out of the race, refuses to marry the industrialist's daughter, and prepares for exile in the colonies as the miners, who give local color to the play as the crowd, sing "John Brown's Body" as they march off into the distance. All the requisites of melodrama are here, including a final scene which is not far from the tableau scenes so dear to nineteenth century melodramatists. Galsworthy's changes in attitude during the war led to a general view of creative writing which he stated trenchantly in a "Preface" to his Satires in 1927.44 The time when a writer has political power is over, in countries whose governors become less and less literate with every generation . . . on the whole a writer tends more and more to become what he was in the days of the troubadours - a subject for after-dinner conversation. The idea that he should influence the conduct of practical affairs like Milton, Voltaire, Swift, Defoe, or even Dickens, is now regarded as ridiculous. . . . The connection between the development of scientific machinery and the decline of ideals, not to say ideas, might well form the staple of a considered study. . . . Even the most incorrigible leaders of public opinion are subordinate to still more fundamental causes, and fall weakly into their trombones. W e are all in the grip of machinery, markets, and the struggle for existence, and he is most powerful who floats most buoyantly upon the economic tides.

Alan Thompson points out that ironists are men of divided mind, and self-derisive temperament. They live the irony which they use for it is their basic view of the world. The tension in an ironist's soul is between what is and what he feels ought to be. His solution is the destruction of what is. John Galsworthy was such a person. And in his early plays he attempted to destroy the acquisitive middle-class from which he had sprung and the Christian ethic by which it lived. His own knowledge of the nature of his plays can best be seen in his sensitive evaluation of Henrik 44

John Galsworthy, Satires (New York, Scribners, 1927).

86

THE PLAYWRIGHT'S DEVELOPMENT

Ibsen, one of the greatest of ironists. Of him Galsworthy wrote, "he . . . exercised a power of destruction on all that went before him, rather than a power of moulding what came after him".45 But irony by its nature is self-divisive. It has the intellectual quality of an infinite regress of self-images found in opposing mirrors. To communicate the complexity of such a world in the play form is impossible. The ironist who is a playwright has two alternatives. He may either accept the limitations of the play form and work with it as best he can, or he may attempt to set his visions down as plays, even though he hazards their meaning in this way. Galsworthy took the first alternative, and thus lessened the power of irony. His reasons for doing so seem linked with a recognition of his limitations as a human being. This self-recognition was the result of a number of incidents during the first World War. If Thompson is correct in his view of ironists as sick souls 46 then Galsworthy was partially cured of his sickness by the course of events in his life. But, though an author's ironic spirit may wax or wane, his craft may be perfected. Though after the first World War he had not the will to continue in an ironic vein in his plays, John Galsworthy continued to work at his craft. He was never afraid to try a new approach to the play form. And some of his later plays have an elegance of design which is unsurpassed.

45

Marrot, op. cit., p. 714. ® Thompson, op. cit., p. 257.

4

Part II THE LETTERS

IV THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1922

The long and productive relationship between John Galsworthy and Leon Lion came about through the efforts of still another theatre man, J. T. Grein. Grein, a sugar merchant and drama critic, had established the Independent Theatre in London in 1891 to introduce London audiences to modern continental playwrights. The Independent Theatre produced, among other plays, the Archer translations of Ibsen's Ghosts and George Bernard Shaw's Widower's Houses. During the nineteen-twenties Grein wrote for the Illustrated London News. In one of his articles for that paper he suggested that Leon Lion, a young producer, might present better plays. Lion wrote Grein to defend himself and from this correspondence came the plan to revive the works of several British authors. One of the authors decided upon was John Galsworthy. Leon Lion had entered management in 1918 with a production of his own play, The Chinese Puzzle, which was a great success, and had proceded in 1920 to produce Lady Arthur Lever's Brown Sugar, also a great success. Then in the late fall of 1920 he produced Ernest Hutchinson's The Right to Strike. It was at this time that Grein wrote the article which brought about the meeting of Galsworthy and Lion. John Galsworthy on his first post-war trip to the United States in 1919 had written a play called The Skin Game. This he had first offered to Gerald du Maurier, who had refused it for lack of a part for himself, and then to Basil Dean who presented it in West End London in March of 1920. This was Galsworthy's first commercial success. It ran three hundred and forty-nine per-

90

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

formances. And it was running when Grein and Lion hit upon Galsworthy for their series of revivals. While plans went forward for the Galsworthy revivals Lion produced, unsuccessfully, at the Duke of York's Theatre two melodramas and a revival from the French. During the same period Galsworthy wrote two plays, A Family Man and Windows. The first of these was presented at the Comedy Theatre in March, 1921, and was unsuccessful. Lion and Grein had drawn up a list of Galsworthy's plays which they wished to produce. It included The Silver Box, Justice, The Pigeon, The Fugitive and The Mob. None of these plays, when first produced in the West End, had achieved a run of one hundred performances, and only one of them, The Silver Box, had ever been revived there. Having come to agreement with Lion as to the plays, presumably Grein had written Galsworthy and found him agreeable to the revivals. Thereafter, Lion had written Galsworthy and incorporated the terms of production in his letter. As the first piece of correspondence indicates, there had been an error in the terms as Lion had transmitted them to Galsworthy. The terms seem to indicate that the producers and Galsworthy had come to a rough notion of the break-even point for each performance. That is, to make its expenses each performance of each play of the projected "cycle" would have to gross £ 100. Until this break-even point had been reached those who were to be paid on a percentage of the return, Lion, Grein, Galsworthy and possibly one or two of the better known actors in the play, would moderate their shares in deference to the fixed charges of production, house rental, actor's salaries, scenery charges and frontof-the-house expenses. The amount of return to Galsworthy as author was minimal, no more than £ 5 on the first £ 1 0 0 , a profit which is confirmed by St. John Ervine's statement that he made more money leasing his plays to amateurs than he did by leasing them to professionals for production in repertory.1 The terms which Galsworthy 1 St. John Ervine, The Organized Theatre (New York, Macmillan, 1924), p. 138.

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

91

granted Grein and Lion indicate that Galsworthy was most interested in having his plays revived in London. But more important than the royalty agreement was the emphasis which Galsworthy put upon the selection of plays and the actors to play in them. Presumably he wished his plays to be revived only if they could be cast to suit him. Grove Lodge July 25, 1921

Dear Mr. Lion Thank you for your letter. There is a rather giant error in the terms (which I telegraphed to Mr. Grein. The terms I ask are 5% on the gross takings of each performance up to £ 100, with 10% on all takings over £100 per performance. Perhaps you will kindly alter the contract accordingly. I am in accord with the general purport of your letter, and with the selection of the plays, though I should rather that the list was left elastic. I want to talk out you about casting, and I will try and come in to see you tomorrow Tuesday about 12:45. Yours sincerely John Galsworthy Surely one of the problems of casting which Lion and Galsworthy discussed when they met was the part of Clare Dedmond in The Fugitive. Originally produced in 1913, it was a play to which the author was particularly partial. Of it he wrote to Gerald du Maurier, who had refused its production, "No - the play is the tragedy of 'ladyhood'; of women bred and brought up to being all right if things go reasonably well, but neither hardy nor coarsefibred enough for the cross-winds of life." 2 The Fugitive concerns Clare Dedmond, a woman of breeding, who leaves her husband for another man. She is unable to make a go of this alliance and thereafter descends to the demi-monde. She finally kills herself. The play depends upon the interpretation of Clare. Miss Jean Cadell, suggested for the part of Clare in the following letter, had a quality of acting once described by James Agate as that of an "old maid startled out of her virginity".3 The other play referred to in the following letter is Sir Arthur Pinero's His House in 8

'

Order.

Marrot, op. cit., p. 372. James Agate, At Half-past Eight (London, Jonathan Cape, 1923), p. 42.

92

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE O F 1 9 2 2

Wingstone, Manaton. Devon Aug. 19 Dear Mr. Lion, Did you happen to see Miss Jean Cadell as Nina in 'His House in Order' the other day? And what do you think of the possibility of her as Clare in "The Fugitive"? Reading the notices there seems to be quite a liklihood that she could play it. I think anyway I will ask her to come and see me, when I am up for one day on Wednesday next. With kind regards, Sincerely yours John Galsworthy Jean Cadell was born in Edinburgh in 1884, received her initial training under Sir George Alexander during the first decade of the century and thereafter joined the Glasgow Repertory Theatre. There is no record of a production of Pinero's His House in Order for this London season, though Miss Cadell may have played it at the Everyman Theatre, where she created the part of Emma in O'Neill's Diff'rent in October of 1921. Miss Cadell had first played in this Pinero work in 1907. The three Galsworthy plays under discussion in the following letter had been written before the war. The Silver Box had first been produced at the Court Theatre in 1906 by Harley Granville Barker, Justice at the Duke of York's Theatre in 1910 under the aegis of Daniel Frohman, Barker producing, and The Mob in 1914 at the Coronet Theatre. Since neither Galsworthy nor Lion were unfledged in theatre production, it was to be expected that both author and producer had acquired a host of definite impressions as to what person would suit a particular role, and that each man would have particular knowledge of the abilities of those actors with whom they had come in contact. The following letter from Galsworthy to Lion is the first indication of this clash of individual tastes in the matter of casting. Presumably Janet Eccles, mentioned in the following letter, had heard somewhere that Lion was casting Galsworthy's The Fugitive. Trained under Acton Bond at the Academy of Music,

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

93

Miss Eccles had toured with Leon Lion in A Chinese Puzzle in 1919. Louise Hampton, also mentioned in the following letter, had begun her career in Australia and after touring Egypt and the provinces had come to London, where she played in Lion's production of Brown Sugar. As an alternative to Lion's suggestion of Miss Hampton for the role of Mrs. Jones in The Silver Box Galsworthy suggested Christine Silver, whose previous associations with Barker and the Liverpool Repertory had brought her to the attention of Galsworthy. Christine Silver began her career at the age of twenty when she appeared at the Grand Theatre, Margate, as Phoebe Throssel in Quality Street. A small woman, she played children, girls and fairies throughout the war years, appearing as Titania in Barker's production of A Midsummer Night's Dream at the Savoy Theatre in 1914. At the time of the following letter she had just finished an engagement with the Liverpool Repertory Theatre. The postscript to the letter below brings forth still another difference in viewpoint. Galsworthy took the position that the producer of a play cannot play a major character in it without injuring the production. Lion clearly thought otherwise. Wingstone, Manaton. Devon Aug. 27

Dear Mr. Lion, I tried to reach you by telephone in Portsmouth, but unfortunately my housekeeper had taken the wrong number. I saw your announcement of the Cycle in the papers. I have had a note from Miss Janet Eccles, saying you spoke to her concerning the part of Clare; and I have agreed to let her read the part to me later on. But frankly I do not think she can possibly carry guns enough for that most difficult and important part. I should expect Miss Cadell, if on a reading she seems right, to have much more flame and power of 'getting it over.' However, the first play to turn one's attention to is 'The Silver Box", and I enclose the suggestions for certain parts which I should like you to make sure of before long. Perhaps you could now tell me too, what would be your opening date. I hope not earlier than towards the end of October, because I want to be down here till the end of September.

94

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

Concerning the actress you suggested for Mrs. Jones, Miss Hampton I think, I should not like that fixed without my seeing her, please. Miss Christine Silver is a possible alternative, I think. Kind regards from Yours sincerely John Galsworthy Concerning Faider I still think you have too much pressure to the square inch for that weak character. But I incline to your tackling Stephen More in 'The Mob'. As the young advocate in Justice you could easily produce the play. As Falder you could not. The enclosure mentioned in the above letter of August 27th, 1921, is reproduced below. It offers Galsworthy's notion of adequate casts for what were at that time the first two plays to be produced, The Silver Box and Justice. The previous professional experience of the actors suggested by Galsworthy for the casts is most interesting. Only three had never played in a Galsworthy play previous to the productions under discussion. They were Margaret Carter, Louise Hampton and Lion himself. Of these, Margaret Carter was a friend of Galsworthy. Galsworthy still questioned the wisdom of casting Louise Hampton as Mrs. Jones in The Silver Box. (Note the question mark beside Miss Hampton's name on the cast list.) And Lion was delegated the part of Jones in The Silver Box and the minor part of the Young Advocate in Justice. The Silver Box John Barthwick Mrs. Barthwick Jack Barthwick Mrs. Jones Jones Marlow Wheeler Unknow Lady Snow Magistrate Mrs. Seddon

Laurence Hanray Margaret Carter (Mrs. Brember Wills) Francis Lister Miss Hampton L. M. Lion Kaye-Smith (i.e. Butler in "The Family Man") ? Auriol Lee ? Fisher White (and to produce play) ?

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

Magistrate's Clerk Livens Roper

95

? ? John Howell

If we made "Justice" the second play we could use some of these as Justice

Falder Cokeson Ruth James Howe Walter Howe Judge Old Advocate Young Advocate Governor Doctor Chaplain Sweedle Wister Cowley Wooder Moaney Clipson O'Cleary

J. H. Roberts? Lawrence Hanray Auriol Lee Fisher White Lister, or Howell Lewin Mannering (has played it & is very good) LML & to produce? John Howell

Laurence Hanray was born in 1874. He studied under Hermann Vezin in the nineties. After that he toured the far East and Australia and spent the years immediately before the first World War at the Glasgow and Liverpool Repertory Theatres. Presumably at the latter theatre he gained his experience in Galsworthian drama. In the West End he played small parts in Galsworthy's The Foundations, 1917, and A Family Man, June 1921. Margaret Carter (Mrs. Brember Wills) had been trained as a singer and had toured in opera and musical comedy before the war. She had returned to the theatre in 1920. Francis Lister, born in 1899, started his career in 1914 but it was interrupted by the war. He had been trained at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (then the Academy of Dramatic Art). He had played in Galsworthy's A Family Man at the Comedy Theatre in June, 1921.

96

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

Auriol Lee, later to be John van Druten's mentor and director of his plays, started her career in 1900, playing mainly in the provinces until 1905. She supported Forbes-Robertson on several tours. Thereafter she played in both London and New York and in a variety of parts. She had played in Galsworthy's A Family Man at the Comedy in June, 1921. Fisher White, born in 1865 and educated at Oxford, had received his training in the provinces, touring there and in America with John Hare. Thereafter he was with Sir Herbert Tree's company for ten years. He had created the part of Roberts in Strife at the Duke of York's Theatre in 1909 and played the same part in the revival in 1913. John Howell had been trained in Sir Frank Benson's company between 1909 and 1913. His first part after the war had been in The Chinese Puzzle by Marian Bower and Leon Lion, Lion producing. He had also played in A Family Man in June, 1921. J. H. Roberts had his original training with the Manchester Repertory and was a founding member of the Liverpool Repertory where he had played Walter Howe in Justice. In 1920 in London he created the part of the Auctioneer in The Skin Game. Lewin Mannering, born in 1879, was trained in provincial touring companies and played with the Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool Repertories. At Liverpool he had played the Judge in Justice. He was a member of the 1919 touring company of Lion's production of The Chinese Puzzle. The following letter, written on the last day of August or the first of September, seems to have been in reply to a letter from Lion in which the producer proposed that Lyall Swete play Barthwick in The Silver Box and produce the show as well. Swete had spent the war years in America and was just beginning again to work in London. Lion wanted another competent theatre man to share production chores with him and felt that Swete also might take a major part in at least one of the revivals. Galsworthy's rejoinder in the letter below makes two points; first, that Barthwick in The Silver Box is hard to play and should be entrusted to someone skilled in Galsworthian drama, and second, that under no circumstances could the player of the part also produce the

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

97

show. The reference to Dennis Eadie in the letter concerns the Duke of York's Theatre of which Eadie was manager at the time. Lion was trying to get that house for the revivals. Wingstone, Manaton, Devon Dear Mr. Lion Thank you for your letter of Aug. 29. I note what you say about Mr. Swete. I have not seen him play for a very long time and then in a part which gave no indication of his high comedy powers. I don't think you know 'The Silver Box', and I have to warn you that Barthwick is a very difficult part to play, nor do 1 think it can possibly be played by one who is producing the play. For this reason I should feel much safer if this part is entrusted to Hanray, who knows exactly what is wanted of the part, has been in nearly all my plays and knows what you can do in them and what you can't - in other words the texture, especially of the comedy parts. Frankly to play Barthwick and produce is a most unsatisfactory arrangement. If Eadie can be roped in conveniently it will be excellent. I note what you say about Miss Eccles. I have only seen her in private life. I doubt her having personality enough. Sylvia Oakly I don't know at present. Best regards Yours sincerely John Galsworthy Lyall Swete, born in 1865, was trained under Mrs. BandmannPalmer and, later, Frank R. Benson. After 1900 he was associated with Sir George Alexander, Lewis Waller and Oscar Asche. He was active in the United States during the war years, directing numerous plays, among them Chu Chin Chow. Dennis Eadie, born in Scotland in 1875 and trained in the provinces, was at one time associated with Sir George Alexander. He worked under the Vedrenne-Barker management at the Court Theatre, creating the part of Marlow in The Silver Box. He also worked under Frohman at the Duke of York's Theatre, creating the parts of Wilder in Strife and Falder in Justice. In 1912 Vedrenne and Eadie took the management of the Royalty Theatre and produced The Pigeon, in which Eadie created the part of Ferrand.

98

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

The matter of casting the cycle came to a head in the following letter of September 6, 1921, in which Galsworthy, possibly annoyed by Lion's too free promise of consideration to various persons for parts, set a time and place for interviews. Again he emphasized his own experience in the production of his own plays. Wingstone, Manaton Devon. Sep. 6, 1921 Dear Mr. Lion I will see anybody you like when I come to town about Sept. 28, but please don't hold out hopes to people till I have seen them. I do not see Lillah McCarthy in any of the plays. I note the possibility of an evening bill. Kind remembrances Sincerely yours John Galsworthy As to casting generally, would like you to bear in mind that several productions of all these plays have given me a good deal of known material to draw from, and a very definite idea of the types wanted. JG Lillah McCarthy, Granville Barker's first wife, had created the part of Madge Thomas in Strife at the Duke of York's in 1909 and had produced The Eldest Son and revived The Silver Box at the Little Theatre in 1913. Of her George Bernard Shaw once wrote, "Lillah McCarthy's secret was that she combined the executive art of the grand school (of acting) with a natural impulse to murder the Victorian womanly woman . . . " 4 In October of 1921 Lion was producing at the Comedy Theatre. He had opened a comedy, Araminta Arrives, by J. C. Snaith and Dorothy Brandon. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead Oct. 6, 1921

Dear Mr. Lion The weather is too good to leave Devonshire just yet, so I'm afraid we 4

G. B. Shaw, "Introduction" in Lillah McCarthy's Myself Friends (New York, E. P. Dutton, 1933).

and

My

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

99

can't be at your first night on Tuesday, thank you so much all the same; perhaps you will let me know to Wingstone, Manaton N. Moretonhampstead Devon whether Friday, Oct 14 afternoon suits you for interviews. Yours sincerely John Galsworthy

Araminta Arrives failed to please the public and was withdrawn

in November. It was replaced by Lion's production of Monckton Hoffe's The Faithful Heart which was a success. It ran at the

Comedy Theatre until the following March. The first bout of casting having been completed, Galsworthy spent the next month trying to get Lion to commit himself to a production date and a theatre. Plans for beginning the cycle in 1921 were later put aside, as Galsworthy anticipated they might be in the following letter. Galsworthy went to see Araminta Arrives just before it closed,

as mentioned in the letter, not only as a courtesy to his new producer but also to see Louise Hampton who was being considered for the part of Mrs. Jones in the projected revival of The Silver Box. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead Oct. 24, 1921 Dear Mr. Lion I want to be abroad for my wife's health's sake in January and February, so those two months would be bad for me unless you could open really early January (the first week) with "Justice", and then go on to "The Pigeon" which Eadie would be able to produce or help produce, knowing the original production. By the time those plays had run their course I might be back. Can we come and see Araminta on Wednesday? Thank you, and I'll come round between. Yours very sincerely John Galsworthy

With Hoffe's The Faithful Heart playing at the Comedy Theatre

and appearing as though it might run well into the spring of 1922, the problem of housing the Galsworthy cycle became a matter of

100

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

concern. James B. Fagan, a well known playwright and producer, had presented a well received season of Shakespeare at the Court Theatre in the spring of 1921 and had followed in with the original London production of Shaw's Heartbreak House. At the time ot the following letter Heartbreak House was still being offered at the Court. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead Nov. 18 Dear Mr. Lion I see you have now made your new production, and I also see that Fagan announces the end of 'Heartbreak House'. I saw him at dinner the other day, and he gave me the impression that you were arranging with him to replace 'Heartbreak House' with my cycle. I should be glad to know about this. The ideal thing of course would be the theatre closed for the Xmas holidays and a reopening the first week in January with 'Justice'. I shall be grateful anyway to know what the position is; time is drawing on. Miss Eccles gave me a reading of the part of Clare, but I'm afraid she will not do. She is too soft, not got the 'edge' wanted in the part, nor the vibration. I wish you would take the opportunity of seeing Moyna MacGill in 'Will Shakespeare'; she seems to me the most likely cast at present, present. Would any good end be served by convening a meeting between Eadie, Fagan, yourself and myself, to get something fixed definitely. I hope you will have better fortune with 'The Faithful Heart'. With kind regards, Sincerely yours John Galsworthy Moyna MacGill had first played on the London stage in 1918. At the time of the above letter she was playing Ann Hathaway in Clemence Dane's Will Shakespeare. The Court Theatre, which housed the Vedrenne-Barker seasons and was the scene of Galsworthy's first success, The Silver Box, was situated in Sloane Square. A small theatre and not precisely in the West End, it had not been completely renovated since Barker had produced there. The only change which had been made since that time was in the pit, which had been combined with the

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

101

stalls. The stated capacity of the theatre in 1907 was 614 and in 1922, 642 Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead Nov. 26 Dear Lion, I have your letter of the 25th. I have not seen Ainley play for a long time, but don't you think he'd make a hero of Falder? And my impression of him was of a rather too robust person. Perhaps you would write to me again, in the light of these remarks? I think there can be no doubt that the Duke of York's or almost any theatre in that district, except the very big ones, would be better than the Court, whose situation certainly does not help. If you are to open with 'The Pigeon' before Christmas, a decision must be taken pretty soon. For the part of Timson I would strongly recommend J. A. Dodd. He knows the play well and will, I think, be excellent. I hope you will succeed in fixing this up with Eadie for the Duke of York's. With kind regards Yours sincerely John Galsworthy

Henry Ainley, born in 1879, as a young man acted with Sir Frank Benson's company. In 1902 he was hired by Sir George Alexander to play Paolo in Stephen Phillips' Paolo and Francesco, in which play Ainley secured his name in theatrical history. In 1906 he appeared under the Vedrenne-Barker management in the revivals of Greek classics, translated by Gilbert Murray, which that management offered. In 1910 he played in Sir Beerbohm Tree's Shakespeare Festival at His Majesty's Theatre. Just previous to the letter above, he had relinquished management of the St. James' Theatre. All the plans for an opening of the Galsworthy cycle before Christmas came to nothing. The success of Monckton Hoffe's The Faithful Heart at the Comedy Theatre closed that house to Lion. Negotiations with Eadie for the Duke of York's Theatre broke down and the cycle had to be housed at the Court Theatre. Lion spent the Christmas season in London and the Galsworthy's went to Littlehampton, where Galsworthy wrote a lecture to be delivered in Sweden during the spring of 1922. Upon

102

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

Galsworthy's return to London rehearsals for the cycle commenced. By the first of the New Year the sequence of plays in the cycle had been decided. Justice was to be followed by The Pigeon which would be followed in turn by The Silver Box. Justice was to be produced by Lion who would also play Falder in that play, but with Lyall Swete assisting in the production. Swete would produce The Pigeon with Lion playing the major role of Christopher Wellwyn. Justice was scheduled to open on February 7, a Friday, but the opening dates of the other two shows had not been set, since no one knew what sort of a run could be expected from Justice. With Justice in rehearsal and The Pigeon being cast, Galsworthy turned to the possibility of having one of his short plays produced as a curtain raiser to The Pigeon. This possibility was presumably suggested to him by Basil Dean, who planned to use James Barrie's Shall We Join the Indies? as an after-piece to Galsworthy's Loyalties, which Dean was preparing for production. Punch and Go by Galsworthy, mentioned below, is a satire on theatre managers and the tinsel and cardboard of the theatre. It requires a split stage for simultaneous settings. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead Jan 22, 1922

My dear Lion About Edward Irwin. Hadn't we better secure him to understudy Hanray in Cokeson for the week after next and then go on with him as Timson in rehearsing 'The Pigeon'. He would be a good Cokeson I should think. Anyway if you try him for Timson he will be handy to take Hanray's place in case we run 'Justice' for longer. I hope you will be firm in not encouraging Miss Goodall in regard to other parts at presentl Yours, JG I wish you would consider "Punch and Go" with me seriously. Snowden tells me their lighting is admirable for the sort of effect we should want at the back of the stage. I do not believe the little play is half so difficult as you think. A backdrop, a tree and a

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

103

boulder is all it needs, if well lighted, and we can cast it out of the Pigeon company. JG

Edward Irwin, born in 1867, gained his training as an actor under Wilson Barrett before the turn of the century. He had played Hornblower in Galsworthy's The Skin Game in 1920. Edyth Goodall had been a very active member of the Manchester Repertory from 1909 to 1912, playing Madge Thomas in Strife, Mrs. Barthwick in The Silver Box, and Clare Dedmond in The Fugitive. Alec Snowden played several small parts in the Grein-Lion revivals. He was probably stage manager for the production of Justice. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead Jan. 24, 1922 My dear Lion Young Gordon Craig's address is Robert Gordon Craig 6 Carlingford Road Hampstead N W 3 You remember I thought he would do for Megan in the Pigeon. May I have exact calls to rehearsal sent me here daily? Yours very sincerely John Galsworthy

"Young Gordon Craig" is listed in the genealogical table of the Terrys as Robin Craig, actor. There is no maternal line listed. He was the son of Edward Gordon Craig, who was the son of Ellen Terry. 5 Rehearsals for Justice having commenced, producer and author began casting the second play of the cycle, The Pigeon. It seems clear that by the time the following letter was written Lion had claimed the part of Christopher Wellwyn, the title character of the play, and that Galsworthy had acquiesced in this casting pro8

John Malcolm Bullock, "Hereditary Theatrical Families", in Who's Who in the Theatre (John Parker, ed.), 4th ed. (London, Pitman, 1922), p. 975 ff.

104

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

viding that Lion did not also produce. This latter chore was assigned to Lyall Swete, who also played a small part. Galsworthy's The Pigeon had been produced originally by J. E. Vedrenne and Dennis Eadie at the Royalty Theatre in 1912, Eadie creating the part of Ferrand and Whitford Kane the part of Christopher Wellwyn. The play, a comedy, revolves about the character of Wellwyn, artist and Tolstoian benefactor of the poor. He literally gives what is asked of him until his pockets and his larder are empty. This habit gathers to him numerous social incorrigibles. His friends decry this manner of life which makes him the "pigeon" of every tramp he meets and they try to remedy the situation. They are, of course, unsuccessful and Wellwyn keeps on giving. The characters mentioned in the following letter are from the company of incorrigibles. Timson is a drunken old coachman who has taken on many of the characteristics of his tired, old horse. Mrs. Megan is a destitute young woman. Ferrand, the raisonneur of the piece, is a tramp of French origins. Again the actors suggested for casting in the following letter were previously associated with Galsworthy; Chesney through his brother, Edmund Gwenn, and his own work with the Liverpool Repertory; Shine through earlier productions of Galsworthy plays; and Reynolds on recommendation from Laurence Hanray, an old and trusted friend of Galsworthy. Only Iris Hoey was without previous connection with Galsworthy, but she was an actress of some stature in London. Miss Hoey managed her own theatre. Miss Nesbitt had created the part of Freda in Galsworthy's The Eldest Son in 1912 and was about to be cast as Margaret Orme in Galsworthy's new play, Loyalties. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead Jan 23, 1922 My dear Lion Here is Langerte's address Raymond Langerte IS Rue Spontini Paris XVI In writing to him perhaps you would say that I should greatly like to see him play Ferrand at last.

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

105

The alternatives to Irwin for Cokeson (understudy, etc.) and Timson would seem to be Chesney; or Tom Reynolds; or Wilfrid Shine (the original Timson). I don't know Reynolds, but Hanray says he would be a good Timson. Of course if you can still get Iris Hoey I would prefer her for Mrs. Meegan, the Unknown Lady and Faith in Windows. As to The Fugitive' I still hold that Cathleen Nesbitt would be the best cast; though I'd be willing to try Miss Hoey, if the rest depended on it. Yours, JG Arthur Chesney, brother of Edmund Gwenn, started his professional career in 1903, was associated with the Liverpool Repertory just before the first World War and had just completed a tour of Canada with Sir John Martin Harvey. Tom Reynolds, born in 1866, toured with Irving from 1899 to 1905 and then joined the company of Sir Henry's son, Η. B. Irving. At the time of the letter he was playing in Britten Austen's The Thing That Matters. Wilfrid Shine, born in 1864, was trained in touring companies in the provinces in the eighteen-eighties. After creating Timson in 1912 he went to the Liverpool Repertory. In 1915 he played in Galsworthy's A Bit o' Love at the Kingsway Theatre, London. Iris Hoey, born in 1885, acted with Tree intermittently between 1905 and 1910. In 1920 she assumed management of the Duke of York's Theatre. At the time of the letter she was probably preparing to tour Douglas Murray's The Man from Toronto. Cathleen Nesbitt, born in 1889, joined the Irish Players in London before the war and toured America. She had created the part of Freda in Galsworthy's The Eldest Son in 1912. Soon after the writing of this letter Basil Dean cast her as Margaret Orme in Loyalties, a part which she created in March of 1922. With Justice in the last week of rehearsal Galsworthy, always sensitive to the matter of gathering an audience for his plays, turned to the problem of advertising the cycle. The original production of Justice had advanced the cause of penal reform in England a good ten years. Winston Churchill, then Home Secretary, had attended the play in the company of the official in charge of prisons. As a direct consequence of the play Parliament

106

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF

1922

enacted legislation which greatly modified the use of solitary confinement in British prisons. Thus in the following letter Galsworthy suggests reviving interest among persons committed to penal reform. It is also probably that advance sales for Justice were not particularly good and that Grein and Lion were most uncertain as to how far they could stretch their purse in the presentation of the cycle. They were committed to the production of Justice, The Pigeon and The Silver Box but there was some doubt as to whether they could afford production of The Fugitive and The Mob. Further, the Reandean management of the St. Martin's Theatre was preparing to offer Galsworthy's new play, Loyalties, on March 8th. It was at this juncture of affairs that Galsworthy offered Grein and Lion a new play, Windows, to augment the cycle. Leon Lion remembered the transaction as follows, "Grein and I had decided to present five of his plays, running each of them four weeks - The Silver Box, Justice, The Pigeon, The Mob and The Fugitive. But, most generously, Galsworthy offered a new post-war play he had just completed - Windows - which we decided to substitute for the two last-named." 6 Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead Sunday

My Dear Lion It might perhaps be welcomed by "The Howard League for Penal Reform" 7 Dalmeny Ave. N. 7 if you wrote circularizing them about 'Justice'; and asked them, too, to inform the authors of the Report on Prisons which is shortly to be issued. They might be glad to know. You might also circularize the members of the British Drama League about the cycle generally. Can you reserve me a quiet hour after rehearsal tomorrow to seriously consider the question of future casts, and the new play. One cannot put any order into thoughts with the scrappy sort of interrupted talks we are getting. I'll be down to rehearsal at 3. Yours very sincerely John Galsworthy On Monday Galsworthy drove to town and conferred with Grein • Lion, op. cit., p. 238.

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

107

and Lion who accepted the new play for production, though they did not immediately drop plans for the productions of The Fugitive and The Mob. Galsworthy must also have been urged to put in a request for tickets, as the following letter shows. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead Jan 31, 1922 My Dear Lion For the first night of Justice may we have a box for ourselves? My further requirements are 6 stalls together and next to the two stalls you are sending to C. S. Evans. Could you spare me say two of them, and I will pay for the other four. Yours sincerely John Galsworthy By the way I meant to have said to you that the selling problem of this cycle is that of getting my public (which is quite big enough to fill the theatre all the time) together quickly enough. They generally rub their eyes and begin to say "Oh! I must go" about the last day. I expect you realize this. JG Will you see Mr. John Williams St. James Theatre for the part of Jack Barthwick. Better secure him now if we can. JG

John Williams, born in 1903, had completed a tour with Irene Vanbrugh and Dion Boucicault just previous to the above letter. Windows, which Grein and Lion had accepted for production, tells the story of a young serving girl who is hired by an uppermiddle-class family. The girl, Faith Bly, turns out to be no better than she should. The children of the family would defend her. The parents are more cautious. None of them sees her as she is. Only the girl's father seems to see her truly and to be able to accept her for what she is. It was a peculiarity of Galsworthy that he would not take payment of royalties for the presentation of his plays in advance of their accrual. At the time of the following letter Grein and Lion still planned to run each play of the cycle for a month, and yet they hoped for an early production of Windows. Galsworthy suggested that it

108

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

be presented at the Comedy Theatre while the cycle continued at the Court. In fact, with the shortened runs of the other plays Windows was presented at the Court in the latter part of April. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead Feb. 1, 1922 My Dear Lion I send you herewith a copy (adapted) of my usual agreement. If you agree to it in regard to the new play please have proper copies made. I enclose also a direction in regard to the royalties on the run of 'Justice' here; will you and Mr. Grein put your signatures to it. I want it quite clear that the money does not form part of my income before it is paid over. By the way, apropos of our discussion of policy and dates yesterday, an important element to be borne in mind is that I must be absent in Scandinavia from Maroh 10 to March 26 inclusive. I obviously don't want the production of the new play to be coming just then. Can we not consider a production at the Comedy about April 15, and keep the cycle at the Court? Yours very sincerely John Galsworthy Justice was in its last week of rehearsal and make-ups and costumes were being tried out. Lion, never one to miss the chance of a striking make-up, had transformed his usual darkling complexion with a blonde wig. Galsworthy's response in the following letter demonstrates clearly his approach to production in general and to this production in particular. He is interested in a careful and muted approximation of reality. Character is the mainspring of the play. And he, Galsworthy, has seen the plays done and knows what is wanted. It should be noted that Lion played Falder in Justice without wig or mustache.7 Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead Feb. 2, 1922

My dear Lion You gave me one of the shocks of my life yesterday in that golden wig; for it made me wonder whether you realize how the least touch 7 Lion, op. cit., photo opposite p. 81.

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

109

of what looks artificial in the playing of Falder might (I think would) wreck the cycle. Wigs are the very devil; and we can't risk one of any kind in that part, which depends for its life on absolute moving reality. If you could dull your own hair a little and keep it short, it would be all that's necessary, and far-far safer. And certainly no moustache which spoils your very sensitive mouth. L'etat c'est toi - the venture hangs on your Falder. You are in competition with a cherished reminiscence of an intensely real impersonation and the least touch of theatrical artificiality (such as a wig gives) will undo us. I stress this because one doesn't always see oneself as others see one; and I am speaking to one who has never seen a play of mine. When the aritificial walks in at the door my plays fly out of the window. I think your impersonation is wonderfully real and moving. I like it very much. But the part must be lived, and it's clear to me that you can't live it in a wig. Best wishes Yours JG Galsworthy was most particular about the production dates of his plays, stipulating in the contract a penalty if the play were not produced by a certain date. The following letter is concerned with the American production date of Windows. Note the secrecy which Galsworthy enjoins. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead Feb 4, 1922 My dear Lion I have gone as far to meet your terms as I think fair. The secftion] in regard to America. Even nine months might hang the play up for me there till early in 1924. Best regards Yours very sincerely John Galsworthy Please preserve the play carefully and its title. Don't speak of it. JG Justice opened on February 7th at the Court Theatre. Neither Galsworthy nor his wife were present, the author having come

110

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

down with a cold. Lion made a short curtain speech in which he noted that previous to this presentation metropolitan London had seen Justice only twenty-four times. The play was well received and the reviews were good. Desmond MacCarthy, writing in the New Statesman, called it an excellent production and found Lion in the part of Falder as good as Dennis Eadie had been in that part in the original production at the Duke of York's Theatre in 1911. He described Lion as looking like "a boy imitating . . . the frowning mask of Beethoven." 8 The cast list of Justice was as follows: James Howe Walter Howe Cokeson Falder Sweedle Judge Counsel for Prosecution Counsel for Defence Prison Governor Prison Chaplain Prison Doctor Prison Warder Ruth Honeywill

Lyall Swete John Howell Lawrence Hanray Leon Lion Alec Snowden Acton Bond J. B. F. Sharp Monckton Hoffe Douglas Jefferies Harold Scott J. Carre Ernest Woods Edyth Goodall

Although Galsworthy had not attended the opening night, nor was to see the production for two weeks, yet he received a report on the performance and the postscript to the following letter was the result. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead Feb. 9, 1922

My dear Lion I return this agreement signed, and dated. 1 hope you are not too awfully worn-out. s

Desmond MacCarthy, "The Galsworthy Cycle at the Court", Statesman, February 25, 1922.

New

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

111

I am beginning to feel more like a human being again; but I don't think we shall get to see the play till next week, because my wife has succumbed to my cold and I should like to wait for her. News of 'The Pigeon' would be welcome tomorrow morning on the 'phone. Best wishes Yours very sincerely John Galsworthy

I have written to Swete about future scenery. No plays - mine least of all - can stand long waits between the acts. If the performance had been swift in that respect the impression would have been just about double. And I am afraid you will suffer at the Box Office. JG The following letter presents a clear picture of the hectic pace of production for the cycle. The Pigeon was in rehearsal while Justice played and The Silver Box was being cast. Galsworthy, writing on February 11th, noted that the casting of A n n and Timson, characters in The Pigeon, could be taken care of at the beginning of the next week, just two weeks previous to the opening of the play. Further, a check of the casts indicates that five of the nine actors in The Pigeon were appearing each night in Justice. Among these five were Lion, who was carrying the major part of Falder in Justice and getting up the major part of Wellwyn in The Pigeon, and Lyall Swete, playing the part of James Howe and assisting in production on Justice while he produced The Pigeon and got up the part of Canon Bertley in that play. In casting The Silver Box Galsworthy's position was much the same as in casting Justice. It was a problem of finding actors who had worked in the plays before and knew what was wanted. Hilda Bruce-Potter, mentioned in the letter below, had played the part of the Unknown Lady in The Silver Box at the Gaiety Theatre, Manchester, and Auriol Lee had created the part of Camille in Galsworthy's A Family Man in 1921. Arthur Whitby had played Barthwick in the MacCarthy-Barker revival of The Silver Box at the Little Theatre in 1913.

112

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead Feb 11, 1922 My Dear Lion While I think of it can you secure Margaret Carter for Mrs. Barthwick? She will be free of the Everyman Theatre on Feb 25th, and is free for rehearsals at any time, now. Her address is 70 High Street, Hampstead NW3. Also Hilda Bruce-Potter for the Unknown Lady in "ITie Silver Box'; unless we can get Auriol Lee to do it. I am personally rather turning back toward Miss Hampden for Mrs. Jones; but perhaps you have already engaged Miss Goodall, if so no matter. If, after all, you run 'Justice' after Hanray leaves, Hendrie had better play Cokeson; and should be prepared in time. Carre is not strong enough, near. I thought Miss Millard excellent in appearance and manner for Ann, and hope to confirm the choice on Monday. For Barthwick in 'The Silver Box' can you try to get Whitby he was ideal. Failing him - Douglas Munro was quite good; or Nigel Playfair would give a humour some performance. We must get the full comedy out of that part, and, as I told you before we began at all, I don't think it can be played by the producer, especially as I shall be away during some of the rehearsals. I will consult with you again about Jack, after I've seen Thesiger rehearsing. If he can look young enough I think he would be very interesting. I am wondering if Hendrie could play Mr. Green in the new play. I am a little bronchial but hope to be out on Monday. Yours very sincerely John Galsworthy Hilda Bruce-Potter, born in 1888, received her early training under William Poel and thereafter was with the Manchester Repertory. A prominent member of that company from 1907 to 1911, she played the Unknown Lady in The Silver Box and Helen Julian in The Mob. Ernest Hendrie, born in 1859, appeared first under Mrs. Bateman at Sadler's Wells and afterward under Hare and Kendall and Arthur Bourchier. He created the part of Spettigue in Charley's Aunt. At the time of the above letter he was rehearsing Timson in The Pigeon. He never replaced Hanray, who played the full run of Justice. Ursula Millard, born 1901, appeared professionally for the

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

113

first time in December of 1921 in Clothes and the Woman. Galsworthy confirmed her as the choice for Ann in The Pigeon. She withdrew from the professional theatre during the twenties. Arthur Whitby, born 1869, worked under Sir Frank Benson during the nineties. He played the part of Barthwick in the MacCarthy-Barker revival of The Silver Box in 1913. Nigel Playfair, born in 1874, was trained to the law. His amateur experience in the theatre he gained with the Oxford University Dramatic Society. Thereafter he played under Tree, Granville Barker and Benson. He created the part of General Sir Charles Dedmond in The Fugitive in 1913. Ernest Thesiger, born in 1879, was originally a painter. He took to the stage in 1909. His most successful part was Bertram Tully in Walter Ellis' farce, A Little Bit of Fluff, which he played for three consecutive years. At the time of the above letter he was rehearsing Ferrand in The Pigeon. Still further evidence of Galsworthy's conservatism in casting can be seen in his final decision to cast Louise Hampton as Mrs. Jones in The Silver Box. Until Edyth Goodall's playing of Ruth Honeywill in Justice changed his mind he preferred Miss Goodall to Miss Hampton for the part of Mrs. Jones. Miss Goodall had played Galsworthian drama before. Miss Hampton had no previous experience in Galsworthy plays. Friday My dear Lion Sorry I can't get to the Court today. I think Brember Wills would make a good Jones especially if Miss Hampden plays Mrs. Jones. Miss Goodall, I'm afraid is too strong a personality for that part. I cannot see her being ill treated. Her Ruth is most excellent, but I'm afraid to cast her for Mrs. Jones would be a grave mis-cast. I am so sorry. Yours always John Galsworthy I think Jefferies would play Marlow very sympathetically. JG Brember Wills had extensive experience with the provincial repertory companies, having played at the Gaiety Theatre in Man-

114

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

ehester and with the Glasgow and Bristol repertories. He had worked in Fagan's production of Heartbreak House which occupied the Court Theatre previous to the Lion-Grein cycle. Douglas Jefferies, born in 1884, had first played with Sothern and Marlow in 1907. At the time of the letter he was appearing as the Prison Governor in Justice. Mid-February the box office returns from Justice indicated that a run of more than three weeks would be prohibitive to the producers. The Pigeon was being readied for presentation and The Silver Box and Windows were being cast. Plans for a production of The Mob had been laid aside, but there was still some possibility of a production of The Fugitive. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead Feb. 20 My dear Lion, May I ask you for three good dress circle, or stalls, for next Friday, for "Justice"? For the first night of 'The Pigeon' may I have Box A for ourselves and four good central dress circle seats, 1st or 2nd row together and four good stalls, together. I will pay for all but the Box. May I have three good dress circle seats for The Pigeon' on Tuesday, Feb. 28th, given me? (second night) About casting: Leslie Banks' address is Savoy Theatre Could we see him shortly, together? As you know I suggest him for Jones, and Blunter (in 'Windows'). On Sunday, Moyna Macgill came by appointment, and gave us a very promising reading of Clare (The Fugitive). She is in appearance by far the nearest to my imagined type. She is very keen to play it, and in my opinion is the best choice we could make for the part. Certain little defects, I am sure I can cure. She has other plans or possibilities ahead, and was very anxious to have some sort of answer tomorrow. Her address is: 23 C Belsize Square N.W. 3 I know that your plans are vague at present concerning the last three plays, but I would be glad if you could see her at once, and try and make sure that we could get her when wanted. Certainly for a first reading she gets nearer the part than anybody I have seen. It

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE O F

1922

115

may interest you to know that she was Granville Barker's suggestion for that part some months ago, and he knows the requirements of the part pretty well for he had to consider the casting of it himself at one time. Apropos, I saw a lady that Mr. Grein wanted me to consider for that part some days ago, and she was hopeless. I am ready to see Miss Best, and Miss Odette at any time, for Faith (Windows). We are looking forward very much to coming to see 'Justice' tomorrow night. I like your Wellwyn extremely. Yours very sincerely John Galsworthy I do hope you are feeling yourself again. The choice for the part of Faith Bly in Windows lay between Edna Best and Mary Odette. Miss Best had been brought to stardom in Lion's production of Brown Sugar, Herbert Marshall playing the male lead opposite her. Miss Odette, who had been away from the stage for a number of years making movies, was chosen for the part of Faith Bly, an unfortunate casting as later became apparent. Miss Odette returned to the movies after the production of Windows. Leslie Banks, suggested and accepted for the parts of Jones in The Silver Box and Blunter in Windows, started his career with Frank Benson's company in 1911. On February 27th, 1922, Justice having been withdrawn, The Pigeon was presented with the following cast: Wellwyn Ann Megan Mr. Megan Ferrand Timson Canon Bertley Professor Calway Sir Thos. Hoxton

Leon Lion Ursula Millard Muriel Pratt Alec Snowden Ernest Thesiger Ernest Hendrie Lyall Swete Harold Scott John Howell

Lyall Swete produced the play. And on the occasion of the open-

116

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

ing of the play Galsworthy wrote the following letter, quoting Ferrand, the raisonneur of the piece. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead February 27th, 1922 My dear Lion First nights, as you know, shorten one's life; "and so, Monsieur, I will live a little longer", and wait for less ageing occasions to watch the delightful performance by you and your good company. But let me take this chance of telling you how touched and encouraged I have been by your kind zeal and by Mr. Grein's, and how grateful I feel to you and him, and to Lyall Swete, and all the cast of 'Justice', and of The Pigeon', and to all the staff, for the good will shown and the unfailing kindness, and the excellent work done. I am proud of this rendering of my work. The week before 'Justice' I dreamed I was sitting in the stalls on the first night watching the Trial Scene and thinking how well it was all going, when I happened to look round, and saw that I was the only person in the house except four barristers in wigs and gowns who obviously ought to have been sitting on the stage. I am glad that dream was falsified. If by chance there should be more than one person in the house tonight, and they should happen to mention my absent self would you make them my best bows, and thank them, and say that I am happy if they are. Very gratefully yours, my dear Lion, John Galsworthy Lion read the letter to the first night audience in reply to calls for the author and the audience seemed pleased with the letter as well as the play. The Pigeon received good reviews, with special mentions of Lion as Wellwyn and Ernest Thesiger as Ferrand. There was no preponderance of actors trained in the Galsworthian drama in the cast of The Pigeon. This situation arose not through any desire of the author but rather from the exigencies of production. All of the cast, except the two women, Ursula Millard and Muriel Pratt, were engaged in at least two of the four plays of the cycle and several were engaged in three. Being a show with a small cast (nine characters) The Pigeon had gained its players from the minor parts of the two shows with large casts

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

117

which preceded and followed it, Justice and The Silver Box. And the minor characters for these productions were more often picked from Lion's circle of friends and professional acquaintances than from Galsworthy's. From the opening of The Pigeon on February 27 until March 8th Galsworthy busied himself with the production of Loyalties which began its original London run on the latter date. Loyalties, produced by Alec Rea and Basil Dean at the St. Martin's Theatre, was a great success, running a total of 408 performances. After the opening of Loyalties the Galsworthys travelled to Sweden and then to the Continent, returning to England at the end of March. Meanwhile at the Court Theatre The Pigeon had been removed and on March 20th Lion's production of The Silver Box had been offered. The Silver Box had the following cast: Barthwick Mrs. Barthwick Jack Barthwick Roper Mrs. Jones Jones Marlow Wheeler Mrs. Seddon Snow Police Magistrate Unknown Lady Livens Relieving Officer Magistrate's Clerk Usher Constable

Arthur Whitby Margaret Carter Hugh Wakefield F. B. J. Sharp Louise Hampton Leslie Banks Douglas Jefferies May Haysac Ethel Ramsay C. R. Norris John Howell Auriol Lee Dirk Daniell Arthur K. Phillips Authur Chisholm Harry Chance Alec Snowden

The reviews for The Silver Box were good, but the play was an especial triumph for Louise Hampton. Here is how Lion recalls the matter,

118

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE O F 1 9 2 2

Louise Hampton, for example, came to me for Brown Sugar [Lion produced Brown Sugar 7 July, 1920. ed.] for a four-line part at a salary of £ 4 weekly. For years she had been touring the 'No. 2's' and the 'Fit-ups', playing Paula Tanqueray, Magda, and a sheaf of leading-actress parts, but she had beaten her wings in vain against the closed doors of London management... . . . Then came my first Galsworthy season - the Lion-Grein 'Cycle', at the Court Theatre, and, after some doughty wrestling with Galsworthy, who was justifiably suspicious of 'quality' he had not known and tested, I at last prevailed on him to accept Louise Hampton for Mrs. Jones in The Silver Box..

The cast of The Silver Box demonstrates again Galsworthy's conservatism in the matter of casting. Four of the six actors playing major roles had worked in Galsworthy plays before participating in the Grein-Lion cycle. These included Margaret Carter as Mrs. Barthwick, Arthur Whitby as Mr. Barthwick, Leslie Banks as Mr. Jones and Auriol Lee as the Unknown Lady. Only Hugh Wakefield as Jack Barthwick and Louise Hampton as Mrs. Jones had not played in a Galsworthy play before. After three weeks The Silver Box was withdrawn and the new play, Windows, offered. It opened at the Court Theatre on April 25th with the following cast: Geoffry March Joan March Mary March Johny March Cook Mr. Bly Faith Bly Bunter Barnabas

Herbert Marshall Irene Rooke Janet Eccles John Howell Clare Greet Ernest Thesiger Mary Odette Leslie Banks C. R. Norris

The reviews of the new play were mixed and its run short, though such diverse critics as Desmond MacCarthy in the New Statesman and St. John Ervine in the Observer found it a pleasant but very mild play. The work of Herbert Marshall as the father, • Lion, op. cit., p. 178.

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

119

Geoffry March, and that of Irene Rooke as the mother, Joan March, were singled out for commendation. Lion and Grein received an invitation to present their production of Windows at the State Theatre in Antwerp, which they did in June, Lion replacing Thesiger in the part of Mr. Bly. My dear Lion I am wishing you all every success in Antwerp. Very plucky of you to take up the part of the 'Bly' at such short notice. About the corridor scene. I incline to agree that it's better omitted, and I'm striking it out of the printed version. In America they may do as they like about including it or not. As a fact I wrote it in after having finished the play, just as I wrote in the Bly reentry etc. So that the play has now gone back to exactly what it was when I first finished it - a rather remarkable example of 'trusting to first conceptions' being best policy. Iris Hoey would have been the best Faith that I can think of. So very sorry the play has been such a disappointment financially. Best wishes from us both Always yours sincerely John Galsworthy This production of Windows terminated the first association of Galsworthy and Lion. Other matters, which will appear hereafter, kept them in correspondence, but it was another four years before they joined forces to produce a Galsworthy play. Here is a letter of thanks from Galsworthy to Lion and his colleagues. Grove Lodge The Grove, Hampstead

My dear Lion Very many thanks for your letter. The Times notice about Antwerp is all I have seen, but that was good. I would thank you in my turn for all the zeal and kindness you have shown. The whole thing was a great pleasure to me, and I am sorry it was materially unprofitable to you. My wife joins in best remembrances to Mrs. Lion and yourself. Very sincerely yours John Galsworthy

120

THE GREIN-LION CYCLE OF 1 9 2 2

The Grein-Lion cycle of Galsworthy plays had lost £3000. But, nothing daunted, Mr. Lion and Mr. Grein put up another £ 1 0 0 0 apiece and launched still another cycle, this time of Pinero plays. The cycle was not successful and Lion was forced to sell his automobile. The following quip was a result of the disaster, "What's become of Lion's car?" asked one actor of another. "Oh, don't you know?" came the answer, "He's exchanged it for a cycle." 10

»·

Ibid., p. 238.

ν INTERLUDE

The correspondence between Galsworthy and Lion for the remainder of 1922 and 1923 is concerned with the subsidiary rights of Windows. William Harris, a New York producer who had previously acquired the scripts of several of Lion's London productions and successfully presented them upon the New York stage, took a short option on Galsworthy's Windows from Lion. The play, though called mild by the London critics, has a major character, Faith Bly, who has smothered her illegitimate child. This bothered Mr. Harris, who wrote to Lion about it. Offices of William Harris New York July 26th, 1922 Mr. Leon M. Lion London My dear Mr. Lion, I am slowly making plans for the production of Mr. Galsworthy's play Windows. It has occurred to me that the character of the girl could be made more sympathetic and hence more likely to prove popular if the incident where she discusses the killing of her baby could be made a little less brutal. You and I well know that plays succeed or fail primarily on their motives; any American audience will be repelled by the notion that this girl deliberately smothers her child. I happened to read recently an incident that occurred in England. A young girl with an illegitimate child in her arms jumped off a bridge into the water, the girl was rescued and the baby was drowned and the girl was tried for murder. If Mr. Galsworthy could adapt that incident to his play Windows, I think it would create much more sympathy for the girl, and it seems to me in no way to affect the rest of the play.

122

INTERLUDE

If you think well of this suggestion will you attempt to persuade Mr. Galsworthy to incorporate it in his play? Sincerely yours, William Harris Lion forwarded the letter to Galsworthy with the following comments. 14th August, 1922 My dear Galsworthy, I enclose you copy of letter just received from Mr. Harris. I can of course do nothing in the matter save pass on the suggestion to you for whatever you think it may be worth. I have no doubt his argument is soundly based on the knowledge of the American public's 'sensitive' responsiveness. I have merely replied that I would duly transmit the suggestion to you on your return from the continent. All kind remembrances to Mrs. Galsworthy and yourself. I hope you will have a very happy time. Always sincerely yours, Leon M. Lion 1 The Galsworthys had been vacationing in Switzerland and Lion's letter, which had been forwarded, reached Galsworthy in Milan after the Galsworthys had completed a week's tour of Austria and northern Italy. Galsworthy's reply demonstrates his belief that human character is the basis of a play and that the meaning of a play is found in the manipulation of the symbols within it which demonstrates an inherent moral. Grand Hotel Continental Milan August 22, 1922 My dear Lion I have your letter enclosing that from William Harris. I am sorry I can't see my way to making the alteration he suggests. There are two main reasons for this. The first is - the play being printed (published here already, and set up in America) the alteration would appear in the light of an insult to the intelligence of the American public, which in the case of my work is closely attentive. The second reason is more serious even, and involved in the fibre of the play. This play hits cheap idealism, and if the public are presented with a 'Faith' that they can idealize and make into a worthy young woman 1 Lion, op. cit., p. 120.

INTERLUDE

123

who had an unfortunate accident, the whole intention fails. Faith is not an estimable character; it is no use pretending she is. Perhaps you will kindly pass this on to Mr. Harris. Well played by a clever actress, the recital of the smothering incident need not seem brutal at all. It just depends on the voice and gestures in that particular passage. Odette didn't get it. Does not Mr. Harris grasp the enormous difference there is between a girl who throws herself into the water, with her baby, and a girl who, in a moment, out of herself, so to speak, half-heartedly thinks it would be better for her baby to 'stop livin"? Faith is not the sort to attempt suicide. With very kind regards Yours sincerely John Galsworthy There was no further correspondence on this matter and Mr. Harris allowed his option on the play tp lapse. The Galsworthys spent the autumn of 1922 at their house in Devon, Galsworthy giving several lectures and a public reading of Loyalties at the University of Leeds in October. Meanwhile Lion collaborated on a play, The Balance, with Frank Dix, which was presented at the Strand Theatre on October 26, 1922, and prepared for the Pinero cycle, which included Mid-Channel at the Royalty Theatre on October 30th and Sweet Lavender at the Ambassador's on December 14th. The following letter seems to refer to a charge to be made to a professional repertory for the production of Windows. The charge, a flat fee of £ 4 per performance, is similar to amateur royalty charges, but Lion held no rights to amateur performance, and the royalty charged touring companies was usually computed on a percentage of the weekly gross. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead Nov. 23, 1922 My dear Lion Yes, I will agree to that specified fee, £ 4 a performance, divided between us equally. I hope your play, and the Pinero play are still prospering and you yourself in good trim.

124

INTERLUDE

With kind remembrances from us both to you both. Yours very sincerely John Galsworthy

The Galsworthys spent the first months of 1923 in London, Galsworthy preparing for the first annual convention of the P. Ε. N. Club in May. During the same period Lion was preparing to present Dorothy Brandon's The Outsider at the St. James Theatre. He must also have been divesting himself of excess production materials which he had bought second-hand. The scenery for Galsworthy's The Foundations referred to in the following letter was from J. E. Vedrenne's London production of that play in 1917. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead May 3, 1923 Dear Lion, Many thanks for the cheque £67.8.1, 'Windows' royalties. 1 think you had better sell off 'The Foundations' scenery; I have nowhere to store it. Many thanks for keeping it all this time. Very sincerely yours John Galsworthy

With Windows still free for New York production further offers from prospective New York producers were received. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead May 7, 1923 My dear Lion The enclosed from Mr. Robert Milton. What do you think? I don't know him. I have written suggesting Audrey Cameron for Faith, and her mother for Cook, they being in America. How about offering the play to Heggie? Yours very sincerely JG

Robert Milton, co-author of The Charm School and a producer and director of some experience, had directed the Theatre Guild's production of He Who Gets Slapped the previous season.

INTERLUDE

125

Ο. P. Heggie, born in Australia in 1879, had gained his training in stock in his native land and had come to London in 1906. He was on the London stage until he emigrated to the United States in 1915. In New York he played Cokeson in Justice, 1916, and The Little Man in The Little Man, 1917. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead May 16, 1923 My dear Lion I would like you, if you would, to write to Mr. Robert Milton 139 West 44th Street New York City saying that you are enquiring of O. P. Heggie, whom I particularly see in the part of 'Mr. Bly', whether he wishes to acquire the rights of 'Windows'; if he does not, that you will be glad to make a proposition to Mr Milton. Please let him know that this is with my consent. Yours very sincerely John Galsworthy Galsworthy's interest in the proper casting of an American production of Windows seems to have overridden his interest in an immediate New York production of the play. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead May 18, 1923 My dear Lion Thank you for the cheque £.10.11.11. My view is that, if Heggie would take the play under a contract providing for production within a year, there will be little hope of getting a New York Manager to take it and that Mr. Milton's Repertory proposition will be about as good as can be done. How about asking Milton to make a definite proposition? That could be done at once, while waiting for Heggie's answer. I don't think Milton's letter should go unanswered any longer. Yours very sincerely John Galsworthy While negotiations continued with Milton still another New York group became interested and made a firm offer.

126

INTERLUDE

Post Office Telegraphs New York Via Western Union 2 June, 1923 John Galsworthy Grove Lodge Hampstead, London May we have Windows one thousand dollars advance royalties acceptable but larger advance impossible for Guild cabling Curtis Brown. Theresa Helburn Theatre Guild Galsworthy posted the telegram to L i o n together with the following counsel to accept the offer. Grove Lodge. The Grove, Hampstead June 2, 1923 My dear Lion, The enclosed telegram has come from the New York Theatre Guild. I say certainly accept it by cable, and suggest Heggie for Bly. Please intimate that you are replying for me as well as yourself. I think there could not be a better chance for the play than a production by the Theatre Guild. Yours very sincerely John Galsworthy Lion's contracts with Galsworthy specifically prohibited the subletting of Galsworthy's plays with any right of alteration. 2 I n light of this f a c t the following letter is self-explanatory. Grove Lodge The Grove, Hampstead June 5, 1923 My Dear Lion 1 think we may let the contract go without alteration. Theresa Helburn is an interesting dramatist, and I believe secretary or part manager of the Theatre Guild. I know her personally a little. Yours very sincerely John Galsworthy T h e Galsworthys spent the s u m m e r of 1923 at Wingstone in Devon, their last months of tenancy in this h o m e since the lessor, 2

Lion, op. cit., p. 120.

INTERLUDE

127

a Mr. Ffrench, wished to live there himself. Lion spent the summer vacationing on the Continent. From there he wrote Galsworthy inquiring if the author had a play Lion might produce. Galsworthy did, in fact, have a new play, The Forest, but it had been given to the Reandean management for presentation in the Autumn. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead Oct. 8, 1923

My dear Lion, I am glad to hear from you. From your address it sounds as if you had had a good bracing holiday. I am afraid there is no play to offer you. I am told that 'Windows' is to be produced today in New York. Have you any news from the Theatre Guild? Barring a request from their secretary, to send them something for their programme, which I did and which they have not even acknowledged, I have no word from them. I hope you will, at all events, keep them sharply up to the payment of their fees. With best wishes to you and Mrs. Lion from us both. Very sincerely yours John Galsworthy The Theatre Guild production of Windows opened in New York at the Garrick Theatre on October 8, 1923, with Henry Travers as Mr. Bly and Phyllis Povah as Faith. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead Oct. 23, 1923

My Dear Lion Many thanks for the cheque £12.3.8 and for the cuttings which I return. I should say the play hangs in the balance. Yours very sincerely John Galsworthy The Theatre Guild production of Windows had a short run, forty-eight performances. A year was to pass before Galsworthy and Lion were to again consider the production of one of Galsworthy's plays. Lion began

128

INTERLUDE

1924 with a production, in February, of Norman Macowan's Lord o' Creation in which Lion created the role of Lord Leithling. On March 6th Alec Rea and Basil Dean presented a long delayed production of Galsworthy's The Forest. The play, a great, sprawling comparison between big business and the African jungle, was unsuccessful, though there were some who found it stimulating. Of it Galsworthy said, rather bitterly, "I give them something new - a play with only one woman in it, and practically no love interest - and they won't have it." 3 Having been unsuccessful with Lord o' Creation Lion prepared a production of Blinkers by H. A. Vachell and Lion himself which he presented at the Savoy Theatre in March. It was successful enough to run through June. On June 26th Lion presented for matinees only a short run of Michael Orme's Tiger Cats, adapted from the French by Madame Karen Bramson. Edith Evans gave a memorable performance in the leading role and the play was a critical success. Lion revived it in the fall of 1923 for a good run. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead June 19, 1924 M y dear Lion, I am sorry that we are engaged on the 23rd. If you will give me Madame Karen Bramson's address, we will send her an invitation to the next P. Ε. N. dinner. We shall try and see "Tiger Cats". Best regards to you both. Yours very sincerely John Galsworthy

In July Lion presented In the Snare by Raphael Sabatini and himself at the Savoy and thereafter prepared for a winter tour of South Africa, which he had negotiated with South African Theatres, Ltd. At the same time Galsworthy was engaged in the production of his own Old English which was to open in October at the Haymarket Theatre under the production hand of Lyall Swete. The London production of Old English, with Norman McKinnel as Sylvanus Heythorp, the title role, was not a commercial success, though the New York production, which opened in December, 3

Marrot, op. cit., p. 542.

INTERLUDE

129

1923, with George Arliss in the same role, played 183 performances. Lion embarked for South Africa in late October, 1924, but before he left Galsworthy offered him a new play, The Show, for production upon his return from South Africa. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead October 17, 1924 My dear Lion I was glad to have your letter about the play. I will leave definite arrangement till you return, and I will hold the play free till then provided you are not later than July in time for an early Autumn production, on the understanding that you would make it your first production on your return. I trust however that you may be back in May and able to produce earlier. Best wishes for the success of your tour. I trust you to keep theme and title absolutely to yourself even if you have to find a partner etc. The theme will not stale, but it's extremely likely that somebody else will take it up, and spoil the freshness. I am running a great risk by holding it over. All good remembrances Yours very sincerely John Galsworthy

Upon arrival in South Africa Lion had an option in his contract picked up which extended his tour well into the spring of 1925. He augmented his company's repertoire with a production of Windows. The Galsworthys spent the winter of 1924-1925 in Sicily and North Africa, returning to London in late April. The Show, Galsworthy's sixteenth full-length play, is concerned with the popular press and its invasion of the individual's privacy. A war hero has committed suicide and in a search for the motive of the suicide it is discovered that both he and his wife were having extramarital affairs. The mother of the dead hero and the father of the hero's widow fight gamely but unsuccessfully to keep the matter from the papers. Ironically, a letter introduced at the inquest proves ill-health the motive for the suicide, but this does not lessen the publicity which is given the affairs of the heart of the dead man and his widow.

130

INTERLUDE

At the time of the following letter, offers to produce The Show had already been made to Galsworthy, probably by the Reandean management. Grand Hotel des Temples Girgenti, Sicily Dec. 15, 1924 My dear Lion We have had your letter of Nov. 17th today. I am very much afraid that I can't let you have a copy of the play, for I have only the one copy with me - a very rough script, and cannot safely send it away to be typed. You will have had a letter from me written from Merano, in which I said that I could only hold the play for you if it were definitely understood that it would be the first production after your getting home, and not later than early September. I am bound to make these conditions because I have been asked for the play in another quarter. Please let me know definitely whether you intend to do the play quite certainly before the middle of next September. If you cannot promise this I had better make other arrangements, because next Autumn I expect to be away earlier than I was this year. I have quite definite views about some of the casting; Haidee Wright for the mother, Eugene Leahey for the Colonel, John Howell and his wife for Darell and Anne respectively. Austin Trevor for the young reporter, and yourself, if you care to play in the play, for the detective, Edward Rigby for Odiham. The other parts can easily be cast at short notice. You may feel, on reflection, that your plans are too uncertain for you to make a definite promise of production at the time named; if so, I shall quite understand, and shall deal with the play otherwise. Will you please write to me at Grove Lodge, because our movements are still very uncertain. We may be going to Tunis and Algeria, but we may be going to Egypt, and if so, it's on the cards that we come down the E. Coast and to S. Africa. Very glad you are having such an interesting time. I am sorry you can't cast 'The Skin Game', because, to tell you the truth, I don't think 'Windows' has much chance out there, and 'The Skin Game' would have every chance. Asche did very well with it out in Australia, where the audience is of a very similar type. My wife joins me in best regards and wishes for the New Year. Yours very sincerely John Galsworthy

INTERLUDE

131

Haidee Wright, born in 1868, had begun her career touring with her father's company. During the late Victorian and Edwardian periods she had worked under Louis Calvert, Wilson Barrett and Lewis Waller. Under Frohman's management she had played Leah Kleschna in the play of that name, and under Forbes-Robertson she had played in The Passing of the Third Floor Back. After the war she concentrated on mature leads and dowagers, playing Queen Elizabeth both in Will Shakespeare and in The Dark Lady of the Sonnets. Eugene Leahey, a practicing engineer before the first World War, attended the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. He appeared in Brown Sugar for Lion in 1920 and played the part of P. C. Moon in Galsworthy's A Family Man in 1921. John Howell, trained under F. R. Benson, played in Lion's productions of The Chinese Puzzle, 1918, and Jack o' Jingles, 1919. He had created the part of Francis Chantry in Galsworthy's A Family Man, 1921. Austin Trevor, born in Ireland in 1897, attended the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art and joined the Old Vic after the first World War. He had created the part of Major Colford in Loyalties in 1922 and was playing the part of Gilbert Farney in the London production of Old English at the time of the letter. Edward Rigby, born in 1879, was active in the theatre from 1900 on. He had created the part of Baron Zimbosch in The Forest in 1924. Lion had left for South Africa with a repertory of four plays, his own A Chinese Puzzle, Bramson's adaptation of Tiger Cats, Vane's Outward Bound and C. B. Fernald's adaptation of Chiarelli's The Mask and the Face. To this he added Windows, which, contrary to Galsworthy's prediction, was a success. The letter written by Galsworthy at Girgenti seems to have miscarried and so he wrote Lion's home office in London, addressing Mrs. B. Murrey-Green, Lion's secretary. Notice that Galsworthy misremembered where he had written Lion, referring to a letter composed at Merano.

132

INTERLUDE

Algeria Feb. 2, 1925

Dear Madam, I had a request from Mr. Lion for a copy of my play about two months or more ago, and replied at once from Merano to the address he gave me in Johannisburg at some length, regretting that I was unable to send him a copy of the play, having only one on which I was still working. Nor do I feel inclined to entrust it to the accidents of such a distant post. I put one or two questions to Mr. Lion and I told him my views about casting. Perhaps you will cable and ask whether he has received my letter. If he hasn't, please let me know, c/o Thomas Cook & Son 61 rue d'Isly Algiers and I will write again, and send the letter to you to forward. I am afraid this is the best I can do. Very truly yours John Galsworthy In the meantime Lion had written Galsworthy informing him again of his, Lion's, interest in The Show and reporting that he would return to London late in May. Algeria Feb. 23, 1925 My dear Lion, I have just received your letter of Jan. 23. I am sorry you haven't received my letter written from Merano, which was mainly concerned with explaining to you that if I could not make sure of a production by you by the middle of September, that is to say, the play to come out then, I did not think I could hold the play for you, in view of the other enquiries for it. The point is, of course, that I must be present at the production and that we are quite likely to be going away again in the latter part of September. Your letter in some ways answers this query, and I will endeavour to send you a copy of the play to c/o African Theatres Ltd. P.O. Box 705 Cape Town in about a week or so. I shall send it registered, and I must beg you not to let it out of your hands, and treat it as entirely confidential in every way, whatever your decision may be. It must also ask you to be good enough to cable at once after re-reading it, to me at: Grove Lodge Hampstead

133

INTERLUDE

and if you, on reconsideration decide that you cannot pledge yourself to a production by the middle of September, to return the play to me there, registered. I have not a copy of our 'Windows' agreement with me, but the agreement I should require for this play would be on somewhat the same lines. You understand of course that if you cannot pledge yourself, I have to make definite arrangements elsewhere, and get the production made before I am off again. That is why I press for speed in your answer. I will pencil my definite suggestions for casting, and if you are not coming back in time I think you should get on with the business of securing at least some of these. I am glad you are doing so well. I hope you are enjoying yourself thoroughly. My wife joins me in best wishes. Very sincerely yours John Galsworthy I think the play is now in fairly final form. Within a week of the above letter the typescript of the play was posted to Lion in South Africa. Galsworthy's insistence on early autumn production of the play was a result in part of his wife's illness. Mrs. Galsworthy was bronchitic and did not endure the English winters well. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hamstead Feb 28, 1925 My dear Lion Here's the play. You quite realize, I am sure, that you must be quite definite with your decision. Unless you are certain to produce by September 15th, I can't give it to you. I must get a production before I leave again for the winter. On this understanding I send it. Please let me know to Grove Lodge as soon as possible by cable. Best wishes from us both Very sincerely yours John Galsworthy Again, don't let the play be seen by anyone JG Before leaving for South Africa Lion had been approached by his old friend and fellow producer, Tom Walls, who had leased the

134

INTERLUDE

Garrick Theatre. Walls had just closed an unsuccessful production at that theatre and wishing to keep it profitably occupied offered it to Lion for a minimum rental. Lion accepted and revived his production of Karen Bramson's Tiger Cats with Edith Evans and Nicholas Hannen in the major roles. The revival was a great success and with a transfer to the Strand Theatre played well into the spring of 1925. Because of this production Lion left his London office operating while he toured South Africa. And when Tiger Cats closed he shut down his London operation pending his return. After receiving and rereading Galsworthy's The Show Lion refused the script for production. His reasons were probably two in number, first, that he didn't care for the play and, second, that there was no part which suited his own particular talents. Galsworthy, having been released from obligation to Lion, offered The Show to Alec Rea and Basil Dean for immediate production and they accepted. Grove Lodge,

The Grove, Hamstead May 21, 1925 My dear Lion This line welcomes you home, and supplements my cablegram to Madeira. Your office having disappeared I got your address from your mother in law. I got your cablegram resigning the play a month or more ago. On getting home I gave the play to Reandean who accepted it for quick production, and it is all arranged for. Somebody drew my attention to a paragraph in 'The Evening News' saying you were returning and going to produce a play of mine. I take it this was the gossip of some one who knew you had the play to consider. I am just going to Paris for a P.E.N. Club gathering and the Sorbonne lecture, but return next week. I shall be glad to hear your news of 'Windows'. Best wishes from us both Very sincerely yours John Galsworthy Please return your MS of the play to me here. JG

In June the Galsworthy's travelled to Paris for the annual P.E.N.

INTERLUDE

135

convention, Galsworthy being president of that body. After the convention they proceeded to Morocco and thence to Edinburgh at which places Galsworthy gave public addresses. The Reandean management presented The Show at the St. Martin's Theatre on July 1, 1925. The cast of the play was completely different from that which Galsworthy had suggested to Lion, with the exception of Haidee Wright who played Lady Morecombe, mother of the suicide. The play was not successful and was withdrawn after a few weeks. Meanwhile Lion had begun production of Jefferson Farjeon's No. 17, subtitled "a joyous melodrama". The play had come to Lion previous to his South African tour but he had rejected it as the sort of thing he did not like to do and had referred Farjeon to several other managers. The other managers rejected the play and Farjeon brought it back to Lion, offering to make any emendations in the script which the producer wished. Working under this plan they shaped the script to Lion's taste and he suggested it for production during the South African tour but South African Theatres, Ltd., rejected the script. Just before returning from South Africa Lion was notified that his option on No. 17 was about to lapse and that another manager was interested in the script. Lion wired for a renewal of his option and upon return to London began production of the play. No. 17 with Leon Lion and Nicholas Hannen in starring roles opened at the New Theatre on August 12, 1925. It was a successful production, running two hundred and ten performances. Having thus secured himself with a successful production, Lion proceeded to produce Monckton Hoffe's The Lady Christilinda which he presented at the Garrick Theatre on October 21, 1925. Galsworthy came to the opening. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hamstead Oct. 22, 1925 My dear Lion Thank you so much for the seats. I thought the production excellent except for the show music which I couldn't bear. Indeed the play itself would have been good if Christilinda had been left out - the

136

INTERLUDE

sentimentality lavished on her raised every hair on my head. Miss Elsom struggled wonderfully in the grip of it. Very nearly all the acting was good. The first (introductory) scene was excellent, and indeed nearly all the play except where the heroine was on. Hoffe hasn't a rudimentary notion of psychology, but he is a shrewd taker off of types. You told me that he writes for the ear - so far as the introduction of musical boxes, and show music goes, yes - not otherwise. I liked the scene setting. The Times and Westminster I see are kindly. 1 wonder what they would have said if I had introduced into a play one tithe of the sentiment that wraps about Christilinda. Our best greetings and wishes. Always yours sincerely John Galsworthy

Monckton Hoffe, born Reaney Monckton Hoffe-Miles in Connemara, Ireland in 1881, was a minor Georgian playwright. Becoming an actor after the turn of the century, he took the name Monckton Hoffe. Thereafter he was, in turn, a theatre manager and a playwright. His plays include The Faithful Heart, The Lady Cristilinda and Many Waters, all of which Lion produced in London and all of which were presented in New York during the twenties. A sampling of his work indicates a realistic style in dialogue with a fanciful approach to plot. His comedy is mild and his use of melodrama is muted. Hoffe's play Many Waters bears a marked resemblance to Lennox Robinson's Church Street, which was written later. Early in November the Galsworthys left for America to spend the winter in Arizona and California. In December Lion presented a play by Karen Bramson, The Godless, at Wyndham's Theatre. It was not a success. And again in April he essayed still another play by Madame Bramson, The Enchantress, at the Garrick Theatre. It, also, was not a success. And after its close Lion went abroad for a short vacation.

VI ESCAPE

On February 25, 1926, at Palm Springs, California, John Galsworthy finished the first draft of his play Escape. Rudolph Sauter, Galsworthy's nephew, who with his wife Vivian was wintering with the Galsworthys in America, noted in his diary, "(February 25th.) At 10 P.M. J.G. wrote the last word of a play: Escape, in nine episodes. Read us last scene. Fine, but wants to be longer, so as to balance rest of play and overtop other scenes." 1 Escape is the first of two episodic plays which Galsworthy wrote. In the form in which it was originally produced it contained ten episodes divided into a prologue and two acts. It represents over twenty-five characters and requires ten settings. Returning to England via New York Galsworthy offered New York production rights to Winthrop Ames. Meeting with Ames about a possible New York production, the following discussion took place between the author and producer. The excerpt is from Sauter's diary. . . . After supper Winthrop Ames and J. G. discussed the new play Escape, W.A. saying he liked it and wanted to put it on, but criticizing the second half between end of 'shingled lady' to beginning of last scene. He said: Ί think the interest drops there, and it becomes to me as if J. G. were wanting to show the reactions of different types to this particular individual only, whereas I miss the development of the man's character. I want to see him take the offensive in one or two scenes, rather than be the passive instrument." To which J. G. replied: "Yes, but under stress of any emotion a man is apt to lose individuality; fear, passion, love, hate, any of these makes him revert to type - and this man (the convict) is always the 1

Marrot, op. cit., p. 570.

138

ESCAPE

hunted. And, besides, I think the interest of (not) knowing (if) he will be captured or not will carry the audience along." Ames disagreed with this, as, of course, people must know he isn't caught, anyway until the end. Liked last scene immensely, and all early part. J.G. said he thought something might be done to tighten up the interest.* There is some reason to believe that Ames' advice was accepted and that episode six, involving the hero, a business man and his wife, was rewritten to allow the hero to use, or rather, to threaten to use, force in making good his escape. At all events Ames took an option for New York production and the Galsworthys sailed in mid-April for England. After three weeks in London, during which time Galsworthy made some alterations in Escape, the Galsworthys embarked for the Continent. They attended a P.E.N. International Congress and in Vienna and Budapest attended the theatre. In Vienna Justice, Loyalties, Windows and The Show were being offered. From Vienna Galsworthy wrote Lion, vacationing in Rome, to offer Escape for production. Hotel Bristol Vienna May 31, 1926 My dear Lion, I hope you will let me know the moment you get home. Have you still got Hannen on a string? Possibly in the meantime you could send me a line as to whether a production of my new play by you would be possible, if you liked it that is, by the end of October? Because if not I must cast elsewhere. I do hope you'll have a jolly time in Italy and Paris. We have had a terriflic existence, lately. I am going tonight to see the fourth of my plays here (Vienna) in five days, and have just come from seeing one yesterday in Buda-Pesth. With our best wishes, Very sincerely yours John Galsworthy Nicholas Hannen, born in 1881, had been trained as an architect. Before the first World War he had worked under George Edwards for four years and in 1915 he came to the United States 1 Marrot, op. cit., p. 573.

139

ESCAPE

with Granville Barker to establish a repertory at the Century Theatre. With its failure he returned to England. He had just finished playing a major role in Lion's production of Tiger Cats with Edith Evans. Having returned from the Continent, Lion was rehearsing a part in A Dog's Chance which was to open at the "Q" Theatre on June 21st. From his home at Hampstead Galsworthy forwarded a copy of Escape to the producer, trying to allay any misgivings about the expense of a production. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead June 17 My dear Lion Here's the play. I don't think the production would be expensive, really. I'd like to talk over that. JG

Lion read the play in one evening and immediately agreed to produce it. Three days later the play at the "Q" Theatre opened with Lion in the cast and a week thereafter it closed. By the first of July Lion was preparing to produce Escape. Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead July 3, 1926 My dear Lion I return the agreement signed. When it comes to sending returns and cheques, will you please send the returns to me here and the cheques direct to my account with Lloyds Bank 16 St. James Street I hope you will be able to get Mollie Kerr if only for the opening weeks. Yours very sincerely John Galsworthy

Molly Kerr, born in 1904, had recently been on tour with Mrs. Patrick Campbell. Author and producer agreed upon Nicholas Hannen for the part of Dennant. And with forty-three days until opening the casting of Escape began.

140

ESCAPE

Grove Lodge The Grove, Hampstead M y 3, 1926 My dear Lion, Friday and Saturday next week are no good to me, for I shall be all of both days seeing Harrow beaten at Lord's. But I could manage Thursday morning. I am glad you are to see Trevor; the more I think of him the more I am convinced he is right for that part. He gave a remarkable performance of a Catholic priest in 'Benediction' at the 'Everyman'. No, I don't know Cyril Hardingham, nor Vivian Baron. Yours very sincerely John Galsworthy Austin Trevor had played in G. M. Carlyon's and G. M. Burton's Benediction in April of 1926. The production had starred Elissa Landi. Cyril Hardingham had last appeared on the London stage in Israel, a play by Henri Bernstein, presented by the Jewish Drama League at the Strand in April, 1926. There is no record of Miss Vivian Baron's having played in West End London during the previous two years. One of the better parts in Escape is that of "The Shingled Lady", a "young thing" with bobbed hair who deftly helps Matt Dennant, the escaped convict, on his way. Molly Kerr had already been suggested and now the search widened to others. Grove Lodge The Grove, Hampstead July 5, 1926

My dear Lion, I am appointing to see Miss Jane, as you wish, tomorrow morning. I happened last night to meet Cicely Byrne who appears not to be playing at the moment, and it occurred to me that she would be quite good as the Shingled Lady. Will you see her, unless you have succeeded in arranging with Molly Kerr? If the latter is to open, only, perhaps Miss Byrne or Miss Jane, if I like her, could go on with it. I wish you would see Miss Dorothy Martin, who I think would be useful in one of the smaller parts; I'm not quite sure which! I enclose a letter from her. Very sincerely yours John Galsworthy

ESCAPE

141

I wonder if you think it would be friendly to ask the John Howells, man and wife, to play the 'Plus Fours and Wife'? Very small parts, but they might like it, if they have nothing better in prospect. JG There is no record of a Miss Jane having played on the West End stage during the previous season. Miss Cicely Byrne, born in 1895, gained her training with the Birmingham Repertory Company from 1913 to 1917. There is no record of Dorothy Martin playing on the London stage during the previous season. By the eleventh of July, one month before opening, Galsworthy and Lion were trying to agree on the cast for Escape. In the following letter, the author's doubts about Ann Codrington are concerned with her playing of Miss Dora, an elderly maiden lady, opposite Margaret Halstan's Miss Grace, Miss Dora's maiden sister. Miss Halstan was Miss Codrington's senior by sixteen years. The child actress mentioned later in the same letter was Betty Astell, who played the part of the Fanner's little daughter in Escape. Galsworthy had had no contact with the British prison system for nearly twenty years since when writing Justice he had interviewed a great number of convicts at Lewes Prison. With an eye to realism he now asked that the current costume of both warders and convicts be ascertained. He also noted that Miss Dora, the unconventional maiden sister in Escape, should be dressed in coat and breeches rather than the more conventional riding habit. Miss Dora, of course, rides astride. Grove Lodge The Grove, Hampstead July 11, 1926

My dear Lion To clear my mind beforing seeing you about the cast on Tuesday I have written out the enclosed. I can't remember Freeman (or whether I said him at all). I like the work of Miss Codrington - my doubt is whether she can put twenty or twenty five years on to her age. The Second Policeman and Second Laborer don't speak - so anybody will do. The hue and cry can surely be supplied from the stage hands.

142

ESCAPE

Miss Halstan (if she can broaden in a coarse way) might double the shopkeeper's wife with Miss Dora. I should like to see the little girl on Tuesday; and go again into the question of the scenery. We were a little hurried over that. An important point which ought to be seen to (I think by an eyewitness) is: What exactly do convicts wear now at Dartmoor Prison; and how are the Warders in charge on the farm dressed? Miss Dora will be dressed in breeches and long coat — not in a riding habit. It would be as well to ascertain whether village constables in Devon now wear helmets or the old constabulary wide felt hats. Always yours JG The cast list which Galsworthy enclosed in the above letter of July 11, 1926, allowed a dozen full-time actors for twenty-seven listed parts. All of the women doubled and three of the men tripled parts. The call boy and stage hands were used in the mob scenes. This cast list cannot be considered as a compilation of actors whom Galsworthy had chosen but rather as an aide memoire for previous conversations between Lion and Galsworthy. The cast suggested in the list, which in most respects is the same as the cast which played Escape, can be distinguished from the casts of the Grein-Lion Galsworthy cycle by the previous experience of its members. The Galsworthy cycle casts had in many cases played in Galsworthy's plays before. The cast of Escape had played in previous productions by Lion but few had worked in a Galsworthy play before. Lion touched the point when he noted that his association with Galsworthy "began with that careful fencing and hedging so characteristic of the opening gambit between natural adversaries, the literary man and the theatre 'scallywag', and gradually warmed into mutual understanding, trust and affection ...".* But the understanding and trust which had come about was not due solely to mutual esteem. Galsworthy, not a regular playgoer himself, had been introduced by Lion to a new group of actors whom Galsworthy had seen in most part in plays Lion had produced. To what extent these new associations affected the com* Lion, op. cit., p. 96.

143

ESCAPE

position of Galsworthy's new plays there is no way of telling, though it should be noted that when Galsworthy offered Escape to Lion he asked for Nicholas Hannen, who had never played Galsworthian drama, for the leading role. An interesting light is thrown on Galsworthy's conception of people as types in the following cast list. Frank Freeman is cast for the Plainclothes man and the Village Constable. In other words, to the author the essence of the policeman is the same in city or country. In the same way shopkeepers, sailors, labourers and prison keepers are essentially alike, as are professional men and farmers. And gentlewomen of small means seem to have some of the same qualities as shopkeeper's wives if an allowance is made for coarseness.4 Similarly, proper wives and maids have a good deal in common. But certainly the most devastating comment upon the nineteen-twenties is Galsworthy's inability to see any essential difference between a streetwalker and a well cared for young lady of the upper middleclass, The Shingled Lady. Cast Leon M. Lion Nicholas Hannen Molly KenPhyllis Konstam Anne Codrington or Dorothy Martin Margaret Halston Stafford Hilliard Hardingham Baron

* See: Letter of M y 11, 1926, supra.

Fellow Convict Old Gentleman Farmer Matt Girl of the Town Shingled Lady Maid Average Wife Shopkeeper's sister Miss Grace Shopkeeper's wife Miss Dora Man in plus-fours Warder I Shopkeeper First Laborer Warder II Captain Bell ringer

144 Freeman Austin Trevor Non-Speaking walkers on Call boy and stage hand

ESCAPE

Plainclothes man Village constable Parson Little girl Second policeman Second Laborer Two tourist youths

In the cast of Escape most of the doubling of parts in the manner suggested by Galsworthy was retained. But there were exceptions. Molly Kerr, who played The Shingled Lady, did not play the Girl of the Town. Nor did Margaret Halstan, who played Miss Dora, also play the Shopkeeper's Wife. And Lion himself, who played An Old Gentleman and the minor part of a Fellow Convict, did not play the Farmer but doubled the actor who played the Shopkeeper in that unsympathetic part. The following persons, mentioned in the letter of July 11, 1926, or in the attached cast list, had not been mentioned in correspondence previous to that time. Frank Freeman, born in 1892, had begun his career with Sir Frank Benson in 1912. Thereafter he played the provinces and toured Australia. He had accompanied Lion on his South African tour in 1925. Margaret Halstan, born in 1879, received her training under such Victorian greats as Tree, Benson and Sir George Alexander. She had played in Lion's productions of Brown Sugar, Araminta Arrives and Lord o' Creation. Phyllis Konstam, born in 1907, had studied at the Comedie in Paris. She had played in Karen Bramson's The Enchantress under Lion. Stafford Hilliard, husband of Ann Codrington, had appeared the year before at the Ambassador's Theatre in Booth Tarkington's Growing Pains. During the rehearsals of Escape Lion gained somewhat the same impression of the play that Winthrop Ames had gained in New York in February.5 Although Galsworthy had rewritten sections of the second half of the play, Lion felt that the second 5

Supra, p. 137.

ESCAPE

145

half dragged in parts. His specific complaint concerned Episode IV, the first after the intermission, in which the escaped convict meets the Old Gentleman on the moor. Galsworthy admitted there was a slackening of pace in the scene but pointed out that the play was essentially a chase and to continue pell-mell immediately after intermission and with six more episodes to go would make impossible the construction of a sufficiently high climax without exhausting the audience. In this matter Galsworthy prevailed. Escape entered production with more than usual fanfare. Announced as being Galsworthy's last play, which seems to have been the author's intent at the time, it was known to be in a completely different form than his previous plays. The press identified it as in the "new Kinetic fashion".0 Galsworthy was even more secretive than usual about publication of the plot of the play and Lion exacted a promise from every member of the cast that they would not reveal the story to anyone. Hannen Swaffer, then with the Daily Express and an acquaintance of Lion, came to the producer and asked that he verify certain details which Swaffer had learned about the play. Lion refused, as did Galsworthy. Thereafter, Swaffer having gained a script of the play, published a detailed outline of the plot, scene by scene, upon the day of first performance. Lion took legal advice with the notion of suing the Daily Express, but his solicitors suggested he wait until some damage had accrued. The article had caused no damage. Escape had a brilliant opening at the Ambassador's Theatre on August 12, 1926. The audience received the play enthusiastically. Though an exception was a half-crazed woman in the dress-circle who, at final curtain fall, shouted, "This is propaganda for murder! " 7 The end of this incident is unclear. Some say Mr. Noel Coward publicly rebuked her 8 and others say that Mr. Coward hurried to the dress circle and tactfully endeavored to quiet her.» At any rate she had been deeply disturbed by the loss of dear ones in the Black and Tan '

7 8

•

Lion, op. cit., p. 243. Ibid., p. 244. Marrot, op. cit., p. 576. Lion, op. cit., p. 244.

146

ESCAPE

rebellions and was under the misapprehension that Escape condoned murder. Escape opened with the following cast: Matt Dennant The Girl of the Town The Plain Clothes Man The Policeman His Fellow Convict The Warder The Shingled Lady A Maid An Old Gentleman The Captain The Shopkeeper His Wife His Sister The Man in Plus Fours His Wife The Dartmoor Constable The Labourer The Farmer The Little Girl Miss Grace Miss Dora The Parson The Bellringer

Nicholas Hannen Ursula Jeans Frank Freeman Harold Lester Leon M. Lion Gerard Clifton Molly Kerr Phyllis Konstam Leon M. Lion Gerard Clifton Paul Gill Ethel Manning Ann Codrington Stafford Hilliard Phyllis Konstam Frank Freeman Cyril Hardingham Paul Gill Betty Astell Ann Codrington Margaret Halstan Austin Trevor Stafford Hilliard

The press was cordial to the new play. Bonamy Dobree in The Nation and Athenaeum was on the whole very impressed, noting particularly the trueness of character delineation, . . we never catch ourselves doubting people's actions . . ." But he had reservations as well, feeling that the characters were often too closely drawn, ". . . too much like life . . ." and with its colorless diction and episodic form, ". . . Escape might have been a film". Of the production he voiced a doubt which both Lion and Ames had had

147

ESCAPE

". . . the play goes along at exactly the same pace all the time . . ." But on Nicholas Hannen's portrayal of Matt Dennant he had no reservations at all, " . . . acted . . . as well as it could possibly be acted . . ,".10 The part of Matt Dennant established Nicholas Hannen as a star. A few days after the opening a fellow producer while in conversation with Lion declared he found Escape an indifferent piece of work and that only Nicholas Hannen's superb performance carried the play to the success it was having. To this Lion shrewdly rejoined, "Surely a poor, mostly ill-used dramatist has a right to a magnificent performance from an actor when he creates for him such a magnificent part?" 11 Escape having settled into the Ambassador's Theatre for a run of 243 performances, Lion concerned himself with exploiting the subsidiary rights of the play. Film rights were first on the agenda and to his query Galsworthy replied as follows. Grove Lodge Aug. 19, 1926 My dear Lion Concerning the film rights; I am bound by contract to give an option on anything I wish filmed to the British Authors Ltd (a new venture in the interests of British films) so that my hands are tied even if I decide that I want to have 'Escape' filmed. In any case I think it should have its full theatre runs first. You see that means perhaps a couple of years before it's gone through America. 'Old English', for instance, starts again in the Autumn there. What are you doing about replacing Molly Kerr? We must not make a mistake there. Have you seen Miss Barbara Boyd (Miss Halstan's pupil)? I hear they are booking well. Hope to see you soon. Best wishes JG What about the provincial tour? JG

But the provincial tour was not yet to be discussed. Galsworthy, 10

Bonamy Dobree, "Mr. Galsworthy's New Play", The Nation Athenaeum, August 21, 1926. 11 Lion, op. cit., p. 100.

and

148

ESCAPE

interested in maintaining the standards of a New York performance was trying to persuade Winthrop Ames, who held the New York rights, to employ Lion as coproducer of the New York production. But Lion had other London productions in the planning stage and could not or would not commit himself to travel to New York. Grove Lodge Aug. 20, 1926

My dear Lion I fear it's a case of doing nothing - the whole thing is too nebulous. Could you let me know what exactly you would expect from Ames (in fees) for going over to advise; because I am writing to put all considerations before him and want to be definite. Would you let me know at once. Best wishes Always yours JG Eventually Ames acquired Lion's prompt book and scale models of the London production. But a year was to pass before Ames produced the play. There was trouble in casting the part of Matt Dennant. However, the first provincial tour of the play was in production. Grove Lodge Sept. 4, 1926

My dear Lion, The provincial agreement seems very satisfactory. You will be keeping your hand on the casting won't you, if they are preparing to make an early start? I find that Roland Young is no good for America. He came to see me, but he is too definitely booked up. Unless one of us can get a brain wave soon for a Matt I think I shall press Ames to defer till Autumn 1927. (My wife says this is an awful mistake; if you agree let me know. I am like a reed in the wind, swayed by every breath of opinion.) We go away today till next Thursday evening. I daresay they will have a telegraphic address here, if you want to get at me. Always sincerely yours John Galsworthy

149

ESCAPE

Roland Young had travelled to the United States in 1912 to play in Stanley Houghton's Hindle Wakes. He stayed on thereafter and worked with the Washington Square Players, becoming an American citizen in 1918. At the time of the above letter he had finished a two-year run in Lonsdale's The Last of Mrs. Cheney in New York. Having opened Escape at the Ambassador's, Lion prepared to produce and play a part in Frank Young's Queer Fish, which opened at the Grand Theatre, Croydon, in late September. The search for an American Matt Dennant continued. Grove Lodge Sept. 9, 1926 My dear Lion, Many thanks for sending me the £ 2 5 0 and the £79.10.8 to my bank. Good luck to you in the new production. What do you think of Owen Nares for Matt in America? And could he be got? The only others I can think of are Colin Keith Johnston, Ivor Novello, and Gielgud. There's a clever young man called Frederick Cooper, he is in 'Outward Bound' but I don't know whether he is right for this. Owen Nares seems to me the most likely thing. Please ring me up tomorrow morning if you can. Yours very sincerely John Galsworthy Owen Nares was, at the time of the above letter, a popular and successful actor-manager in his own right. He had just returned from a South African tour. His experience in Galsworthy plays was limited to playing Larry Darrant in The First and the Last at the Aldwych Theatre in 1921. Ion Swinley, dramatic author and actor, later (1927) appeared in Lion's production of Miles Malleson's The Fanatics. Colin Keith Johnston had toured in Lion's production of Brown Sugar in 1920-21 and, the year before the above letter was written, had played Hamlet in Barry Jackson's modern dress production of Hamlet. At the time of writing he was playing in Eden Philpott's The Farmer's Wife. Ivor Novello, actor, manager, author and composer, was at this

150

ESCAPE

time negotiating for the rights to Molnar's Liliom which he opened at the Duke of York's Theatre in December of 1926. John Gielgud was preparing to replace Noel Coward as Lewis Dodd in The Constant Nymph. Frederick Cooper had worked at the Liverpool Repertory just before World War I. In 1920 he had played the part of Rolf in The Skin Game. Meanwhile, the casting of the first touring company of Escape was under consideration, and a decision was made as to who should play Matt Dennant. Grove Lodge, Nov. 6, 1926 My dear Lion I've seen Gerald Ames and I think he will be as good as they are likely to get. I remember him as a husband in 'Fallen Angels'. I hope you will keep a tight hand on this provincial production and prevent its straying in undesireable directions. I understand this tour goes out in January. I thought the play going better than ever last night. I'll see you again before I go. Bless you, best greetings Always yours JG Gerald Ames had toured with Frank Benson from 1905 till 1907 and later with Sir George Alexander. From 1916 until 1923 he was in motion pictures. He toured as Matt Dennant in Escape. For over a decade Wingstone, Manaton, Devon, had been the Galsworthys' country address, but in 1925 it became evident that the area was not good for Ada Galsworthy's health and so the family gave up their lease to Wingstone and sought a new country place. They found it in Bury House near Pulborough in Sussex, into which they moved in the fall of 1926. The touring company which had been forming wanted a Galsworthy one-act to play with Escape. Galsworthy offered them The Little Man, a satirical play on national types which he had written just previous to the first World War.

151

ESCAPE

Bury House Nov. 12, 1926 My dear Lion I thank you. Would they like to do The Little Man'. That's amusing, but wants very neat playing and production. Best wishes Always yours JG If they promise to do it well, they can do it without extra fee, as part of the evening. JG But the touring company preferred doing Galsworthy's The First and the Last. To this request Galsworthy replied. Bury House Nov. 22, 1926 My dear Lion They can have the 'First and the Last' if they prefer it; but 'The Little Man' really only needs one scene and a railway carriage which can be run on, and curtains drawn to block off the scene to right and left. The scene for scenes 1 and 3 are the same with a label or two changed. I should be rather afraid of playing 'The First and the Last' with 'Escape' either before or after it - it's very grim, and needs perfect playing. The railway carriage is only a compartment with the side open to the audience, and all the rest of stage space curtained off, or screened off. I strongly recommend them to take thought. They've got to have a company of twelve at least to play 'Escape'. Best wishes Very sincerely yours John Galsworthy I am afraid we shan't see you again. We're only to be up tomorrow and Wednesday before we go, and engaged. We're so very sorry. All good to you JG Having removed from Wingstone to Bury House, the Galsworthys prepared to depart for South Africa for the winter. At this time Lion was playing Henry Earlforward in an adaptation of Matthew Arnold's Riceyman's Steps which he was presenting for matinees at the Ambassador's Theatre.

152

ESCAPE

Bury House Dec. 1, 1926 My dear Lion My address for your office will be c/o Thos Cook & Sons 30 Strand Street Capetown South Africa (cable care Thomas Cook Capetown) for posting up to February 17. After that to Grove Lodge again. We sail home by the SS Windsor Castle on March 11th. Ever so many thanks to you for all your many kindnesses and all good luck. Yours always John Galsworthy I shall only need the Monday weekly returns until I come back. JG In May Lion prepared to depart for a vacation on the Continent. Upon learning of his itinerary Galsworthy wrote the following letter. Bury House May 13, 1927 My dear Lion Thanks ever so for your letter. We envy you first sight of that Odyssean Coast. Twas I, Sir, who urged you to Amalfi. You have a lordly programme. At Vienna stay at the New Bristol Hotel. Thank you so much but all my affairs are in good hands. I don't quite know what you'll find of mine in Vienna, but at the Viczinhay Theatre in Budapest there'll be, I should hope, The Silver Box. Maugham told me the other day that he couldn't go to the theatre in Central Europe because there were nothing but my plays. But curiosity will take you even if I do abound. At Budapest stay at the Hungaria. I'm sending you an introduction to the British Minister there, and also one to the British Minister at Vienna. We - Ada and I - are going to Geneva for a P.E.N, function on June 16 and shall be there the 17th and 18th. It will be great fun to see you there. Let us know where you'll be. Ada joins me in affectionate greetings. Always yours JG

ESCAPE

153

Don't miss the art galleries at Vienna and Budapest. I'm almost sure the Barclays are still at Budapest; but better make sure. Very nice people; so are the Chilstons at Vienna. JG The successful production of Escape roughly marks the mid-point in the association of Galsworthy and Lion. Galsworthy had authored seventeen full-length plays and had seen them all produced in West End London. His earlier work had been given revivals in the post-war West End theatre and some of his later work had been commercially successful. He intended Escape to be his last play. Lion had been an actor-manager for eight years. In that time he had produced no fewer than seven successful original scripts and spent a season touring South Africa. Galsworthy and Lion in their association had hired nearly seventy-five actors and had discussed a great many more. A cursory examination of nearly sixty of these members of the acting profession reveals some rather interesting facts. For example, in the matter of training, by far the greater part of the actors considered by Galsworthy and Lion had learned their craft under actor-managers. Another substantial portion had gained their training in the provincial repertory theatres which were a signal development of the Edwardian theatre. But only a handful had received formal training in schools which purported to train persons for the professional stage. This proportion in these sources of professional training is not unexpected. The relatively greater prevalence of actor-managers in the professional theatre in the decades preceding Galsworthy's and Lion's association would account for it. But there was also the possibility that with Galsworthy's care in casting persons who had worked in his plays before that there might be a greater number of actors who had been trained in the provincial repertories, where his plays were more often played than in London. But the fact seems to be that those persons who had played Galsworthian drama in the repertories had most often received training from some actor-manager previous to working in repertory. Y e t the number of persons considered by Galsworthy and Lion

154

ESCAPE

who had worked in repertory was large enough to suggest that these theatres were an active training ground. This number of actors so trained who were available in London for casting further suggests that the repertories were considered as a training ground, but that the goal of the professional actor was still West End London. Of the actors examined, over a score had played in a Galsworthy play before they are mentioned in the letters. On the other hand, not quite a dozen of the actors had worked for Lion before they had been suggested for casting in the enterprises of Galsworthy and Lion.

νπ INTERLUDE

Upon his return from the Continent Lion became lessee and manager of Wyndham's Theatre. On August 25th, 1927, eight days after the following letter, he opened at Wyndham's with The One-Eye'd Herring by Frank Young. A member of the cast was Maurice Evans, making his first appearance in West End London. Plans for the season at Wyndham's included a production of Louis Verneuil's and George Berr's The Lady in Law with Edith Evans as Maitre Bolbec. Bury House Aug. 17,1927 My dear Lion I hear you are to have Wyndham's and to run Edith Evans. You remember I spoke to you about a matinee for the P.E.N. Club. Would you be a brick and put on an extra P.E.N. Club matinee of whatever play you are running with her in it? I would personally pay the actors' screws for that single extra performance, and we would start P.E.N, publicity to get a special audience, so that a good sum could go to the Club. November I should suggest. What say you? Our best greetings to you JG

Plans for the P.E.N. matinee were continued, and when The Lady in Law opened Lion sent Galsworthy tickets. Lion wished to revive the spoken prologue, a device which had been out of fashion for more than half a century. To this end he commissioned his friend, the poet Humbert Wolfe, to write prologues to two of his more successful productions. The prologues were never presented in production but were printed in souvenir

156

INTERLUDE

programs which Lion used in revivals of the plays. Wolfe wrote prologues for Escape, which is reproduced in the appendix, and for The Fanatics. These seem to be the transcripts to which Galsworthy refers in the following letter. Grove Lodge Sept. 30, 1927

My dear Lion It was delightful of you to send me Humbert Wolfe's transcripts. I think they're splendid, delightfully apt and graceful. Thanks so much, töo, for the box. My nephew and I went and enjoyed nearly all the acting. The play is hardly in my line. Nor do I think that it would be very happy for the P.E.N, matinee. I'll take that up though with your manager and Miss Evans. My wife is still in bed though somewhat better. Our affectionate greetings to you Yours John Galsworthy The matinee finally decided upon for the P.E.N. Club was a revival of The Way of the World with Edith Evans as Millamant, a part which she had first played at the Lyric Theatre, Hammersmith, in 1924. But Lion was not present for the production. He had travelled to New York City to produce Miles Malleson's The Fanatics. He was fortunate enough to arrive in New York in time to see the final rehearsals and the premiere of Winthrop Ames' production of Escape, starring Leslie Howard as Matt Dennant. He cabled the news of success to Galsworthy and followed this with longer reports by letter. Bury House Nov. 28, 1927 My dear Lion Thank you very much indeed for your cable and your two letters. You are lingering on I see, and now I fear will hardly be home before we leave on Dec. 19; but we're only going to Switzerland (Montreux Hotel, Bonivard.) Baron has got the 'Silver Box' with Iden Payne to produce, so I fear I can do nothing for your friend in that matter. I'm truly glad 'Escape' is so good. Be careful about "The Family Man' - the casting and production

157

INTERLUDE

must be first rate to ensure its success. I'm not prepared to authorize anything half-baked. Hoping to see you before very long. We are both very fit and send our love. Always yours John Galsworthy Lion was now lessee of Wyndham's Theatre, the management of which he had acquired in the spring of 1927, and he was interested in keeping the theatre occupied. The previous letter intimates the beginning of plans for a Galsworthy season and these are confirmed in the following letter. All three of the plays under discussion were post-war efforts by Galsworthy. Two of them had been given their initial productions by Alec Rea and Basil Dean, A Family Man in 1921 and Loyalties in 1922. Escape had been originally produced by Lion in 1926. Bury House Dec. 7, 1927 My dear Lion The weather was too cold for Ada to travel, so we've put it off sine die, but probably till about Jan. 12. Any chance of you coming down here for a night before then. We could discuss those plays more fully. Besides which, it would cheer us up to see you. If you were thinking of revivals to follow one another Loyalties, Escape, The Family Man, it would be worthwhile to consider in casting whether we couldn't get a company for the first which would (with an addition and alteration or two) carry us through the lot. I've roughed out a list as follows: Actor

LOYALTIES

L. M. L. Hannen Molly KenMary Grew Austin Trevor

De Levis Dancy Margaret Orme Mabel Dancy Gen. Canynge Italian Ricardo Twisden

Hanray

ESCAPE

A FAMILY

MAN

Old Party Matt Shingled Lady Athene Girl in Park Camille Parson Guy Herringhame Farmer Mayor (Old Gent & Convict when you are away)

158 Frederick Lloyd Winsor

INTERLUDE

Warder & Captain Plus Fours Stafford Hilliard Boning Young Footman Bell Ringer Warder Grace Anne CodringtonLady Adela Dollie Little Girl Yvonne Rorie Shopman Makeham Lord St. Erth Oilman the Grocer The man who played Harris in Inspector Detective The Family Man Labourer ? Graviter ? Colford ? Miss Dora Fanny (the maid)

Builder Chantrey Mrs. Builder Maid Topping

Harris Ralph Builder Constable

This should not be a very expensive cast for a big theatre to support and would give us very fine performances. I only give you these names now because you might see your way to begin forming a company for a definite date. I wonder how you liked the Andrews play. All here join in best Xmas and New Year greetings. Always yours John Galsworthy I think Fred'k Lloyd would be a really good Builder. Almost without exception the persons mentioned in the cast list above had both played in Galsworthy's plays and had worked under Lion as a producer. Further, in the proposed season, twothirds of them would recreate one part which they had played before. This indicates the extent to which Galsworthy and Lion now were in rapport. And this rapport extended beyond author and producer. The actors themselves seem to have become specialists in Galsworthian drama. Nearly half of those mentioned in the cast list above were in Lion's production of Loyalties when it was presented a year later. Here is the background of those actors who had not been mentioned before the above letter of December 7, 1927.

INTERLUDE

159

Eliot Makeham, born 1882, was a practicing accountant before he entered the theatre. He gained his first experience before World War I in the Glasgow and Manchester Repertories. In 1925 he played in Galsworthy's The Show at St. Martin's, and replaced Lion as Ben in Number 17 at Wyndham's in the same year. He played at Everyman's in late 1927. Frederick Lloyd, born in 1880, had been a farmer in New Zealand before taking up the stage. He appeared in the VedrenneBarker seasons at the Court Theatre and with the Charles Frohman Repertory at the Duke of York's Theatre, 1910. Later he studied acting at the Academy of Dramatic Art. He had been divorced from Auriol Lee before the writing of the above letter. Mary Grew, born in 1902, studied for the stage under Elsie Fogerty. In September of 1928 she played Faith in Windows at Everyman's Theatre. Yvonne Rorie, born in Scotland in 1907, began her career at Everyman's Theatre in September of 1927. By the time of the writing of the above letter she had played in A Family Man and in The Eldest Son at Everyman's Theatre. With the first of the year Lion had begun to prepare Harold Deardon's farce, Two White Arms, for presentation at the Ambassador's Theatre. He was planning a series of Galsworthy revivals in May. Lawrence Hanray, mentioned in the following letter, was in New York playing the parts Lion had played in the London production of Escape. "Rudo" is Rudolph Sauter, Galsworthy's nephew, an artist. Galsworthy's rueful approach to announcing the forthcoming series is an indication of the lack of popular success which Galsworthy suffered in the London theatre. In dating the following letter the author made a slip common to many. Bury House January 2, 1927 (sic)

My dear Lion I'm so awfully I can't be at the dinner tomorrow night. I was coming but Ada isn't too fit, and I don't like to leave her in this howling weather. I'd be very gingerly if I were you in your hint of the revivals. Don't

160

INTERLUDE

assume that people will be glad of a series of my plays, you might damp the spirit of the evening. We're not going away yet awhile, and I will hope to see you before we start. No, I don't know Maisie Darrell. I should hardly think Escape will last in New York till May, but perhaps Hanray and Huntington will go on tour with it. May will be an excellent month to open so far as I'm concerned. What a delightful dish you sent my wife - fit, indeed, to set before a queen. Our love to you and all good fortune in 1928. Always yours John Galsworthy I hope we'll see you at Rudo's private view on Jan. 10. You'll get a card. JG Maisie Darrel, born in 1901, was trained as a dancer and began her career as an actress during the First World War. Lion had her in mind for work during his 1928 season for she appeared in Lion's production of Monckton Hoffe's Many Waters at the Ambassador's in July, 1928. The following letter refers to a new ending to Escape. It is not here available. The sense of the new ending seems to have been that the Parson faced down the mob and they left. Thereafter Dennant, unable to leave the Parson in the position of having perjured himself, left the vestry to be again sighted by the mob. Bury House January 23, 1928 My dear Lion, Molesworth Tour On the contrary, I leave the modification in terms to your judgment. As to modification of the end of the play, I have thought it over, and I don't see any harm at all in letting them play the end as I have written it in the enclosed copy. It sacrifices nothing of the meaning and though inconclusive, has the advantage of leaving 'the stag' still running. We enjoyed our lunch awfully! and send you our blessing. Yours always John Galsworthy

161

INTERLUDE

Of course they must play it exactly as I've rewritten it, to the syllable. JG But after thinking the matter over Galsworthy made another alteration in the new ending. Grand Hotel Biarritz, France Feb. 11, 1928 My dear Lion Referring back to that alteration at the end of Escape I had no intention of minimizing the effect of the line "It's one's decent self one can't escape" by it, only of removing the actual arrest from the eyes of the suffering public! On second thoughts, it occurs to me that some people will go away thinking that he has escaped, and I therefore make the condition that if the new end is to be used, a 'view holloa' is given as soon as Matt is clear of the vestry, and the cries of pursuit liven up again. This is necessary, I think, to show that Matt knowingly goes out of the vestry into the jaws of the lion; this also gives the parson a finer opportunity of facial expression. Will you therefore please insist that this is all done, or they must revert to the old ending, which I personally think they are foolish to want to abandon. I do hope your new plays are doing well, and that you yourself are in good shape. We have been having a week of fine weather here, and enjoying ourselves. Our affectionate greetings. Yours always John Galsworthy The first week in February Lion had opened at Wyndham's Theatre in Reginald Berkley's The Listeners and the Galsworthys had removed to Biarritz for a month. Wyndham's Theatre was half again as large as the Court Theatre, which seated something over six hundred persons. Galsworthy seems to have been upset by the terms of performance which Lion had offered him for the forthcoming revival of his plays. The terms for the original revivals at the Court Theatre in 1922 had been 5% on the first hundred pounds and 10% on all thereafter. The amount mentioned below was a great deal less. Galsworthy, working on the notion that the possibility of greater

162

INTERLUDE

returns through a larger house should allow for an increased portion to the author, was disturbed. Lion seems to have been working on another principle, that those who took from the enterprise on a percentage basis should reserve their takings until fixed charges had been paid. A rough estimate of Lion's fixed charges might have been as follows: preliminary costs of production, £2,500; running expenses, £ 1,000 per week. If Lion were to play each of three Galsworthy plays for four weeks at an average gross return of £ 1,200 per week he would have ended the season with his preliminary costs paid. There is little reason to believe that either Galsworthy or Lion were attempting to gain an economic advantage on the transaction. Lion's course of action previous to this time does not indicate that his interest in Galsworthy's plays was mainly financial. And Galsworthy had no need for the royalties from his plays. He had private means. Throughout his adult life he lived on one-half his income, expending the rest on charities. Like his fellow playwright, Bernard Shaw, he was willing to give away money but not his life's work. Bury House March 23, 1928 My dear Lion I thank you for your letter. We are very well and hope to see you soon. We shall be up in town next Friday till the following Thursday. About terms: Am I foolish or is it not the case that the smaller the theatre the less it is able to cope with author's royalties? You seem to have gone on the opposite principle. I don't quite get the hang of it. What were the fees we had on the old revivals at the Court? I should like to look up some of my old agreements - at the Haymarket and St. Martin's. I don't think I've ever yet taken 5% only up to as much as £1,200.

I like the idea of a provincial company. What is the scale on which we started Escape in the provinces. Being away from my papers makes me feel uncertain about everything. So very glad you've got Hannen. Don't seem to know Evans or Batty. We had a very good time abroad. Rudolf and his wife leave for New York tomorrow for his show there. Very warm greetings from us both. Very sincerely yours John Galsworthy

163

INTERLUDE

Maurice Evans, born in 1901, began his professional career playing Orestes in the Cambridge Festival Theatre's production of the Oresteia at Cambridge in 1926. In 1927 he played a part under Lion's direction in The One-Eyed Herring, and at the time of the above letter he was appearing with Lion in The Listeners at Wyndham's. Archibald Batty, born in 1887, served with the British Army in India before he took to the stage in 1924. At the time of the above letter he was also in the cast of The Listeners. Early in April of 1928 Lion produced Norton's and Traill's comedy, The Stranger in the House at Wyndham's Theatre with Sybil Thorndyke as star. In the following letter Galsworthy discusses subsidiary rights to A Family Man. The play was never produced in New York. Bury House April 26, 1928 My dear Lion I have made some emendations which I think desirable in the agreements. As amended, I shall be pleased to sign them. You may not like the 75% of the royalties being paid to me for a sub-let in America or the Colonies, but in the first place I don't want you to go sub-letting The Family Man in America. I want you to produce it yourself, and I should only consent to a very exceptional American manager doing it on his own; and in the second place if you only have the sub-letting of it in America and not the production I don't see that you ought to get more than 25% at the outside. And I certainly think that if the thing earns over $12,000 in America on a production of your own, it ought to pay 10% on all over the $12,000. Best greetings from us both. We shall be up on Monday at Grove Lodge for some days. Always yours, John Galsworthy Returning the agreements for the projected Galsworthy season to Lion the author accepted the producer's invitation to the theatre. Grove Lodge May 2, 1928 My dear Lion, Here are the agreements signed. It would be very nice if you could give us three stalls for Wyndham's tomorrow Thursday night, for Ada, myself, and my sister

164

INTERLUDE

Mrs. Reynolds. 1 suppose you wouldn't dine with us here at 7 beforehand without dressing if more convenient. Telephone me in the morning tomorrow. Always yours JG Soon after The Stranger in the House was removed because of previous commitments of its star, Sybil Thorndyke. Miss Thorndyke was preparing to tour South Africa. The preceding letters indicate the degree of accomodation at which Galsworthy and Lion had arrived. By nineteen-twentyseven Lion had produced revivals of three of Galsworthy's earlier plays, Justice, The Silver Box and The Pigeon, and made original productions of two post-war plays, Windows and Escape. Since Galsworthy had intended Escape to be his last essay of the play form Lion turned to the post-war plays and planned to search for an audience for them in the provinces, or even in America, as well as in London.

VIII FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND

EXILED

On May 14, 1928, Lion appeared in the revival of Orczy-Barstow's The Scarlet Pimpernel at the Palace Theatre for the annual benefit of King George's Pension Fund for Actors and Actresses. Previous to this time he had received a request from the French government to bring a Galsworthy repertoire to the Odeon Theatre in Paris for a Theatre Festival. Lion, still planning a Galsworthy season for London, decided to present Justice in London before the Paris festival, transport the show to Paris and augment it with a production of Loyalties, thereafter transporting Loyalties back to London to finish his Galsworthy season. Galsworthy, notified of the plan, seems to have thought Escape a better choice than Justice, but either Nicholas Hannen was not available for Matt Dennant or Lion wished to play a major role in both productions, Falder in Justice and de Levis in Loyalties, and so the repertoire was composed of the last two named plays. The reference in the following letter to John Gielgud as an inappropriate casting for Ronald Dancy in Loyalties because of his "Terry charm" refers to Gielgud's collateral relation to Ellen Terry, his great aunt. The comment also indicates Galsworthy's attitude toward Loyalties. Dancy, the criminal, cannot be played in a way to lead the audience to believe that by his own charm he has recommended himself to his friends. They must accept him for the status he holds by birth and breeding. This is their loyalty. The agreement to mitigate the fees on Escape refers to royalties charged Ida Molesworth's touring company.

166

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND "EXILED"

Bury House May 16, 1928 My dear Lion, By all means readjust the fees on Escape to 6% on the first 400, and 1% over. But if they are losing money, why do they go on doing it? Both Loyalties and Escape have been done in Paris, Loyalties in French, and very badly, and Escape in English, and very badly. Justice has not been done. It has not escaped you, I suppose, that both Justice and Loyalties are heavy productions in the matter of scenery, and cast. I would have been inclined to think that a really good production of Escape would give the Parisians some chance of judging of my quality — at all events if Hannen were available, or failing him, Nares, or Gielgud. Now as to casting generally: I think you are making one or two really bad shots. I am doubtful about Gielgud for Dancy; so much of the Terry charm will certainly pull the sympathy of the audience in his direction. But I am not prepared to say no. Phyllis Constam is absolutely wrong for Mabel Dancy; in my opinion Maisie Darrell would be right. Molly Kerr, yes; Mary Grew for Lady Adela, yes. (Sorry I slipped in bracketting Canynge and Ricardos, though as a fact I think there is just time for a change. For Canynge you can wash out Holmwood and Douglas Jeffreys. I don't know either Horton, Scott Gatty and Samson; nor do I know Robert English. Young Patrick Waddington would be quite good as Boning, might possibly even play Winsor*, though he's too young. I expect Hanray is still in the States. As to Alison Leggatt as Ruth in Justice, I haven't yet liked her at all. I have a feeling that Ruth wants much more colour and backbone than she has. We must have a chat on Friday. Can you dine with me at the Ivy at 7:30 or 8? Please let me know (at Bury address). If not, when on Friday evening? Always yours, John Galsworthy *He played it in the O.U.D.S. production of Loyalties quite agreeably, and he's had experience since. Douglas Jeffries, born in 1884, had originally worked as an architectural draughtsman. He first entered the theatre under Sothern and Marlow in 1907. He had played in Lion's productions of Justice and The Silver Box at the Court in 1922. Robert Horton, born in 1870, had begun his professional career in 1905. At the time of the letter he was playing in Tin Gods at the Garrick.

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND " E X I L E D "

167

Ivan Samson, at the time of this letter, was playing in Mr. Priestley's Night Out at the Royalty. Alison Leggatt, born in 1904, had been a Gold Medalist at the Central School of Dramatic Art in 1924. She had had a part in Lion's production of The Fanatics at the Ambassador's in 1927. Getting together to discuss the coming summer season of Galsworthy plays and the transfer of each production to Paris seemed to present some difficulties, probably because Lion was preparing to present Karen Bramson's The Man They Buried, in which he had a major part. The play opened at Wyndham's Theatre on June 6th. Bury House May 19, 1928 My dear Lion On getting home the first thing I see is an engagement in the evening of the 23rd at about 9 PM. Can you therefore dine with us at Grove Lodge at 7:30, dress or not as you like, instead of our coming down to dine with you. I am opening the Windmill Press for Heinemann that afternoon at Kingswood and we may not be at Grove Lodge till 7. So it would make it too much of a rush to get downtown. Let me know here, please. Affectionate greetings from us both. Always yours JG The following note probably refers to a last minute cancellation of Galsworthy's invitation to Lion to dine, mentioned in the previous letter. Bury House May 25, 1928

My dear Lion Herewith I pay the debt I should have paid on Wednesday. Try and look in on us on Sunday and stay the night if you can. Greetings. Always yours JG The months of June, July and August were busy ones for both Galsworthy and Lion. In June Galsworthy travelled to Hamburg without Mrs. Galsworthy, who was ill, while Lion prepared to

168

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND " E X I L E D "

open Justice at Wyndham's Theatre on July 4th and Monckton Hoffe's Many Waters at the Ambassador's Theatre on July 18th. In July Swan Song, the last volume of Galsworthy's Forsyte Saga, was published and the Galsworthys travelled to Switzerland to work on the Co-operation Intellectuelle section of the League of Nations. Lion presented Galsworthy's Justice at Wyndham's Theatre on July 4th with the following cast. James How Walter How Robert Cokeson William Falder Sweedle Wister Cowley Mr. Justice Floyd Harold Cleaver Hector Frome Captain Danson, V.C. The Rev. Hugh Miller Edward Clements Wooder Moaney Clipton O'Cleary Ruth Honeywill

Hylton Allen Patrick Waddington Lawrence Hanray Leon M. Lion Thomas Warner Richard Gray Philip Godfrey Austin Trevor Alfred Clark Maurice Evans Austin Trevor Hylton Allen Maurice Evans Richard Gray Alfred Clark Julian Andrews Philip Godfrey Mary Grew

Justice received mixed reviews. A negative view was that of Omicron in the Nation and Athenaeum. The reviewer found the play a museum piece and the characters represented not human beings but merely types. He found Lion too old for the part of Falder and Mary Grew too well dressed as Ruth Honeywill. He commended Austin Trevor in the parts of the Judge and the Prison Warden and Hylton Allen in the parts of James How and the Prison Chaplain. But he was especially impressed by the work of Maurice Evans as Counsel for the Defense and the Prison Doctor.1 1

Omicron, "Plays and Pictures", Nation and Athenaeum, July 14, 1928.

169

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND "EXILED"

Nevertheless, the play ran its announced run of three weeks and was held over a fourth until August 7th. On August 9th Lion presented Loyalties at Wyndham's Theatre with the following cast. Charles Winsor Lady Adela Ferdinand de Levis Treisure General Canynge Margaret Orme Captain Ronald Dancy, D.S.O. Mabel Dancy Inspector Dede Robert A Constable Major Colford Augustus Borring Lord St. Erth A Club Footman Edward Graviter A Young Clerk Gilman Jacob Twisden Ricardos

Patrick Waddington Nancy Parsons Leon M. Lion D. J. Williams Austin Trevor Molly Kerr Eric Maturin Mary Grew Alfred Clark Thomas Warner Michael Shepley Richard Gray Maurice Evans Henry West Michael Shepley Maurice Evans Michael Shepley Alfred Clark Lawrence Hanray D. J. Williams

The reviews for Loyalties were mixed. Omicron of the Nation and Athenaeum was still negative. He was grateful that Lion livened a poor season with better plays but wished that the producer would do them better. He recalled Basil Dean's remarkable first production of the play.2 W. J. Turner of The New Statesman had some grave reservations about a portion of the acting although he commended Lion, Hanray and Alfred Clark, among others, for their excellent work. His main complaint was in the playing of Dancy, the thief. Eric Maturin, who was acting the part, had created it in the original production. Turner thought that Maturin was not sympathetic enough and that this brought up the question 2

Omicron, "Plays and Pictures", Nation and Athenaeum, 1928.

August 18,

170

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND " E X I L E D "

of how his friends could possibly be so stupid as to be hoodwinked by him. The critic then stated how the audience should feel about Dancy, "Here is a fine f e l l o w . . . " 3 This is interesting in the light of Galsworthy's letter to Lion of May 16, 1927, reproduced on page 166 above. Having produced both Justice and Loyalties Lion was prepared to take his casts to Paris and present the plays at the Odeon Theatre. The Odeon, a state controlled house under the management of Firmin Gemier, was to furnish the scenery for the productions. Apparently the plan of operation was as follows. Loyalties opened at Wyndham's on Thursday, August 9th, and closed on Saturday, August 11th. The casts of Justice and Loyalties were transported to Paris on Sunday. There they rehearsed at the Odeon Theatre Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, opening with Justice on Wednesday evening and alternating it thereafter with Loyalties through Saturday evening, August 18th. The casts returned to London on Sunday and Monday and reopened Loyalties at Wyndham's on Tuesday, August 21st. In preparation for the Paris Festival scenery specifications had been sent to the Odeon Theatre and complete cooperation in mounting the production had been assured. Upon arrival Lion found that little had been done. By curtain time of the first performance Lion and Gemier were not speaking and communication was being made through J. T. Grein, who had come over as Lion's guest. The French house, a state controlled repertory theatre, had promised among other things, that Lion should have a courtroom setting to his liking for Justice. What Lion got was a stock set of a courtroom. The backs of the flats had been covered with newspaper so that the cracks would not emit light upon the stage. Lion examined the papers which had been used and found them dated 1872. Nevertheless, the productions seem to have been well received. A banquet was held after the final presentation at which it was announced that Lion would receive the Legion of Honor for his services. Lion notes that he was £ 6 0 0 out of pocket over the production. s

W. J. Turner, "A Good Play Spoiled", The New Statesman, August 18, 1928.

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND "EXILED"

171

The Galsworthys had spent the greater part of August in Scotland visiting James Barrie. From there Galsworthy wrote Lion. The Birnham Hotel Dunkeld, Perthshire Aug. 15, 1928 My dear Lion This is to introduce to you Mrs. William Vaughn Moody, whose late husband was you will remember a distinguished American poet and playwright. She wishes to submit a play to your good consideration. Best wishes from us all. Always yours John Galsworthy Things were better upon the troupe's return to London. Loyalties reopened at Wyndham's Theatre where it ran a month. Monckton Hoffe's Many Waters at the Ambassador's Theatre, which had been slow to catch on, picked up and ran past the end of the year to full houses. The Birnham Hotel Dunkeld, Perthshire Aug. 19, 1928 My dear Lion, We shall be back at Grove Lodge on Monday August 27. Could I have a box for Loyalties that evening? Judging from the returns I got, the play seems to be doing well. Affectionate greetings from us all. Yours always John Galsworthy P.S. I quarrelled with you terribly in my dreams last night because you spoke of withdrawing Loyalties because the girl who was playing Mrs. Hillcrist (!) was not able to play that night. Please let the box ticket be sent to Grove Lodge, marked "Not to be forwarded". Galsworthy's request for a box for Monday could not be met with since Lion was leaving the house dark on Mondays and playing three matinees instead of two. Nothing ever came of the plans for an Australian tour.

172

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND "EXILED"

Raven Hotel Shrewsbury August 24, 1928 My dear Lion, Thank you for your letter. We will come on Tuesday instead. I expect you are right about discontinuing the Monday performance in August. I'd like to hear about your Australian cast. Will you either lunch with us at Grove Lodge at 1:30 on Tuesday, or dine with us at 7 o'clock at the Ivy. Send word to Grove Lodge, where we arrive on Monday. Molly Kerr is no great catch in that part of Margaret. Affectionate greetings. Yours always John Galsworthy Molly Kerr, playing Margaret Orme in Loyalties, was about to withdraw from the cast. Her place would be taken by Fabia Drake, who had previously replaced Miss Kerr as The Shingled Lady in Escape in 1927. Miss Drake had been trained at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art where she had been a Vedrenne Scholar. Grove Lodge Aug. 27, 1928 My dear Lion We'll be delighted to dine with you at the Ivy at 7 o'clock Tuesday. We're expecting a box for that night. I quite agree with your conclusion as to The Skin Game and A Family Man. I suggest you make my next season out of them with Gwenn in those parts, followed by a revival of Escape. We must have a good talk over casting for Australia and Repertory in provinces. I'm very glad they gave you the Legion D'Honneur and that you used my name. Affectionate greetings. Yours JG The following letter gives an interesting view of Galsworthy's notion of the audience which his pieces attracted. Bury House Sept. 13, 1928 My dear Lion I'm sorry to see Loyalties dropping. I should have thought Monday

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND " E X I L E D "

173

evening would now be better than three matinees. And apropos my staff at Grove Lodge told me that at the matinees they went to a very late start was made. Surely this is fatal. I don't know the cause but I hope you can assure that it won't go on occurring. These next three weeks are the critical weeks. My hair dresser at the Savoy tells me the Americans, etc. have all gone and that London is as empty as a drum. I much hope we can hold on till the incoming tide (especially in the stalls) of returning English floats the ship again. I'm sure the fashionables will want to see the play again, but of course not until October. Our love to you. I'm told Fabia Drake is splendid. Always yours JG Galsworthy and Lion continued to plan a season of Galsworthy plays for 1929. They had decided upon a revival of Escape. Galsworthy asked Lion if he would like a new episode for insertion in the projected production. Lion replied that he would and the following letter with attached episode was sent. 4 Grove Lodge September 28, 1928 My dear Lion Here's the little extra episode in Escape. It comes between the "Plus Fours" and the "Gravel Pit" scenes. Did you approach Fay Compton or not? Affectionate greetings from us both. Yours JG Fay Compton, born in 1894, began her stage career before World War I in musical comedy. Her extensive experience included the creation of the title character in Barrie's Mary Rose, the playing of Julie to Ivor Novello's Liliom in Molnar's play and the playing of Ophelia to John Barrymore's Hamlet. In the spring of 1928 she had appeared with Lion in The Scarlet Pimpernel, that year's annual production for King George's Pension Fund for Actors and Actresses. While Lion was playing in Loyalties someone approached him with an offer to make a film of that play. Most conservative in the 4 See: appendix.

174

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND " E X I L E D "

matter of motion pictures, Galsworthy seemed to depend upon Basil Dean, the original producer of Loyalties, for guidance in the newer medium. Bury House October 11, 1928 My dear Lion I should hardly call it a slump in Loyalties last week — rather, a decline; and on your figures it still showed a slight profit. I notice that the first two returns this week show a slight advance again. Please do not be precipitate in your decision. Glad you like the new scene of Escape. I am not prepared to have Loyalties done on the 'talkies', according to my present feelings; and in any case I am not sure that in the matter of 'talkies' generally I am not committed to Dean; for he is the only man who has produced a film which has given me any hope for that form, so far as stories in drama are concerned. Winthrop Ames has released the tour rights of Escape in America for the Middle West and the West, and is prepared to part with his scenery at little cost. I don't know if this excites your interest or not. I feel that Escape has a big chance at Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and other towns. We might talk that over. Did you ever approach Fay Compton about The Fugitive? So sorry you are feeling off colour. I suppose Maurice Evans has left your company, or you might perhaps have fallen back on him and taken a few days off? All send love to you Yours always JG Maurice Evans had played the parts of Borring and Graviter in loyalties, but had left the cast in September. The International Educational Society had written Galsworthy asking that a play of his be recorded on the gramophone by the Columbia Company for distribution in India and the Dominions. Grove Lodge October 16, 1928 My dear Lion, I have been approached by the International Educational Society whose President is H. A. L. Fisher with the request to allow a play of mine to be recorded on the Gramophone, for educational purposes. The distribution is mainly in India and the Dominions. The Columbia

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND " E X I L E D "

175

people do the recording and own the record; they also will pay, I understand, the actors, authors etc. I suggested to Mr. Ransford of the I.E.S. who called on me about it, that Loyalties as done by your company would be best and most convenient. If you could give the Columbia people a performance next week before you close down, it would be excellent. Will you see Mr. Ransford? His address is F. R. Ransford, Esq. 91 Petty France Westminster, S.W. telephone Victoria 1868 and if you can, arrange details with him. Yours affectionately JG The recording session for Loyalties never took place. In the following letter the matter of an annual P.E.N, matinee is taken up and disposed of. At the time of writing Lion was completing plans to produce Alfred Sutro's Living Together. Bury House Dec. 6, 1928

My dear Lion, You remember last year being so very kind as to lend Wyndham's for a P.E.N, matinee. There is to be a Committee Meeting on Monday next to decide whether or no we are to have a Matinee in aid of the Hospitality Fund of the Club, and before I attend it I should like very much to know whether you would be inclined to put Wyndham's at our disposal this year; and whether you have any suggestions to make as to a suitable and convenient play, in that event. How, for instance, would Sutro's play do? An extra Matinee of it, during its run? I'm afraid we shan't see you again before we go on Dec. 13. If you want to say anything about my plays, perhaps better say it now. We hope to be back by the middle of March. Affectionate greetings from us all. Always yours John Galsworthy Lion responded in the affirmative and Galsworthy replied. Bury House Dec. 8, 1928

My dear Lion Thank you very much. I will tell the P.E.N. Club Committee and no doubt Hermon Ould will come and see you about it.

176

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND " E X I L E D "

If you are free on Monday night and could dine quietly with me at Grove Lodge at 7:30 it would be very jolly. Having only just got free of a long cold I won't come out anywhere. Don't dress. Let me have a phone message to Grove Lodge on Monday morning. Always yours JG Hermon Ould, writer, P.E.N, official, and Galsworthy biographer (Hermon Ould, John Galsworthy, London, Chapman and Hall, 1934) was at this time closely associated with Galsworthy in P.E.N, activities. Bury House Dec. 12, 1928 My dear Lion I sent you a message on Monday - and I hope you got it - about Hermon Ould (the P.E.N. Club secretary) coming to see you about the matinee. The Committee thought that a very interesting production would be Ould's own play The Dance of Life. I think so, too, and I hope you will agree to that being done. It's a very interesting piece of work. I saw it at the King's, Hammersmith. It has also been played with some success in Paris. Now, my dear fellow, goodbye and take care of yourself. We all join in affectionate greetings. Always yours JG Write or wire me c/o Grove Lodge when you need to. The Galsworthys and the Sauters sailed on December 13, 1928, via Lisbon, for a month in Brazil. Lion prepared to open Alfred Sutro's last play, Living Together, at Wyndham's Theatre in January. The play was not a success and was withdrawn and replaced by a revival of Miles Malleson's The Fanatics, which also did poorly. While wintering in South America John Galsworthy completed another play, one which was finally called Exiled. Galsworthy had announced with the production of Escape that that theatre piece was to be his last. His change of mind may be partially attributed to his underestimation of the ingrained habits of a literary man such as himself. And past this need to continue in the

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND " E X I L E D "

177

regimen he had followed for so many years there was a modest demand from his relationship with Lion. The producer had inquired previously, while discussing the prospects of a Galsworthy season, if there might be another new play to add the zest of originality to the plays which had been proposed for production. This had been the pattern in past seasons of the author's plays which Lion had produced. The Grein-Lion cycle had presented the original production of Windows. Escape had been followed by a revival. Only the Paris Festival productions had been unadorned by a new play from their author. The second play which Galsworthy mentions in the following letter eventually became The Roof and was produced in 1929 by Basil Dean. Grand Hotel Biarritz Feb. 11, 1929 Confidential My dear Lion Nous voila back in Europe, and glad to be there. We shall be here in our old, cosy, empty, old-fashioned quarters - truly French, with excellent cooking - till March 14. After that we shall make our way to Bury, where we hope to see you at once. I have finished the play that I took away half finished, and am at work on another. I want to know your plans and whether you are still wanting a new play, and if so what are the possibilities of production. I have only just begun the second play, a decidedly curious one. The first is a comedy (so far as I ever write comedies) on the theme of evolution and the present state of England. It has, I'm sorry to say, no part suited to yourself. I have strong views on the casting of some of the parts - not, I hope, too extravagant. If you take it I should want you to produce it. I have no copy at present to send you, but am just going to send over and have the play finally typed. In the meantime write to me of plans and possibilities. We do hope the winter has treated you leniently. I see you have revived The Fanatics, which means, I'm afraid, that Sutro was not a success. I am sorry about that. Poor Alfred! II n'a pas de chance. Our time in Brazil was spoiled by phenomenally bad weather; it rained nearly all the time. Rio is very beautiful - at least the harbour; and it's a green country, but too damply hot at this time of the year. Our young people have branched off to Seville, Ronda, and Granada for a fortnight, and will rejoin us here. Rudey has done some good

178

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND " E X I L E D "

work. We are all well — and we of the last generation are enjoying it here, where we are about the only visitors at present. There's no doubt about it - the old world beats the new all the time. I look forward to a letter and to hearing that you are fit and flourishing. Ada joins me in affectionate greetings. Always yours JG By the way, a paragraph in to-days Observer speaks of a further Galsworthy season with a revival of Justice and Loyalties·, an error I suppose? Galsworthy had left off consideration of the prospective 1929 season of his plays by Lion by recommending that Lion obtain Edmund Gwenn to play Hornblower in The Skin Game and Builder in A Family Man. In the following letter he suggests Gwenn for a major part in the new play, Exiled. This suggests the possibility that Galsworthy had Gwenn in mind when he composed the play. The transient quality which Galsworthy finds in Exiled and which leads him to ask that it be given the fullest possible first run is probably connected with the subject matter of the piece. The West End Theatre of the mid-twenties saw a popular run of plays concerned with horse racing. An example is Edgar Wallace's The Ringer, and another by the same author would follow closely on Exiled. It was called The Calendar and was subtitled "A racing play". The reference to the Ambassador's Theatre would seem to concern house size rather than stage facilities. The Ambassador's capacity was four hundred and ninety. This is very small and Galsworthy may have felt that a popular play could not be properly exploited in such a house. Grand Hotel Biarritz Feb. 23, 1929 My dear Lion, Many thanks indeed for your telegram and letter. You seem, as usual, to have a number of irons waiting to be heated, and it's a little difficult to see how my new play is going to fit in. I

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND " E X I L E D "

179

shall send you a copy of it very shortly; so soon as I get it back from the typist. There is a leading part in it (that of Mr. East) which might suit Gwenn's taste, if he could play it — that is the question. He is rather a little bulldog, and though the part has that quality underneath, it has the smoothest, gentlest surface. If, in consultation with him, you think it is on the cards, I should have to have a talk with Gwenn to give him my notion of the part. The play is essentially one which ought to be played as soon as possible·, and the simplest procedure, if Gwenn were chosen, would be to begin my season with it, and as early as possible - May at latest. But I should not be inclined to let this play go to any manager unless he were prepared to give it the fullest run of which it is capable. And, before I send it to you, I would like you to let me know whether you would be prepared to engage yourself to keep the play on until it fell below such an agreed weekly figure as would provide the working expenses and a slight profit. You see, it is not a play that would be likely to revive well, out of its time; and I think it is only fair to it and to me that it should have its full maximum run on its first appearance. I hardly think it could be staged at the Ambassador's. Please keep every bit of our correspondence on this subject to yourself; and make no announcement of any sort. I do not think we shall reach a definite stage until after I have had a chance to talk to you. In the meantime our love to you, and all our good wishes. Very sincerely yours John Galsworthy The use of the Ambassador's Theatre to present Exiled was abandoned when, in the spring of 1929, the Lewis Cassons, Sybil Thorndike and Lewis Casson, returned from a South African tour and entered with Lion into management of Wyndham's Theatre. On March 26th they opened in Shaw's Major Barbara with Sybil Thorndike as Barbara and Lewis Casson as Cusins. The Galsworthys returned to Bury from the Continent on March 16th. Grand Hotel Biarritz March 9, 1929 My dear Lion Thank you for your letter. We ought to be home on March 16 at Bury, but both Ada and Vi have colds so I don't know for certain.

180

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND " E X I L E D "

If you come up on the 17th and there is any chance of your coming down for the night ring up Bury in the morning of the 17 th. Anyway I hope to see you soon after the 26th. I agree about Gwenn. Certainly Roberts is a safe cast for Mr. East, and Gwenn would be a first rate Sir John. Perhaps Anne Codrington for Miss Card; but there are others only I can't think of them. I agree as to the need of fine true casting. Weather here is good. Love to you from us both. Always yours JG Herbert Marshall might be a good Sir Charles. Herbert Marshall at this time was preparing to open at Golder's Green as Jim Hulton in Philip Barry's Paris Bound. But for all Galsworthy's admonitions to secrecy, some information got out. Bury House April 10, 1929

My dear Lion Send me your script of the play to be rectified. The enclosed shows you how news creeps about the theatrical world. A Yorkshire play - now how? I don't call it a play of of any county. By the way the writer is the very man we want for the part of Hodgkin (the most important of the miners); it would be well to secure him. He is a burly elderly man and a good actor. Best greetings. Always yours JG In the first week of April a P.E.N, matinee was given at Wyndham's Theatre for the benefit of that organization and a production of Hermon Ould's The Moon Rides High was presented. Grove Lodge April 12, 1929

My dear Lion I return the agreement signed. I'm having the corrections in your copy made and will send it back soon. I think I had better see your stage designer and see what exactly he has in mind for the Inn set. I want my diagram followed as closely as possible. I hope you got my note about Edward Irwin. Roberts gave a marvelous performance in Ould's play at the P.E.N, matinee, which went very well.

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND "EXILED"

181

Hope you'll have a good time. Could you lunch here on Tuesday at 1:30. If so your designer might come up afterwards. I say here because I shall probably be suffering from the dentist. Always yours JG In late April Lion presented Clemence Dane's Mariners at Wyndham's, starring Sybil Thorndike and produced by Lewis Casson. Grove Lodge May 9, 1929 My dear Leon Thank you for your note. I have finally decided to call the play Exiled with a D; so you are all right. Yours affectionately JG In the second week in May Lion travelled to the Continent for a short rest before beginning the production chores for Exiled. Meanwhile, Galsworthy continued to work upon the script. Bury House May 15, 1929 Dear Mrs. Green Thank you for the copy of 'Exiled', which I will send back shortly, corrected. In Mr. Lion's absence I am obliged to tell you to kindly see that no definite 'talkie' film agreement of 'Exiled' is entered on. I find that I am quite possibly committed, or at least hampered, by an old contract conferring options which I thought had lapsed, and from which I am trying to free myself. In the meantime please hold Mr. Lion's hand! Sincerely yours John Galsworthy The next month and a half Galsworthy occupied himself with the many duties which had befallen him as a writer of international stature. He was requested to offer his manuscript of the Forsyte Saga to the British Museum, which he did. He was notified that he would be announced as a recipient of the Order of Merit in the June birthday honors list, which honor he accepted. He had a speaking engagement in mid-June in Vienna, and the ac-

182

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND " E X I L E D "

ceptance of a degree conferred in Dublin early in July. In addition there was the investiture of the Order of Merit, also in July. Lion returned from his vacation and proceeded with the production of Exiled, with little or no help from its author. The play opened at Wyndham's Theatre on June 19, 1929. Imperial Hotel Vienna June 23, 1929 My dear Leon I feel as if I'd run away and left you to the 'bitters' having had the 'sweets'. Shall be back on Friday evening, however. How's it going, I wonder? You will report to me then, nich wahr? Thank you again, my dear fellow, for really angelic conduct, and for so excellent a production. Whatever happens we shall have shown Fate that an author and a manager can dwell together throughout a production in amity. People are being terribly kind to me here. Tonight I read to 2,000 sitting and 400 standing Viennese and quite probably a mob outside howling for a renewal of the infliction. Luckily I love the Austrians, and don't mind reading in English, but I shall mind autographing if they start a spate of it. I do hope you are not worn out. Affectionate greetings from us both. Always yours JG Exiled was presented with the following cast: Sir Charles Denbury Sir John Mazer Joan Mazer Miss Card Mr. East Haddon George A Commercial Traveller A Journalist Mo Bender Jo Todd Foster

Lewis Casson Edmund Gwenn Jean Shepeard Mabel Russell J. H. Roberts Arthur Grenville Douglas Jeffries Roger Maxwell Michael Shepley Aubrey Dexter Pete Warren Julian Andrews

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND " E X I L E D "

Gossett Tebbutt Tulley Hodgkin Gascoyne Clarke Mitchell Richard Tulley Goffer Α Tramp A Woman

183

Victor Hilton Sydney Benson D. J. Williams Edward Irwin Ernest Ruston Granville Ferrier Jack Minister Campbell Logan Ronald Kerr Brember Wills Una O'Connor

The opening performance of the play was given a respectful hearing but not all of the audience were pleased by it. During Lion's curtain speech someone shouted from the pit that it was a "terrible play". To which remark Lion replied that the vast majority of the audience had been entertained by it, thus evoking a round of applause. 5 Reviews of the play were not good. A number of the critics agreed with Ivor Brown in the Saturday Review that the play was much better than the ordinary run of programme in West End London, 8 but the consensus was that it was very poor Galsworthy. Francis Birrell in the Nation and Athenaeum felt that if the script had been by an unknown author it would not have been accepted for production. Voicing an opinion of the majority of the critics he granted the play a certain wistful charm, though he complained that the problems presented were never satisfactorily resolved.7 Richard Jennings in The Spectator carried this point further and accused Galsworthy of having too much understanding and too little creative prejudice. 8 But if the critics found little to like about the play such was not the case with the acting. There was general praise for Brember Wills' portrayal of a tramp and for Una O'Connor's portrayal of 5

Marrot, op. cit., p. 616. « Ivor Brown, "The Soft Spot", Saturday Review, June 29, 1929. 7 Francis Birrell, "Love and Mr. Galsworthy", Nation and Athenaeum, June 29, 1929. 8 Richard Jennings, The Spectator, June 29, 1929.

184

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND "EXILED"

the tramp's wife. There was also praise for Edmund Gwenn as a captain of industry and for Jean Shepeard as his daughter. An option was taken on Exiled for production in New York but it was never exercised. Imperial Hotel Vienna June 27, 1929

My dear Lion Many thanks for the cheque £ 2 0 0 for American option. Just starting to return from Vienna. Always yours John Galsworthy Thank you for the wire. While Exiled continued in its short run Lion prepared to replace it with a revival of Galsworthy's The Skin Game. The following letter is concerned with actors being considered for the cast of that play. Jeanne de Casalis was being considered for Jill Hillcrist but she did not play the part, which was taken by Jean Shepeard. Nicholas Hannen played Mr. Hillcrist and Jack Minster played the First Stranger. Grove Lodge June 28, 1929

My dear Leon Jeanne de Casalis - yes. Hannen - yes. Minster would do, if Elton too expensive. He was splendid in the part however. Jean Shepheard for Jill. Will see you sometime soon. Yours JG On July 2nd Galsworthy travelled to Dublin to receive a Doctor of Letters from that University, then returned to London and escorted his wife and a friend as far as Paris on their trip to Le Mont Dore, returning to London on the ninth of the month to be invested with the Order of Merit. After the investiture he retraced his steps toward France and joined his wife. From France he wrote Lion about rehearsals and castings for The Skin Game.

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND "EXILED"

185

Hotel Sarciron Le Mont Dore Auvergne, France July 10, 1929 My dear Leon Here I am safely, and finding my Dear very chirpy and believing in her cure. She thanks you affectionately for the Wm Blake and inscription and will I expect be writing. We are coming back to Hampstead on Thursday July 25th, and I can attend a rehearsal on Friday morning, 26th. I suggest that you arrange to run right through the play that morning, and I will take notes and discuss with you at lunch. I must leave the city for Bury at 3 P.M. sharp. I hope you have got Lilian Braithwaite and fixed on Wise (sic) for Charles rather than Batty. This is rather a nice place barring a certain resemblance to Margate about the people. The hotel is excellent. All join in warm greetings to you. Always yours JG Lion did not obtain Lilian Braithwaite for the part of Amy, Hillcrist's wife, in The Skin Game but cast Mabel Terry-Lewis instead. Exiled was scheduled to close on Saturday, July 27th. In anticipation of the early closing Galsworthy reserved seats for a reviewer for Exiled. Hotel Sarciron Le Mont Dore Auvergne, France July 10,1929 My dear Leon Would you cause two seats for 'Exiled' to be sent to "The Author's Society' publication The Author' - for review purposes; an evening performance please. I have your letters of July 13 th and 18th. I am glad you are not altogether disappointed over the play though I'm so sorry it's been a loss. I fear any production nowadays. I would have taken Minster for Dawker; as to Jean Shepheard - well, I was afraid of it. Very glad the others are good. I'm afraid we can't get to the premiere on Tuesday 30th, but I can be at a dress rehearsal on Monday 29th, and I hope we can come and see the performance on Friday, Aug. 2. Can you reserve a box provisionally for that night? And can you send my

186

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND " E X I L E D "

sister, Mrs. Reynolds, 19 Maresfield Gardens, NW3, two stalls for the first night; and two stalls to Mrs. Lucas, 16 Davies Mews, Davies Street W. for the first night. And would you send three dress circle seats to me at Grove Lodge for the second night (marked not to be forwarded). I'm afraid you must be roasted. Looking forward to seeing you on Friday. All well here and join in affectionate greetings. Always yours JG The Skin Game opened at Wyndham's Theatre on July 30th with the following cast: Hillcrist Amy Jill Dawker Hornblower Rolf Charles Chloe Anna Fellows Jackman Mrs. Jackman An Auctioneer A Solicitor First Stranger Second Stranger

Nicholas Hannen Mabel Terry-Lewis Jean Shepeard Ronald Kerr Edmund Gwenn Clifford Bartlett John Wyse Joyce Kennedy Mercia Cameron Ernest Ruston D. J . Williams Mercia Cameron Edward Erwin D. J . Williams Jack Minster Torin Thatcher

The reviews of the production were generally good and the play ran for the remainder of the summer. After the play's opening Lion left London for a rest. In September he gave up Wyndham's to Edgar Wallace who produced his own play there. It was called The Calendar, subtitled "a racing play", and it held the boards for the remainder of the year. Writing to Lion on the Continent Galsworthy noted that The Skin Game was nearing the end of its run. Nicholas Hannen had left the cast and was succeeded in the part of Hillcrist by Charles Hallard.

FESTIVAL IN PARIS AND " E X I L E D "

187

Bury House October 7, 1929

My dear Leon I ought to have written long ago, but the clutch of things is perpetual. Hope you are feeling more bobbish - on the other hand the less bobbish you feel the more you are likely to return which would be all to the better. I liked Hallard very much. The play seems drawing to its close. It has / hope made a little toward wiping off the 'Exiled' loss. Any news you send me will be welcome. We are all well and join in affectionate greetings to you. Always yours JG That Edgar Wallace's The Calendar could fill Wyndham's Theatre for nine months while John Galsworthy's The Skin Game could do the same for hardly six weeks and his Exiled for less than four is a measure of the West End London theatre audience of the twenties. The crook drama with its substitution of violence for verisimilitude reached new heights in the work of Wallace, whose work was admired by no less a critic than Desmond MacCarthy. Technically brilliant melodrama such as Wallace wrote together with the farces presented at the Aldwych Theatre, bearing titles like Tons of Money, Thark and Rookery Nook, seem to have found the measure of the audience available. For the time being the play concerned with ideas was out of favor.

IX INTERLUDE

Galsworthy's last play, The Roof, begun in February, 1929, at Biarritz and completed upon his return to London, had been taken for production by Alec Rea and Basil Dean. An episodic play which presented some difficulties in production, it was given a week's try-out run at Golders Green before being presented at the Vaudeville Theatre in West End London. The critics were not invited to the try-out though one from the Morning Post came and gave the production a good notice, and the crowds were good. However, several London critics were much put out at not having been invited and there was correspondence in the daily press about the situation. On November 4, 1929, The Roof had its West End premier at the Vaudeville Theatre. The critical notices the next day were mostly unfavorable. The consensus seemed to be that the play was rambling and ill-constructed, the humour juvenile and the dialogue unnatural. The criticism was virulent enough that several of the older critics publicly chided their younger colleagues for such intemperate views. However, the critical reception seemed to have been sufficiently bad to cut short the run of the piece and after a month it was taken from the boards. Writing of the experience and of critics in general Galsworthy said, "They are a queer crowd, anyway, and need a chastisement with whips and scorpions. It is the unchastised life that goes to the head. We authors run no risks there." 1 In mid-November the Galsworthys removed to Majorca for the winter. With the beginning of 1930 Lion presented an adaptation by 1

Marrot, op. cit., p. 625.

INTERLUDE

189

Campbell Dixon of Aldous Huxley's Point Counter Point. The work was retitled This Way to Paradise and in it Lion portrayed Maurice Spandrell. Lion seems to have been ill throughout the spring of 1930. This in no way curbed his plans for productions which continued to be expansive if not at all times fruitful. One such plan involved the touring of a repertoire of Galsworthy plays through Austria, Germany and Holland, areas in which Galsworthy was very popular. Galsworthy's response to the project is set forth in the following letter. Of particular interest is the suggestion on set design for the repertory. Galsworthy carefully packaged private rooms (bedrooms, dressing rooms, sitting rooms), well kept public rooms (clubs, courts, offices), and heavily used public rooms (prisons, hotel rooms) into three sets. He also suggested the changing of architectural devices to make use of sets more than once in the same play. This method of set decoration is reminiscent of the sort of design made popular in the United States during the twenties by Samuel Hume at the Detroit Arts and Crafts Theatre and by the work of Lee Simonson in such Theatre Guild productions as Eugene O'Neill's Marco Polo. Joyce Kennedy, mentioned in the following letter, was a Gold Medalist at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art who had played in Lion's production of The Skin Game at Wyndham's Theatre in 1929. A particularly significant slip has been made by Galsworthy in the following letter. In describing the set designs he refers to the fourth act of Loyalties. The play has no fourth act. The third act is composed of three scenes, the third of which has a different locale than the two previous to it. It is also the scene in which the protagonist of the play, Ronald Dancy, takes his own life. The structure of the play depends in part upon whose loyalty is engaged in the action. The first act involves the loyalty of immediate friends, the second, the loyalty of a more extensive social group, represented by the club, the first two scenes of the third act concern themselves with the loyalties of the law, and the final scene of the third act concerns itself with the loyalty of the police force to the state. Dancy, the protagonist, makes his choices in

190

INTERLUDE

terms of these loyalties. Protected by his friends he would thieve and not return the theft but convert it to his own use. In associaton with his peers he would be forced to some action to clear his name, and the name of the group. His relation with the law would allow him a full defense but only within the bounds of truth for his lawyer has an overriding duty to the courts. Found out in his guilt by trial at law Dancy, the protagonist, is shorn of protecting loyalties, or prejudices. He can only flee the jurisdiction of the state, submit to capture, or kill himself. He takes the latter course. In this sense Galsworthy's misnomer of Act III, scene 3, as the fourt act of Loyalties is correct. It illuminates the structure of the play as the author saw it. Hotel Reina Victoria Palma, Majorca January 13, 1930 My dear Leon, Touching that enterprise of two or three of my plays in Vienna, Berlin, Munich, Hamburg, Amsterdam, The Hague, of which we spoke tentatively, I have been thinking further on the matter, and I think my agent Pfeffer in Vienna could probably arrange with theatres for you. The three plays that seem to me the most suitable would be 'Loyalties', 'Justice', 'The Skin Game', and I have amused myself by drawing up what would seem to me a most useful and probably the least expensive cast that would be adequate. On a separate sheet I enclose my ideas about that. I feel pretty sure that two performances of each play in each town would give excellent results, especially if the thing was well advertised beforehand. I hear you have a new play coming on, in which Joyce Kennedy has a part, and we were very interested to hear from Elizabeth that you had taken Audrey Scott on. Any time you have any news, it will be welcome. We all join in love to you. Weather here is beautiful just now, and the country charming. Always yours JG It seems to me that tour might profitably begin at Vienna, where I am not unpalatable to the Public; and if you legislated for the Autumn you could probably secure all the cast I have named. Thence to Munich, Berlin, Hamburg, Amsterdam, The Hague, in that order. I believe with ingenuity three sets of scene could stage the three plays.

191

INTERLUDE

Juggling with windows and doors and furniture First set could deal with Justice Act I, II, IV; Loyalties, Act II, Sc. 1, Act III; Skin Game Act I and III. Second set with Justice Act III; Skin Game Act II, Sc. 1. Third set with Loyalties Act I, Act II, Sc. 2, Act IV and Skin Game Act II, Sc. 2. The casting sheet referred to in the above letter which is reproduced below, seems the epitome of portmanteau casting. A company of twelve persons is required, nine men and three women, including producer and stage manager. The plays call for casts of seventeen, twenty and fifteen, respectively. All of the persons cast had worked under Lion and in Galsworthy plays before. Actor Leon M. Lion Lawrence Hanray Austin Trevor

Minster Irwin

JUSTICE

LOYALTIES

THE SKIN GAME

Cokeson

De Levis Twisden St. Erth

Dawker

Judge Prison Governor Falder

General Canynge Dancy

James Howe Moaney

Hillcrist Rolfe Henry (Stranger) Hornblower

Inspector Deedes Gilman Graviter Ronald Kerr Young Solicitor Borring (Stage Manager) Advocate Young Footman Chaplain Old Advocate Triesure D. J. Williams Jackman Auctioneer Clipton Ricardos Cashier Warder Richard Grey Charles HornColford Detective blower Young Clerk Fellows Patrick Waddington Walter Howe Winsor O'Cleary 2nd Stranger Constable Doctor Lady Adela Mrs. Hillcrist Mabel Terry Lewis Ruth Honey- Margaret Chloe Joyce Kennedy will Jean Shepheard Mabel Dancy Jill

192

INTERLUDE

Leaving uncast: In Justice, Office Boy In Loyalties, Club Footman In Skin Game, Mrs. Jackman, Anna. It should be noted in passing that the company which Galsworthy had selected could play nineteenth century melodrama, such as T o m Taylor's The Ticket of Leave Man, or nineteenth century social comedy, such as Tom Robertson's Caste, with the same ease which they might essay Galsworthy's work. The main reason for this is the ratio of men to women in the casts, it being the same in the Galsworthy plays as it is in the earlier works. This is not a characteristic of other modern English playwrights. The number of women required for Jones, Pinero, Barker and, often, Shaw is much greater. Beyond this the cast which Galsworthy has assembled is strikingly similar to a Nineteenth Century cast for melodrama or comedy. There is a leading man, Trevor; three character men, Hanray, Williams and Irwin; a juvenile lead, Minster; three utility (i.e. general use) men, Kerr, Gray and Waddington; a leading lady, Terry Lewis; a second leading lady specializing in fallen women, Kennedy; and an ingenue, Shepeard. The only striking omission would seem to be the absence of an actor to play villains, and possibly this omission is filled by Lion being cast as de Levis in Loyalties, which character, though not a villain, fulfills the villain function in that play moving the plot along. This similarity of cast composition which has been noted does not imply that the Galsworthian drama is merely warmed over nineteenth century work. Rather, it demonstrates that a similarity of aims may develop a similarity in means. The best of nineteenth century popular drama seems to have been peculiarly real to its viewers. And the aim of nineteenth century producers was so to imitate life upon the stage as to induce in the audience a belief in the reality of that which transpired upon the stage. Such writers and producers of theatre pieces strove to reproduce duplicates upon the stage of what might be seen in contemporary life. There is no reason to believe that Galsworthy denied such an aim. He only quarreled with the means, and there only in the matter of character drawing and plot construction. Wedded as he was to

193

INTERLUDE

the realist's notion of the nature and power of drama he had a fund of methods and materials in common with his predecessors. The range of character types was great. There was an emphasis on the physical thrill which spectacle can impart to an audience. There tended to be more men than women in the casts because in contemporary life, at least until very recently, the work of the world has been carried on mainly by men. Only in his denial of the dichotomy of good and evil does Galsworthy seem to differ fundamentally from the preceding realists. And this shows in the absence of a villain in the above cast lists. In the spring of 1930 Galsworthy's sixth, and last, volume of plays was being prepared for press. In connection with this event Galsworthy wrote Lion the following letter. The reference to Requiem is to a play, a copy of which Lion sent Galsworthy. Grove Lodge April 3, 1930 My dear Lion We are distressed to hear that you are feeling unwell. I do hope you'll get a good sunny rest. I thank you ever so for 'Requiem'. Will you mind if I dedicate my seventh volume (of three plays) Escape, Exiled, The Roof, to you? Silence will give consent. Affectionate greetings from all. Yours JG

The notion of a European tour seems to have been unfruitful but Lion had still other plans. He suggested to Galsworthy the revival of Escape and A Family Man. For Matt Dennant he suggested casting Sir Gerald Du Maurier, a cast Galsworthy liked. For John Builder in A Family Man, and probably also for the Shopkeeper in Escape, Lion suggested Charles Laughton, a casting of which Galsworthy was not in favor. Grove Lodge May 21, 1930 My dear Leon I wish the news of yourself was more cheerful. As to your brilliant ideas, I favor the Du Maurier revival of 'Escape'; but I'd rather you

194

INTERLUDE

approached him. We saw Laughton for the first time last night. I don't think he would take either part and I don't think he's suitable anyway. He's too grotesque. Gwenn is what I should like for John Builder. I think he'd be really good in that. We are all well and have survived the cold. Try and be in Berlin on June 17th and 18th. We shall be there then ourselves. On our way to the P.E.N. Conference in Warsaw. I am lecturing in Munich 16th, Berlin 17th and 18th. We shall stay at the Hotel Adlon in Berlin. We miss you. There is nobody to talk to with your gusto and restraint. Bless you Our love to you JG Sir Gerald Du Maurier, younger son of George Du Maurier, the artist and novelist, and father of Daphne Du Maurier, novelist, began his career on the stage under Forbes-Robertson in 1894. Thereafter he worked under Beerbohm Tree for a number of years. With Raffles in 1906 he initiated the popular "crook" plays of that period, which vein of drama he successfully exploited for a number of years. He was closely associated with Charles Frohman in the production of James Barrie's work, creating the parts of Crichton in The Admirable Crichton, Captain Hook in Peter Pan and Dearth in Dear Brutus. The leading exponent of natural acting in his day, he was knighted in 1921. A playful description of his work was made by A. B. Walkley in a mock retelling of a Pinero play. "Mr. Gerald du Maurier will play Jack the friend - another triumph, for even in his moment of breakdown he will still keep the sympathy of the audience." 2 Charles Laughton, R.A.D.A. Gold Medalist, had begun his career in 1926. His first parts in the West End had been in modern melodramas such as the stage adaptation of Walpole's The Man with Red Hair, and at the time of the above letter he was playing in Edgar Wallace's On the Spot at Wyndham's Theatre. The plans for revival of Escape and A Family Man were not fulfilled. Early in June Galsworthy received an honorary LL.D. from the hand of Stanley Baldwin, then Chancellor of Cambridge !

A. Walkley, Pastiche and Prejudice (London, Wm. Heinemann, 1921).

195

INTERLUDE

University, and thereafter prepared to leave for the annual P.E.N. Conference in Warsaw. He and his wife travelled to Warsaw via Munich and Berlin, where Lion was vacationing at the time. Grove Lodge June 11, 1930

My dear Leon Splendid! Will you lunch with us at the Adlon Hotel at 1 P.M. on Tuesday, June 17. For my lecture at the Deutscher Kulturbund at 8 PM that same day I guess you had better apply to the secretary . . . For my lecture to the University English Seminar 7 PM Wednesday, June 18, to Dr. Dibelius . . . But why go to either, except from charity towards your affectionate JG Love from us both. Being unable to keep the luncheon appointment Galsworthy wrote Lion offering an alternative. The Adlon Hotel was the finest in Berlin between the two World Wars. It was probably the pattern for the fictional establishment in Vicki Baum's novel, later successfully adapted to the stage, Grand Hotel. Regina Palast Hotel München June 15

My dear Leon I find that we are in the hands of the Philistines at lunch time on the 17th. Could you come to the Adlon at 11 o'clock instead, on that same 17th and we will talk and perhaps visit the Kaiser Freidrick Museum with you. Much looking forward to seeing you. Yours affectionately JG And still another possibility of meeting seems to have been missed. (Berlin) June 19, 1930

My dear Leon We were so sorry not to see you last night at the Bristol. As usual things were hurried. We hope to see you again very soon in town. Always yours JG Just off to Poland.

196

INTERLUDE

After his return from Germany Lion was engaged to produce Elmer Rice's Street Scene. The play opened at the Globe Theatre on September 9, 1930, for a run of 147 performances. With the coming of sound motion pictures producers in England and America were forced to reevaluate the materials and techniques which had served them while the picture screen was silent. Many persons who had served well in the time of the "silents" were superannuated by the "talkies". Production centers for motion pictures were often restaffed with persons from the legitimate theatre. And though fifteen years before that time these same theatre persons would have been loth to leave the stage for motion picture production, the movies had grown so large as a medium of mass entertainment, encroaching upon the repertory theatres and the touring companies, that theatre people could no longer afford to refuse employment in the picture industry. Bringing with them their knowledge of theatre techniques and encouraged by the knowledge that "lines" could now be spoken from the screen the new technicians of the picture industry held the notion that the screen could now be used to reproduce legitimate theatre fare. As a result of this notion the market in motion picture rights to stage plays became very active. One of the authors whose work was sought was Galsworthy. The following correspondence concerns a motion picture production of The Skin Game. The Grove September 5, 1930

My dear Leon We should be delighted to lunch with you on Thursday, September 11. Thank you ever so for the tickets. We are looking forward to it. I see in the papers that the British Internationals are to 'talkie' the 'Skin Game'. Can you relieve my mind as to their adherence to my conditions about no dialogue except what is written and passed by me, and no tampering with the play's integrity? Alas, have you any power to influence the casting? If so, would you exert it in favour of Irwin for Hornblower, and Joyce Kennedy for Chloe, and Mabel Terry Lewis for Mrs. Hillcrist? Our love to you. Always yours John Galsworthy

197

INTERLUDE

One of the backers of Lion's production of Galsworthy's Exiled had been Charles B. Cochran, famed British producer of musicals in the twenties and thirties. He had also held a financial interest in the revival of The Skin Game which had followed the production of Exiled. Because of this he was a party to the projected cinema production of that play. Bury House September 15, 1930

My dear Leon I return the draft agreement but have wired you to delete the words ("to the owner".) after the word reserve in Clause 11. You do not own these rights. I do; and the word 'owners' in this contract means you and Cochran. See? I enclose the required letter. As to 'Exiled' I am willing that you should try to place this on the same terms, so far as I am concerned, as 'The Skin Game' and with the same safeguards. I only parted with 'The Skin Game' rights at that price, because there had already been a let of the silent rights. All good wishes and in haste. Yours always John Galsworthy The Skin Game was to be made into a movie by the Gainsborough Studios as Islington. Michael Balcon and Victor Saville, proprietor's of Gainsborough Studios, had already chosen a director to make The Skin Game. Bury House Sept. 22, 1930 My dear Leon I thank you. I'm afraid no time suggests itself next week. I suppose you couldn't bring Mr. Hitchcock down here on Sunday next about 4, and either go back for dinner or, better, stay and drive back after dinner. Always yours JG We are lunching out or I would suggest coming for lunch. The arrangements for a meeting at Galsworthy's Bury House fell through and Lion was host to the various interested parties in London.

198

INTERLUDE

Bury House Oct. 17,1930 My dear Lion I think the little dialogue excellent, and that it fulfills its purpose admirably. A very jolly party - thank you, Sir. It will be as well I think for me to meet Mr. Hitchcock again so we'll look to Wednesday next. Yours affectionately JG Alfred Hitchcock had been associated with Gainsborough Studios since the early twenties. He ultimately directed, for release in 1932, Galsworthy's The Skin Game and Sean O'Casey's Juno and the Paycock. Galsworthy had been associated with movie production as far back as 1917 when Gerald du Maurier had starred in a silent production of Galsworthy's Justice. An entry in his journal for that year read as follows: During the stay in London Justice was adapted for the film. Ideal Film Co. We saw some rehearsals. Gerald du Maurier doing the cell scene. Also saw the whole film reeled off. Of its kind it is good, but the whole process most repellent.* Though he did not like the cinema, Galsworthy sensed some of the values of the new art form. Replying to an enquiry from Mr. Huntley Carter as to his view on the films, he wrote: When the film was silent I came to look on it with tolerance, and once in a way with gratitude as a form of entertainment, and certainly with admiration as a means of education, and with alarm as a means of propaganda. It had a certain power, when very ably and restrainedly handled, of exciting aesthetic emotion. It had a very real and rather dangerous power of holding the eye even at its worst. It could sway you while you looked on, but when you came away (with the rarest exceptions) you were wholly unmoved. And this, I think, was partly because you were conscious of its enormous faking powers; and partly because the eye was held at such a pace that the mind did not stir in concord. . . . So far as I have seen 'talkie' films at present, they have seemed to me silent films spoiled.4 5 Marrot, op. cit., p. 429. * Marrot, op. cit., p. 799.

199

INTERLUDE

Such a sensitive evaluation of the film form together with such a sweeping condemnation is interesting. What Galsworthy describes as the "faking power" of the film seems as revealing of the critic as of the form criticized. Galsworthy could find no emotional reality for himself in the comment the camera could make. And in the matter of films with sound, still another imponderable technique in the new form, he had no interest. If the film makers felt that talking motion pictures brought them closer to the form of stage plays then he was willing to sell his plays to the highest bidder, providing they did not make a hash of his writings.

Bury House October 24, 1930 My dear Leon I am still pondering over that business letter of yours. I do not like committing myself in quantities so to speak; then, too, with three talkies out or coming out, I don't know what my fair price is. Old English' is a great success. 'Escape' has already run over a month at the Marble Arch. 'The Skin Game' if well done is likely to be an even greater success than either. On Old English' and 'Escape' I received round about £4,000. Indeed if I hadn't made a foolish slip in my American contract over the play I should have had £9,000 for 'Old English'. The form, as you know, gives me little or no pleasure, so that I regard the film rights as a means of making money - quite cynically, except that I will only deal with those who will conform to my two conditions: 1. No dialogue except such as is written or passed by me. 2. No departure from the spine and spirit of the play. That's a preliminary answer and I must go on thinking. I ought really to wait till I know from these films what a film from a play by me is really worth. Affectionately yours JG In November of 1930 Galsworthy was preparing for a December sailing on the Leviathan for America, where he and his wife would spend the winter.

200

INTERLUDE

Bury House Nov. 6, 1930 My dear Leon Can you get Hitchcock to let me see a list of the proposed cast. I am getting uneasy about it. Our love to you JG

Pencilled on the reverse side of this letter, presumably in Lion's handwriting, are the names, "Ch. V. France" and "Helen Haye". Mr. Charles France, whose experience upon the stage went back forty years, had just finished playing in the London production of Molnar's The Swan. It seems he was being considered for the part of Hillcrist in the film version of The Skin Game. Miss Haye had created the part of Mrs. Amy Hillcrist in the original stage production of The Skin Game in 1920 and played the same part in the film version of the play. Lion had begun in December of 1930 to make a production of Luigi Chiarelli's Fuoco d'Artijicie. Grove Lodge Dec. 2, 1930 My dear Leon A proposition is being made to me for a talkie of 'The Forest'. In accordance with my understanding with you I'm now asking you whether you would like to put forward a counter proposition; which, sir, would have my serious attention. I'm sorry you're at Eastbourne for I wanted you to drink the bottle of claret. Our blessings on you JG Good luck to the play. We go back to Bury on Thursday. And we sail for America on Dec. 15. It would be nice to see you at Bury for a night next week.

Chiarelli's play, retitled Money, Money!, was translated by Noel de Vic Beamish. It was presented by Lion at the Royalty Theatre in February, 1931, with Lion in the role of Scaramanzia.

201

INTERLUDE

Bury House Dec. 8, 1930 My dear Leon This is a line to wish you every luck with the new play. I am not coming up this week after all, but if you can come down for a night either Friday or Sunday, we'd be delighted. I don't recommend Saturday. Affectionately JG On December 15th, 1930, the Galsworthys sailed for America. Their destination was Arizona via New York and New Orleans. After wintering in Arizona Galsworthy returned to New York via San Francisco, lecturing as he went. The following is a note to Lion written on the day Galsworthy departed from New York. S.S. Leviathan April 15, 1931 My dear Leon Hail! We approach! And with luck shall be at Bury on April 21st. We're looking forward to seeing you. I shall be up in town on April 28th. Has winter treated you decently? All your news will be welcome; and the sight and sound of you more so. Our love to you Yours JG During the Autumn of 1930 Lion had been in correspondence with Aldous Huxley concerning a play which that author was writing. In February of 1931 Lion put the script into rehearsal. It was entitled The World of Light. It opened in March to some critical success but was a financial failure. Bury House April 23, 1931 My dear Leon Thank you for your good welcoming letters. We shall be in town next Monday, and delighted to have two stalls for the Huxley play. We hope to catch a glimpse of you that evening. With love from us all. Yours JG

202

INTERLUDE

During May Galsworthy delivered the Romanes Lecture at Oxford University. Lion withdrew The World of Light. Bury House June 9, 1931

My dear Leon By all means let the Winnipeg people play 'Exiled' for a week. About those talkie films of 'Loyalties' and 'Justice' I should much rather see a British than an American film made. Why don't you at least sound the British International and the British and Dominion films as to the best offers they can make, and then consult me. Affectionately JG The following letter, which is a copy for Lion's files, seems to have been written in reply to an inquiry about the possibility of film rights for an American film producer. The correspondent may have been Mr. John Bryson, representative for the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America. Grove Lodge June 20, 1931

Dear Mr. Bryson Thank you for your letter but it doesn't get us any further. Mr. Leon Lion has an option on 'Loyalties' under certain conditions and you would have to take my proposition to him. I am telling him that you have written to me. The option also applies to 'Justice' in regard to which Curtis Brown informs me that Universal have offered to return the silent rights for the price paid, i.e. £ 1,500. Believe me Very truly yours John Galsworthy During the late spring of 1931 Lion produced Mrs. Seymour Obermer's (pen name, Nesta Sawyer) Black Magic at the Royalty Theatre. It was not successful. He then turned his attention to Clifford Bax's The Immortal Lady for early fall production at the Royalty Theatre. However, a film commitment made him give over the direction of that play, though he remained as producer. In August the Galsworthys travelled to Austria for a vacation. Bury House Aug. 14, 1931

My dear Leon We leave on Tuesday morning for Ischl in Austria. We don't go to

203

INTERLUDE

Vienna. We come up on Monday morning, but no chance of the evening, alas! Best luck on the play. The only free time I shall have before going will be from 5:30-6:30 at Grove Lodge on Monday the 17th. Our love to you JG Upon the Galsworthy's return from Austria Lion invited them to his production of Bax's The Immortal Lady and inquired of Galsworthy about the extension of options to produce Loyalties and Justice as films. Bury House Sept. 28, 1931

My dear Leon I have your letter of Sept. 26. I'm afraid I don't feel like extending your option on either play. I don't like options anyway. I like to have a clean cut proposition put up to me to accept or refuse. I feel rather disgusted by the in and outness of the film people; and my present strong inclination is to let the plays lie fallow, and consider no further propositions in regard to them, for some time to come. I don't say that, if you brought me a cut and dried offer of £ 3,000 (on my known conditions) for 'Loyalties', for a production on which they agreed to pay you a fee of £ 1,000 (say) for watching and directing, I wouldn't consider it. I would, but I can't be tied any more by definite options. We shall look forward to 'The Immortal Lady', but may we come on Oct. 14 instead? We shan't be up on the 8 th. The waxworks were very moving. I won't say in what direction. Our love to you. Yours always John Galsworthy Lion sent along tickets for the Galsworthys and the Sauters, but the Sauters were unable to come to the play. Grove Lodge Oct. 13, 1931

My dear Leon Thank you very much for the stalls for the play tomorrow. I'm afraid the 'youngsters' are at Bury; so I'm sending two back to Mrs. Green. I do hope the play will be a success. Always yours JG

204

INTERLUDE

By December of 1931 Lion had begun to make plans for 1932. Among them was the project for a series of Galsworthy revivals. Nancy Price of the People's Theatre wished to make a production of Windows early in the year and Galsworthy wrote Lion to ask if it would interfere with Lion's plans for revival later. Grove Lodge Dec. 21, 1931 My dear Leon I have been asked by Nancy Price of the People's Theatre, at the Duchess', to let her do 'Windows' immediately. I don't know how I stand with you over this play, but so far as I remember it does not come into the possible programme you spoke of for a season of revivals this year, and I should be glad to let her do it. Will that be all right? Could you, if possible, send me a line that I could get here by first post tomorrow Tuesday morning, so that I could telephone her early, before I go down to Bury. Our love to you. Always yours JG

Lion must have replied that he had no intention of reviving Windows for the People's Theatre presented the play in January of 1932. On January 19, 1932, Lion presented While Parents Sleep at

the Royalty Theatre. The first effort of Anthony Kimmins, it was a smashing success, running 826 performances. Bury House Jan. 16, 1932 My dear Leon I thank you very much but I'm afraid we can't be up again on the 19th. Wish you every luck with the play. Our love to you JG

At the time of the above letter Galsworthy was under treatment for what was described as a "small rodent ulcer" on the side of his face. It was ultimately to prove a great deal more than this, becoming within the year a mortal illness.

χ THE REVIVALS OF 1932

During 1930 John Galsworthy had suffered both an unhealed ulcer on the left side of his face and a short, mild attack of aphasia. The aphasia did not recur and the ulcer disappeared during Galsworthy's American trip in the winter of 1930-1931. But upon his return to England the ulcer reappeared and in the autumn of 1931 the author became so concerned about the matter that he became a recluse, meeting even his own family with some difficulty. In November of that year he was persuaded to take medical counsel and was informed that radium treatment would clear up the blemish. He took treatment and again the ulcer disappeared. But Galsworthy's general physical condition began a slow deterioration which culminated in his death early in 1933. In February of 1932 the Galsworthys travelled to Biarritz for six weeks vacation. Lion, who had an assured run in Kimmins' While Parents Sleep at the Royalty Theatre, leased the Garrick Theatre for additional theatrical ventures in 1932. Preparing for the projected Galsworthy revivals, he wrote the author in Biarritz and asked if he might come see him. Grand Hotel Biarritz, France March 19, 1932

My dear Leon. I was very glad to get your letter. We shall be here till April 1 and delighted of course to see you. The idea of Maurice Evans for the 'season' appears to me a very good one. I'm afraid the Loyalties film has almost certainly gone to Dean. I am awaiting a cable to clinch it. It was unfortunate that you didn't speak to me of any chance on your part of refixing the matter. After

206

THE REVIVALS OF

1932

my letter to you in the Summer, which you didn't answer, I had the impression that you had abandoned the idea. I left the matter some months, and then got in touch with Dean again. The thing is almost certainly fixed up with him. I will let you know for certain as soon as I hear. I am sorry now I didn't write you before I approached him again; but, really, I thought you were offended, or at least put-off completely. We are having quite a nice quiet time; and hope you are flourishing. Ada's love and mine Yours always JG Lion did not get to the continent, nor did he obtain Maurice Evans for the projected Galsworthy productions. And Basil Dean did not contract to do Loyalties as a film, though this is still not apparent in the next letter. Grand Hotel Biarritz, France March 28, 1932 My dear Leon I'm sorry we shan't see you here, but we'll look forward to an evening when we get back, which will be on April 4. There is nothing in the Dean film contract to interfere with stage revival of 'Loyalties'. I hope you will find everything all right in town. We both send you our love. Yours always JG The Galsworthys spent April at Grove Lodge and then repaired to Bury House for ten days before travelling to Budapest to attend a P.E.N. convention. Lion prepared to initiate his tenancy of the Garrick Theatre with a production of Sutton Vane's Matt Overboard in May, Lion himself playing the character of The Man from the Sea. Bury House May 6, 1932 My dear Leon Alas we have an engagement here on Friday. Would you let us come, however, to 'While Parents Sleep' on Thursday, May 12, the night before we start for the P.E.N. Congress in Buda Pest?

THE REVIVALS OF 1 9 3 2

207

If we could have a box we could also have a talk with you perhaps about the cycle. Ada is rather run down after her experiences, but on the mend, thank you. Our love to you. Always yours JG Best of luck with 'Man Overboard', a good title. It is interesting to note in the above letter that Galsworthy's small talk includes the state of his wife's health. At this time he himself was feeling most unwell. Before embarking for Budapest he remarked to his nephew, Rudolph Sauter, "You had better look at me well now, because it's the last time you'll ever see me quite well again." 1 From the Continent the Galsworthys returned to Bury House where they stayed the summer. With the exception of a few short trips the season was spent working on his next to last novel, Over the River, which he finished on August 31st. To a man who had spent his life in that craft, writing was becoming a burden nearly too great to bear. His output, always phenomenal, dropped to a page a day. In the summer of 1932 Lion made his revival of Escape which he presented at the Garrick Theatre on July 19, 1932. It was played by the following cast: Matt Dennant His Fellow Convict An Old Gentleman The Girl of the Town The Policeman The Parson The Other Policeman The Other Labourer The Warder The Farmer The Shopkeeper 1

Marrot, op. cit., p. 646.

Colin Clive Leon Lion Betty Hardy James Raglan W. M. Arthur

Paul Gill

208

THE REVIVALS OF

His Wife His Sister Miss Grace The Shingled Lady The Man in Plus Fours His Wife A Maid The Dartmoor Constable The Labourer Miss Dora The Little Girl The Plain Clothes Man The Other Warder The Captain The Bellringer

1932

Olive Walter Ann Codrington Phyllis Konstam A. R. Whatmore Betty Thumling Ronald Cobb Campbell Logan Joan Henley June Lawson

Frederick Piper

The production had a mixed reception in the press. The staff reviewer of the Illustrated London News took occasion in his review to evaluate the play and compared it unfavourably with Monckton Hoffe's Many Waters. The point made was that both were episodic in nature but that Escape failed to use the main purpose of the episode, to denote the passage of time, with as much effect as Many Waters. The sense of the argument was that if one let the curtain drop to denote the passage of time then the amount of time denoted as passed was a measure of the quality of the play. Of the production itself the reviewer especially commended Colin Clive as Matt Dennant and James Raglan as the Parson, complained of the slowness of the scene changes, and noted that the last scene of the play "verged perilously on the ludicrous".2 After finishing his novel, Over the River, Galsworthy and his wife vacationed on the Continent. It was to be his last trip abroad. On August 22, 1932, Lion presented a revival of Loyalties at the Garrick Theatre, Escape having been removed. As with Escape Galsworthy did not see the play, nor presumably did he have any hand in its production. The revival was presented with the following cast: 2

Illustrated London News, July 30, 1932.

THE REVIVALS OF 1 9 3 2

Charles Winsor Lady Adela Ferdinand de Levis Treisure General Canynge Margaret Orme Captain Ronald Dancy Mabel Dancy Inspector Dede Robert A Constable Major Colford Augustus Borring Lord St. Erth A Club Footman Edward Graviter A Young Clerk Gilman Jacob Twisden Ricardos

209

A. R. Whatmore Betty Thumling Oliver Raphael Frederick Piper Cecil Ramage Cathleen Nesbitt Colin Clive Maisie Darrell Griffith Humphreys Campbell Logan Ronald Cobb Anthony Shaw Jack Minster Paul Gill W. M. Arthur Jack Minster Ronald Cobb Frederick Piper Lawrence Hanray Griffith Humphreys

Critical comment in the press, though not extensive for either Escape or Loyalties, was kinder to the latter revival. Commenting on the quality of the play, the staff reviewer of the Illustrated London News found that "at a third viewing, Mr. Galsworthy's Loyalties proves itself again the best of modern melodramas".8 This revival was the third time that West End London had seen the play. Basil Dean had made the original production at the St. Martin's Theatre in the spring of 1922 and Lion had made a revival of it at Wyndham' s Theatre in the autumn of 1928. Of the acting the reviewer compared the playing of Eric Maturin, and Colin Clive. Maturin had created the part of Ronald Dancy and played it again in the first revival. Clive was playing the part in the 1932 revival. Of Clive the reviewer wrote that he made the part less of a "crook" and more of a "war case" than Maturin had.4 Illustrated London News, September 3, 1932. Ibid.

210

THE REVIVALS OF

1932

The Galsworthys returned from the Continent to Grove Lodge on September 19, 1932, and soon afterwards received an invitation from Lion to dine with him and then go to a dress rehearsal of Justice, which he was preparing to replace loyalties at the Garrick Theatre on September 29th. Grove Lodge Sept. 25, 1932 My dear Leon I am distressed to tell you that for the present the R.K.O. negotiations have broken down. If they are resumed I shall come to you again for your assent over 'The Fugitive'. Ada and I will be at the Ivy at 7 on Tuesday. Our love to you JG

Drained by the illness he carried within him Galsworthy, nevertheless, fulfilled both his social obligations and continued writing. He was working on a play, Similes, which he never finished and he accepted Lion's invitation to supper and a rehearsal. His comment upon seeing the posters which had been prepared to advertise the production is typical of his ingrained modesty as well as his stoical tendency to poke fun at his own infirmity. Grove Lodge Sept. 29, 1932 My dear Leon Our best wishes to you all tonight. We hope to see it on Wednesday next if you can spare a box. By the way, I think John Galsworthy, O.M. is a mistake in your advertisements. D.D. (Dog's Dinner) would have been better, but no letters at all would have been best. May they be suppressed, please. That was a lovely dinner the other night, and a very good rehearsal, all things considered. Ada's love and mine. Yours JG

Justice was presented at the Garrick Theatre on September 29, 1932, with the following cast:

THE REVIVALS OF

James Howe Walter Howe Robert Cokeson William Falder Mr. Justice Floyd Harold Cleaver Hector Frame Captain Danson, V.C. The Rev. Hugh Miller Edward Clements Ruth Honey will Tweedle Wister Cowley Wooder Moaney Clifton O'Cleary

1932

211

Cecil Ramage Geoffrey King Lawrence Hanray Colin Clive Leon M. Lion F. B. J. Sharp Gyles Isham Percival Gray A . R . Whatmore Ronald Cobb Margaretta Scott Campbell Logan Anthony Shaw More O'Ferrall Anthony Shaw Campbell Logan F. B. J. Sharp More O'Ferrall

It is interesting to note in the casting that Lion, who in his 1928 revival had played William Falder and taken a drubbing from the critics for being too old for the part, had elected to play the part of Mr. Justice Floyd. The reviews of the play were limited to the daily press, many of the weekly journals not even noting the opening of the production. Galsworthy notes in the following letter one of the prevailing sentiments of the critics in the matter of the casting and playing of Falder, the hero of the piece. Grove Lodge Sept. 30, 1932 My dear Leon Could you spare me two Dress Circle seats for Monday, Oct. 3; two Dress Circle seats for Friday, Oct. 7. I am glad it went so well. I seem to gather from the criticisms in The Times and Telegraph that Colin Clive is considered too virile for the part. That I think is simply another proof of the way critics cannot adjust their minds to what is new to them. Very understand-

212

THE REVIVALS OF

1932

able, seeing that, as you remember, I rejected him offhand as a possibility, and then, as completely, changed. Our love to you. Yours always JG

The criticism that Clive was too virile for the part of Falder is an arresting one when it is remembered that John Barrymore made his name in the part of Falder in the original American production of Justice. At the time of the following letter Lion had his production of Kimmins' While Parents Sleep at the Royalty Theatre and the revival of Justice at the Garrick Theatre. He was making a production of Ε. V. Lucas' The Bear Dances to replace Justice in October and had leased the Little Theatre for his revival of The Silver Box which was then rehearsing for a late October opening. In addition he had time to consider a tour of the colonies with a Galsworthy repertoire. Bury House Oct. 19, 1932 My dear Leon Canadian Tour. Yes, on a 3% basis up to some figure of gross weekly receipts, which you would consider justifies you in paying more. Escape. The Skin Game. Loyalties. Justice. A Family Man. Always yours JG

The plays which Lion planned to take in repertory were all pieces which he had produced before and the majority of these were plays he had revived in 1932. The terms of payment to the author were substantially the same as those which had been agreed on for various touring companies in the provinces, such as the Molesworth company of Escape in 1927. Bury House Oct. 25, 1932 My dear Leon In reply to your letter of Oct. 2 1 . 1 agree to your terms, as suggested: 3% up to £ 1 , 2 0 0 gross weekly. 5% on the next £ 5 0 0 weekly. 7% on all over £ 1 , 7 0 0 weekly.

THE REVIVALS OF 1 9 3 2

213

I understand that the tour will extend to Australia, Canada, Egypt, India if you can arrange it and that the plays are 'Justice', 'Loyalties', "The Skin Game', 'Escape' and 'The Family Man'. The tour to be completed by the end of 1934. Always yours John Galsworthy On October 31, 1932, Lion opened two productions on the same evening, Lucas' The Bear Dances at the Garrick Theatre and a revival of The Silver Box at the Little Theatre. Galsworthy, invited to the opening of his own play, paid the perfect compliment to Lucas and Lion by coming, instead, to the opening of The Bear Dances. Lion asked his opinion of the play and the production and Galsworthy replied with the following letter. In it he has neatly measured the nature of the piece, a story of the then "new" Soviet Russia. The remark about Escape at the end of the letter is unclear. Grove Lodge Nov. 2, 1932 My dear Leon I have been waiting to let my reactions find their level. In so far as the production goes I've nothing but praise. There is nothing more terrifying than for a producer to be confronted by vast crowds, and to have to find quiet nooks for important tete a tetes. I wondered who guided your hand over types and dresses. I felt that the audience were more held by desire for information than by interest in the characters. Curiously enough the only weak part of the production was where the discussion emerged into melodrama and this I think was the fault of the author. Maurice Browne, Isham, and Hewitt and the two women seemed to shine, considering how much they stood and sat about and talked. The word 'amateurish' buzzed about one's ears but everyone must begin sometime and where, and it seemed to me that Lucas grasped and presented the current types very adequately. My dramatic ears received and rejected the last words. They may be true; but they reminded me of Cokeson saying in his best Salvation Army manner "He's safe with gentle Jesus". It seems to me that the discussion was fair and pretty adequate so far as such discussions can be on the stage. I believe the play may have a short success. I hardly think it can have a long one; and the psychological moment will be that of deci-

214

THE REVIVALS OF

1932

sion, when the word 'short' challenges the word 'long' - or is it vice versa? I note about 'Escape'. It is not 'agreeable' to me, which is a vile expression, and very bad grammar, and spelling; but so far as I can accept that word; there is nothing wrong. We are going back to Bury today. Our love to you JG The Silver Box was presented by Lion at the Little Theatre on October 31, 1932, with the following cast: Jack Barthwick Jones Wheeler Mrs. Jones Marlow Mrs. Barthwick John Barthwick, M.P. An Unknown Lady Mrs. Seddon Snow Roper A Police Magistrate Magistrate's Clerk An Usher Policemen

Wallace Douglas Baliol Holloway Nancy Pawley Nancy Price John Smart Margaret Scudamore Walter Piers Elizabeth Maude Bunty Bruce Charles Mortimer Andrew Leigh Lawrence Hanray Charles Lander Edward Wright Kenneth Howell John Charlton W. Bain

The play received no notice at all in the weekly press. It ran for a short while but was soon overshadowed by other, more impressive events. John Galsworthy made his last public appearances, both as a person and as a professional author, in November of 1932. On November 10th he was announced as a recipient of the Nobel Prize and within a fortnight his final novel, completed in 1931, was published, Flowering Wilderness. Though in his worsening condition he had long avoided medical counsel, late in November he was prevailed upon to consult a doctor. The upshot was that he

THE REVIVALS OF 1 9 3 2

215

was advised not to travel to Sweden to accept the Nobel Prize and he was taken to a London hospital for a thorough physical check-up. The physicians in attendance seemed to think that some relief might be offered and a number of things were done. But Galsworthy, now residing at Grove Lodge, failed to respond to treatment and by January 16, 1933, had become almost completely paralysed. He died on the morning of January 31, 1933, of a cancerous tumor of the brain. The body was cremated on February 3rd and on March 28th his ashes were scattered from the top of Bury Hill, Hampstead. Leon Lion continued throughout the 'thirties as a successful actor-manager and revived several of Galsworthy's plays again in 1935, but those productions are not part of these letters.

APPENDIX

1. Humbert Wolfe's Prologue to Escape, commissioned by Leon Lion.1 ESCAPE By Humbert Wolfe There is no way. In vain the open moor invites the captive, vainly the mists hide the wall and warder, there is still one door no man has ever opened from inside. The latch is man's own heart, and they, who locked it, are dead long since, or waiting for their day, and the sweet thieves of life, who might have picked it - love, youth, and vision - defeated, turn away. For even as the wards begin to slide a broken whisper floats upon the air of dreams that failed, and overtaken love by the long stroke of secular despair. And still these try, as those had tried, the keys of faith, until the hinges, slowly grating, dispose upon the frontiers of release the dream consummate, like an angel waiting. But that first gold conjecture, with the gleam it drew from, dwindles, and, instead, an ape holds back the dreamers, muttering, as their dream joins the pale multitude: "1 am escape". 1

Lion, The Surprise of My Life, p. 101.

APPENDIX

217

2. The "Fox-hunting Scene", an additional episode to Escape, offered by Galsworthy to Lion for the latter's revival of that play: EPISODE VII. (An hour has passed. A road on the edge of the moor. Matt, who has been kneeling by his car which has broken down, raises himself to see the figure of a dismounted foxhunter coming towards him.) Foxhunter: Engine trouble? (Matt nods). Well, she hasn't got away from you, like my beast. Come across a mare loose? Matt: Afraid not. Foxhunter: Never rains but it pours. Positively first car I've met, and lo! she's in trouble. Matt (taking in the foxhunter who is obviously a young man of his own species): Seen the convict, Sir? Foxhunter: No; but they've all been keeping their eyes peeled. Matt: Aha! So have I. Foxhunter (with some distaste): Not a pastime I care for-shan't viewhalloa if / see him. Matt: Why not? Can't have desperados loose on the moor. Safety first! Foxhunter: But this poor devil's a Sahib. Matt: Nothing like a Sahib for being unsafe. Foxhunter (with increasing displeasure): What! Poor draggled brute with the whole pack at his heels - dangerous! Matt {grinning): Fox at bay! Foxhunter: Fox we killed to-day was digested in two minutes by my watch. Matt: Have hounds gone home? Foxhounter: Yes, they went on over. Mare unshipped me at the edge of a bog - went in plump, and got away while I was collecting myself. Matt (eyeing mudstains): I see. Well, I'd change places with you. (Gazing at car) This is the least attractive Ford I ever drove. Foxhunter: Your own? Matt: No; belongs to some friends. They said I might take a run on the moor and look for the convict. Foxhunter (grinning): Good for the convict! Been fishing too? Matt: No. Camouflage. Foxhunter (with increasing displeasure): Gosh! You really are out man-hunting! Matt: I say - you're not the convict, by any chance? Foxhunter: I? What the - ? My good Sir, should I tell you if I were?

218

APPENDIX

Matt: M'm no! Forgive my asking. But they always change their clothes first thing, and yours are priceless. You could get out of Abraham's bosom in that rig. Foxhunter (eyeing Matt with suspicion)'. Look here! What made you ask that damn fool question? Matt: Well - your sympathy with him. You're about his size and appearance too, judging from the papers. And a soldier man into the bargain, if I'm any judge. Foxhunter (nastily): Quite right! And that's why I dislike a fellow soldier being harried by seedy-looking blokes in Ford flivvers. Matt (goggling): Masterly description; got me where I live, as the Yanks say. Still, a foxhunter's togs are as good as a passport any day, and you've got 'em on. Foxhunter (dangerously): Are you looney? Or merely trying to be funny? Matt (suddenly serious): Do you really want that convict chap to get off? Foxhunter: What's your game, my friend? (Staring hard) Are you a tec? Matt: No. (Slowly) I'm the convict. Change clothes with me! In your togs I could get through. Foxhunter (completely taken aback): I say! But - but Matt (with a sad little smile): It's all right. I am the convict, but I was only kidding you about the change. Thanks for your sympathy, though; you don't know what it means. You'd better get on now. I'm going to take cover again. Foxhunter (uncertainly — looking from his garments to Matt): But look here - if you mean that you really Matt: No, no! Too thick! Accessory and all that. If you could drive that flivver away though, you'd do me a good turn. But you can't, I'm afraid; she's bust her vitals. Well, I must do my bunk now. Hope you'll catch your mare. You might say you saw someone like me going up that way. Foxhunter: You've winded me, I don't know what to say - it's a knock-out. Well, anyway, you can rely on me. Matt: I know. Sahib to Sahib! So long! (He vanishes) Foxhunter (to himself): Gee-hovah! That's a rum go! 3. A preliminary draft of the contract between Galsworthy and Lion for the production of Exiled (herein called by its earlier name, The Disinherited): MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT made this 10th day of April

APPENDIX

Rough

219

Draft

One thousand nine hundred and twenty nine BETWEEN LEON M. LION of Wyndham's Theatre, Charing Cross Road, W.C. (hereinafter called the Manager) of the one part and JOHN GALSWORTHY of Grove Lodge, The Grove, Hampstead, N.W. 3 (hereinafter called the Author) of the other part, concerning a play entitled THE DISINHERITED (hereinafter called the play) of which the Author is the sole proprietor. WHEREBY it is mutually agreed as follows: 1. In consideration of the agreements herein contained and of the payments herein provided for and subject to the stipulation herein set forth the Author hereby grants to the Manager the sole and exclusive licence (except for film and amateur purposes) to perform the play in the English language throughout the world (the Continent of North America alone excepted) for the period of five years from the date hereof so long as not fewer than fifty (50) performances are given and paid for in each year dating from the first production of the said play or alternatively a minimum annual payment of fifty pounds ( £ 5 0 ) on account of subsequent royalties such payments not to be returnable in any event. 2. The Manager agrees to produce the play for a run at a West End London Theatre before September 1st 1929 in a first class manner with a competent cast. Should the Manager fail to produce or cause to be produced the play as aforesaid before September 1st 1929 he shall pay to the Author the sum of Two hundred pounds ( £ 2 0 0 ) and all rights in the said play shall revert to the Author. 3. The Manager shall pay to the Author royalties on the play whenever played by him under this agreement calculated as follows on the gross weekly receipts, exclusive of Entertainment Tax and Library discount (if any) Up to Eleven hundred pounds (£1100) Five per cent (5%) Ten per cent (10%) on all over Eleven hundred pounds (£1100) If and when the Manager sub-lets the play for any of the Territories within the scope of this Agreement which it is hereby agreed he shall have the right to do at the highest

220

APPENDIX

royalty obtainable, be shall pay to the Author 50% (Fifty per cent) of all such net royalties received by him. 4. In consideration of the Manager foregoing the usual option upon the American rights in the play the Author hereby agrees that for a period of not less than nine months from the date of the first production of the play in London he will not enter into any negotiations respecting the acting rights of the play in the United States of America and Canada except with the Manager. Further, he agrees that provided the terms and conditions of any contract proposed to him by the Manager during the said nine months in relation to the acting rights of the play in the United States of America and Canada are satisfactory to him the Manager shall be deemed entitled to the first refusal of the said acting rights provided always that any negotiating by the Manager with the Author must be concluded within the said period of nine months. At the end of the period of nine months in the event of no contract having been concluded with the Manager the Author shall be entirely free to dispose as he will of the acting rights in the United States of America and Canada. 5. In the event of the Manager entering into an agreement with the author for the acquisition of the acting rights of the play in the United States of America and Canada in accordance with Clause 4 above, it is agreed that on signing the said agreement he shall pay to the Author a sum of Two hundred pounds (£200) on account of royalties (which sum shall not be returnable in any event) and shall pay to the Author two-thirds of all net monies received by way of royalty in respect of all performances of the play in the United States of America and Canada. 6. Notwithstanding anything appearing in Clause 1 hereof to the contrary the Manager shall have the option during the London run to acquire the sole talking film rights in the play for the whole world upon making payment to the Author of the sum of Two thousand pounds (£2000). 7. Should the Manager fail to effect an outright sale of the Talking Film rights as provided in Clause 6 hereof he shall subject to the Author's approval of terms have the right during the London run to dispose of same on some basis other than an outright cash sale, and in the event of his so doing he shall pay to the Author two-thirds (2/3rds) of all net monies received by him in respect thereof. 8. Any talking picture based on the play shall conform to the spirit of the play and no dialogue shall be introduced therein other than that written by the Author and the Manager agrees that he will

APPENDIX

221

not enter into any contract for the making of a talking film of the play without including in it strict provisions definitely protecting the spirit of the play and forbidding the use of any dialogue not written by the Author. 9. The Manager agrees to announce the name of John GALSW O R T H Y as the sole Author of the play on all programmes posters and other advertising matter connected with the play. 10. The Manager shall not be permitted to make any alterations whatever in the text of the play without the consent in writing of the Author and the Author shall have access to all rehearsals of the play and shall have reasonable right of supervision thereof and shall be consulted regarding choice of cast. 11. The Manager agrees to furnish to the Author or his duly authorised representative certified nightly returns in respect of the play and shall furnish at the end of each week a statement of the gross weekly receipts from the play and shall at the same time pay the amount due to the Author thereon. 12. If the Manager shall at any time fail or neglect to observe any of the stipulations on his part herein contained or to furnish any returns and statements as aforesaid then the Author shall be at liberty to call the attention of the Manager to such failure by means of a registered letter directed to the Manager's address herein contained or to such address as may hereafter be notified by the Manager to the Author and if after fourteen days from the date of the registry of such letter the Manager has not made good such failure then this Agreement shall terminate but without prejudice to any right or rights of the Author hereunder and the Manager shall forthwith return to the Author all manuscripts of the play in his possession. 13. This agreement is binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators and assigns of the parties hereto. I N WITNESS W H E R E O F the parties hereto have set their hands the day and year first above written.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agate, James, At Half-past Eight (London, Jonathan Cape, 1923). , First Nights (London, Ivor Nicholson and Watson, 1934). Archer, William, The Old Drama and the New (New York, Small, Maynard, 1923). Beerbohm, Max, Herbert Beerbohm Tree (New York, Dutton, n.d.). , Around Theatres (London, Rupert Hart-Davis, 1953). Browne, Maurice, Too Late to Lament (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1956). Chevrillon, Andre, Three Studies in English Literature (London, Heinemann, 1923). Coates, Robert H., John Galsworthy as a Dramatic Artist (London, Duckworth, 1926). Ervine, St. John, The Organized Theatre (New York, MacMillan, 1924). Galsworthy, John, The Inn of Tranquillity (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1912). , A Sheaf (London, William Heinemann, 1916). , Another Sheaf (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1919). , Castles in Spain and Other Screeds (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1927). , Fraternity (London, William Heinemann, 1909). , Satires (New York, Scribners, 1927). , Plays (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1928). , The Plays of John Galsworthy (London, Duckworth, 1929). —-, Forsytes, Pendyces and Others (London, W. Heinemann, 1935). —-, The Creation of Character in Literature (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1931). Garnett, David, The Golden Echo (New York, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1954). The Green Room Book (London, T. Sealey Clark, 1907). Jackson, Holbrook, The Eighteen Nineties (Harmondsworth-Middlesex, Penguin, 1939). Lion, Leon M., The Surprise of My Life (London, Hutchinson, n.d.). MacCarthy, Desmond, The Court Theatre, 1904-1907 (London, Bullen, 1907). MacCarthy, Lillah, Myself and My Friends (New York, Dutton, 1933).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

223

Marrot, Harold Vincent, A Bibliography of the Works of John Galsworthy (Elkins, Mathews and Marrot, 1928). , The Life and Letters oj John Galsworthy (London, William Heinemann, 1935). Mottram, Ralph H., For Some We Loved (London, Hutchinson, 1956). Ould, Hermon, John Galsworthy (London, Chapman and Hall, 1934). Parker, John (ed.), Who's Who in the Theatre, First Edition Seventh Edition (London, Isaac Pitman and Sons, 1912-1933). Pearson, Hesketh, The Last Actor Managers (New York, Harper, 1950). Phelps, William Lyon, Essays on Modern Dramatists (New York, The MacMillan Company, 1921). Purdom, C. B., Granville Barker (London, Rockliff, 1955). , Bernard Shaw's Letters to Granville Barker ( N e w York, Theatre Arts Books, 1957). Reynolds, Ernest, Modern English Drama (Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1951). Rowell, George, The Victorian Theatre (London, Oxford University Press, 1956). Shaw, George Bernard, The Art of Rehearsal (New York, Samuel French, 1922). Skemp, A . R., "The Plays of Mr. John Galsworthy", Essays and Studies of the English Association (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1913), I V , 151. Symons, Arthur, Plays, Acting and Music (London, Archibald Constable, 1909). Thompson, Alan Reynolds, The Dry Mock (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1948). Tindall, William York, Forces in Modern British Literature (New York, Vintage, 1956). Walkley, A . B., Pastiche and Prejudice (London, William Heinemann, 1921). Woolf, Leonard, and Strachey, John, Virginia Woolf and Lytton Strachey: Letters (New York, Harcourt, Brace, 1956).