BUCHANAN’S THEATRICAL VENTURES IN AMERICA

In 1884 Robert Buchanan and Harriett Jay went to America. In Chapter XXIII of her biography of Buchanan, Miss Jay deals with the trip in two paragraphs:

“In the year 1884 he made his first and only trip to America. He had a contract to supply a play to Messrs. Shook and Collier, then managers of the Union Square Theatre, New York, but he went without having written it. On his arrival he offered for their acceptance a melodrama which was our joint work, and which has since become popular under the title of “Alone in London.” This, however, they refused, and it was produced by Mr. Buchanan himself at the Chestnut Street Theatre, Philadelphia, where it drew crowded houses. At the conclusion of its first run it was taken up by Colonel Sinn, of Brooklyn, who, besides giving very fine terms, bought all the scenery which had been specially painted for it.
     While “Alone in London” was running at the Chestnut Street Theatre Mr. Buchanan made the acquaintance of Walt Whitman, whom he found “in his lonely lodgings in New Jersey—old, worn, weary and weather-beaten” The two poets drank brackish tea together and feasted on custard pie, for Walt Whitman was simple in his tastes, and he was, moreover, very poor. They parted with a promise to meet again, but the second meeting never came about, for Mr. Buchanan’s health again broke down and he had to hasten his return home. While in New York he was offered and refused the editorship of the North American Review, with a salary which was indeed princely.”

The archives of The New York Times revealed a little more information, although I’m still unsure of how long Buchanan and Jay were in America. The earliest mention is the production of “Storm-Beaten” at the Grand Opera House on 26th. August, 1884, and Buchanan dates his meeting with Walt Whitman as March 1885 in A Look Round Literature, which was also the time that Buchanan was arranging the first performance of “Alone in London” in Philadelphia. As to when they returned home, I’ve no idea, although they were both back in the country for the London opening of “Alone in London” on 2nd. November 1885.

Harriett Jay seems to contract certain details in her brief account of their American adventure. Between the rejection of the unnamed play by Messrs. Shook and Collier and the first production of “Alone in London”, there were several other theatrical ventures. The following article from 1888 sheds a little more light on that first play, “A Hero in Spite of Himself”:

The New York Times (20 December, 1888)

NOT TRUE TO AMERICAN LIFE.

     In 1884, when Sheridan Shook and James W. Collier were managing the Union-Square Theatre, Robert Buchanan engaged to write them an American society drama, for which he was to receive £1,000. An advance payment of £150 was made, and in due time the new play was brought over. It was called “A Hero in Spite of Himself,” and was built on the English ideas of Western life. The male characters would have been obliged to wear red flannel shirts and tuck their trousers into their boot legs, and the ladies in the cast would have appeared in costumes equally incongruous to real American society. Shook & Collier sued Mr. Buchanan to recover their £150 advance, and yesterday David Gerber of ex-Judge Dittenhoefer’s office presented the case to the jury in the Supreme Court, before Judge Lawrence. Mr. Buchanan was defended by Howe & Hummel. The jury were not satisfied with Mr. Buchanan’s ideas of American society and brought in a verdict against him of $945.

___

Prior to their arrival in New York, Buchanan’s greatest theatrical successes in America had been with “Lady Clare” and “Storm Beaten”, the dramatisation of his novel, God and the Man. Shook and Collier had produced the latter at the Union Square Theatre in November 1883 and the playbill below announces the 75th performance in January 1884.

[Playbill from the website devoted to the actress, E. J. Phillips]

It was this company that performed at New York’s Grand Opera House in August, 1884, with the author (and presumably Miss Jay) in attendance:

The New York Times (26 August, 1884)

GRAND OPERA HOUSE.

     Jay Gould’s box in the Grand Opera House was fringed with red, white, and blue a yard wide last night. Within this gorgeous setting were Commander Schley and his family and a party of friends. Chief Engineers Melville, Nauman, and Lowe, Lieuts. Semly and Sebur, and Dr. Greene were in the box above, while directly opposite were Commander Coffin and his family. Robert Buchanan, the novelist and author of the play of the evening, “Storm Beaten,” fresh from London, looked down upon his work from another box, with friends on every side, while sitting in a row, bolt upright, in the best seats in the house were 20 or more of the sailors of the Greely relief expedition. If an appreciative audience gives pleasure to a writer Mr. Buchanan must have been in ecstasies last night. Ninety-five out of every hundred of the seats in the house were filled with auditors who applauded the hero and execrated the villain in the most approved manner. The play was given by Shook & Collier’s combination, and the cast, taken as a whole, was a good one. The principal male part fell to Mr. Edmund Collier, whose vigorous acting won him much applause. Miss Belle Jackson, formerly of the Madison-Square Theatre, was cast as Priscilla Sefton, and she played the part naturally and with good taste. Mr. Augustus J. Bruno, who became a favorite in New York in plays of “The Brook” type, succeeded in creating much laughter as the shepherd. The scenery was excellent, and the effects were very realistic.

Back to Theatre Reviews

___

Presumably after Shook & Collier’s rejection of “A Hero in Spite of Himself”, Buchanan tried the producer of his other American success, Lester Wallack, who had presented “Lady Clare” at his theatre in February, 1884 [review].

The New York Times (19 October, 1884)

THE ACTOR AND THE PLAY

THE PLOT OF MR. ROBERT BUCHANAN’S NEW WORK.

     It is not yet decided what to call the new play which Mr. Wallack has purchased from Mr. Robert Buchanan, although it has been determined, as already foreshadowed in THE TIMES, to bring the piece out as the next production at Mr. Wallack’s theatre. The play itself appears to contain the elements of quite unusual strength. There is nothing conspicuously new in the story, but the plot seems to be very well constructed, and the indications are that the play is the best piece of dramatic work which has yet come from Mr. Buchanan’s pen. The story as told yesterday by Mr. Arthur Wallack is closely woven and interesting. The villain, who is one of the chief characters in the play, is a Spanish nobleman. Before the action of the piece begins he has eloped with the wife of another man, and having tired of her in due course has cast her aside and come to live in England. Here he has an opportunity to contract an advantageous marriage with a young girl whose grandmother is ambitious for an alliance with a family of noble lineage. The girl herself loves a young army surgeon, who loves her in return, and this affection is the only bar to the proposed marriage between herself and the Duke. The grandmother, who is not conspicuously soft-hearted where her own wishes are concerned, tells the girl that the father of the young man with whom she is in love was the direct cause of her mother’s death, and that to marry into that particular family would consequently be a crime against the memory she holds dear. Meanwhile the old woman has exercised her influence to the extent of getting the young surgeon ordered away to the Cape, where his regiment is stationed, and the coast is thus left clear for the Duke to prosecute his suit. Always near the Duke in some capacity or other, but at this time as his valet, is the husband of the woman he has ruined. This man is waiting in patience for a complete revenge, and he is satisfied to put up with any hardship and to endure any sacrifice that will aid him in ruining and bringing to his death the object of his hatred. The Duke succeeds in securing the hand of the young girl, who is moved through grief at what her aged relative has told her to accede to that person’s wishes in regard to an exalted marriage. In a short time the Spaniard grows weary of his young wife and begins to seek some method of so compromising her that he may have some reasonable, or at least plausible, excuse for putting her aside. The avenging valet, who divines his purpose, is moved partly by hatred for his supposititious master and partly by kindliness to the wife, who is a sweet and lovable woman, to thwart this design. The Duke undertakes a scheme to get his wife into questionable surroundings by offering to take her to a certain ball, then being ostensibly called away, and sending her a message to go without him. She sends to the Spanish Embassy to secure the escort of her husband’s friend, and while the bearer of her message is gone upon this errand her former lover enters her apartment. He has been wounded in an African engagement and sent home for purposes of recuperation. Not knowing the heroine has been married in his absence, he finds his way to her boudoir and in an impassioned scene pours out his love for her. She finally has the strength to check him, although she discovers the deception that has been practiced upon her. When she tells him that she has become the wife of another the shock is so great that his wound breaks out afresh, and he falls fainting to the floor as the valet rushes upon the scene to foretell the unexpected coming of the Duke. Anxious to save the innocent wife, he induces her to retire, and she leaves the stage as the Duke comes in. He finds what he supposes is the dead body of a man in his wife’s boudoir, and he orders his valet to fling it into the street as the curtain descends. It goes up again almost immediately, showing what appears to be the lover’s body lying on the sofa covered over with a rug. The Duchess is called in and accused of infidelity by her husband. There is a bitter scene between them, filled with denunciation on his part and denial upon hers, and upon their parting the act ends. The valet, in place of obeying the orders imposed upon him, has taken the unconscious lover to the house of a physician who figures in the play, and he is there restored to life and prospective strength. In the last act, the wife has proceeded to a convent in Brittany for the purpose of entering its doors for the rest of her life. The husband is there in pursuit of her, and the avenging valet is also on the ground. If the Duke does not recover his wife he is ruined, and in this complication the wronged husband of the woman he seduced years ago determines at last to strike. After a number of scenes between the various characters, working up to the final climax, the whilom valet declares his rightful identity and demands the satisfaction of mortal combat. He has brought the Duke’s dueling pistols with him, and proposes an immediate settlement of their account. The Duke at first refuses, but finally, stung with the taunts and insults of his adversary, he agrees to fight, and is shot dead. His wife, the young lover, and the other characters are on the stage. The Duchess, standing beneath the convent cross, sends a prayer to heaven for the forgiveness of the man who has so wronged her, and upon this picture the piece comes to an end, leaving an intimation that the principal personages will come together in the future. The underplot lies between the physician who restores the hero to health and a young girl who is full of life and animal spirits, and who has been designed by her friends for a convent career, which is precisely opposite to her inclinations. The physician is a general philanthropist who unwinds the tangled skein of the various characters and ultimately weds the spirited young lady. These two personages furnish the lighter portions of the piece, and form an entertaining contrast to the sombre incidents I have related. This play will be placed in rehearsal on Wednesday, and will be carefully prepared for production three weeks hence. Mr. Tearle, Miss Coghlan, and Mme. Ponisi, together with two other important players not yet decided upon, will be seen in this production. Mr. Goatcher is painting the scenery, of which there are two very pretty exterior sets, the sketches now being complete.

___

The play was called “Constance” and was presented at Wallack’s Theatre in November, 1884.

Review of Constance from The New York Times (12 November, 1884)

AMUSEMENTS.

WALLACK’S THEATRE.

     Wallack’s Theatre was filled last evening with what is known among theatregoers as a Wallack audience; the wealth, intellect, fashion, and wit of the metropolis were represented in the boxes and stalls. The house wore a cheery aspect, and the people gossiped together during the waits—which were long enough to admit of extended conversation—with the freedom of old friends. The play was “Constance,” a romantic drama, written by Mr. Robert Buchanan. It was provided with a beautiful setting; in the outdoor scenes the painters had simulated nature in her happiest mood, and for the interiors the upholsterer’s art in its most attractive forms had been called into use, while the ladies of the play wore robes which were marvels of millinery. Several popular members of Mr. Wallack’s company came forward upon this stage for the first time in many months, including Miss Coghlan, Mr. Tearle, Mr. Kelcey, and Mr. Howson, and a new-comer, Mr. Edward J. Henley, made his first appearance with distinguished success. It is a pleasant task to write of a stage event in which there is so much to praise.
     In “Constance” Mr. Buchanan has unfolded a sorrowful and strange story of blighted love and vindictiveness. A Spanish Duke of unbounded wealth and unrelieved wickedness seeks the hand of a young girl; an aged relative of the girl, ambitious to secure such a desirable alliance for the family, poisons her mind against her cousin, who is also her lover, so that the girl weds the Duke, while the lover marches off to the war. All this is, of course, conventional and familiar enough, but, as may be premised, Mr. Buchanan has not confined himself in the development of his plot to the beaten paths of the drama. The wicked Duke has a factotum, a valet, a secretary, who is none other than the husband of a woman who fell a victim to the nobleman’s wiles during an earlier period of his career. This person’s object in life is to ruin the Duke and then gloat over his misery. To this end he exerts himself to bring together the unhappy Duchess and her former lover, who has won honors on the battlefield and succeeded to a peerage. Before harm is done, however, the heart of the seeker for vengeance is touched by the misery of his victims, and he exerts himself to do what he can to aid them. He succeeds nobly, for he reveals his identity to the Duke and then kills him in a face to face combat, leaving Constance and her lover free to marry. The strongest scenes in the play are in the last half of it, and the chief interest centres in a passionate dialogue between Constance and her lover in the lady’s boudoir, in a subsequent encounter with the Duke, and the last scene, where an interview between that conscienceless noble and his injured wife is interrupted by the Secretary, who then assumes the rôle of Nemesis. The curtain did not fall until half an hour before midnight, though, as we have intimated, the fault lay in the length of the entr’acte, rather than in an excess of verbiage in the play. Mr. Buchanan’s drama was well received, although it is too early yet to claim a popular success for it. An ingenious device in Act III, relating to the disposition of the body of a man supposed to be dead, evidently produced the effect desired for it. In a note upon the house bill the author says that this idea is taken from a play by Leon Gozlan. What Mr. Buchanan’s play needs most is a judicious compression of the language in some of the scenes, where at times the action seems to lag notwithstanding the strength of the situation. “Constance” is certainly not a great play, either in its language or its story; it does not deal with characters that may be accepted as types of humanity, nor does it convey a moral lesson of any sort; but it does not lack effectiveness, and it furnishes a capital opportunity to some of Mr. Wallack’s actors. Miss Coghlan as Constance, Mr. Tearle as the Secretary, Mr. Kelcey as the lover, were all seen to good advantage. Mr. Howson and Miss Helen Russell furnished a light vein of comedy. Mme. Ponisi was a trifle monotonous, but still forcible and dignified as the aged relative who causes the mischief. But Mr. Henley’s impersonation of the Duke d’Azeglio was the most notable work of the evening. It was a striking if not agreable portrayal of austerity mingled with villainy—a man of high breeding, polished manners and a cruel heart. This actor certainly deserved the demonstration made in his favor.

Back to Theatre Reviews, Bibliography or the Plays

Wallack’s Theatre, New York and below, Lester Wallack.

Meanwhile, Harriett Jay was pursuing her acting career on the American stage. Considering the following article, which had appeared five months earlier, she must have felt she had something to prove.

The New York Times (18 May, 1884)

     Mr. Robert Buchanan, the adapter of “Lady Clare,” has written a new comedy which he is trying to get produced in London. Mr. Buchanan is led to this reckless course through the success of “Lady Clare” and the large royalties which have poured into his pocket from this country ever since the production of this piece. In London Mr. Buchanan is not regarded with enthusiasm by theatrical managers. In the first place he has written a large number of pieces, none of which, barring “Lady Clare,” has been successfully performed in the English metropolis. In the second he has a sister-in-law named Harriet Jay, who is the cause of travail and sorrow in managerial circles. Whenever Mr. Buchanan writes a play he insists, as far as he can, upon having Miss Jay perform the principal character. The lady is an amiable and interesting person when she does not try to act. But the quickest preparation for a London exodus lies through the appearance of Miss Jay in public. It is because Mr. Buchanan, metaphorically speaking, goes around with a bundle of manuscript under one arm and his sister-in-law under the other that he is not enthusiastically regarded by English managers.

___

The New York Times (1 October, 1884) 

     Mr. Robert Buchanan, who is now staying in this city, announces that Miss Harriett Jay, the young English actress and novelist, fresh from Drury-Lane, where she was leading lady last season, will shortly make her American début at the Madison-Square Theatre. Her first appearance will be in a series of special matinées, under the personal direction of Mr. Buchanan. Afterward she will create the title rôle in a new play, written by Mr. Buchanan specially for her, and accepted by Mr. Mallory for production after the run of the “Private Secretary.”

___

The New York Times (2 November, 1884)

     The representation of “Lady Clancarty,” intended to introduce Miss Harriet Jay to local playgoers, occurs at the Madison-Square Theatre on Wednesday afternoon of this week. The proceeds of the performance are to swell the Actors’ Fund, and Miss Jay will have the co-operation of Messrs. Plympton, Pigott, and Whiffen, and that of Miss Stanhope and other artists.

___

The New York Times (2 November, 1884)

     The performance of “Clancarty” which is to be given on Wednesday afternoon at the Madison-Square Theatre for the purpose of introducing Miss Harriet Jay to the American populace will not include the services of Mr. Kelcey, as was originally announced. The gentleman has been obliged to throw up his part in order to more carefully devote himself to rehearsals at the Wallack Theatre. His place in the cast of “Clancarty” will be taken by Mr. Eben Plympton. The principal design of this stage representation seems to be to prove to the great American public that Miss Jay is a vastly more beautiful woman than Mrs. Langtry.

___

The New York Times (27 November, 1884)

MISS HARRIET JAY.

     Miss Harriet Jay made her first appearance in America at the Madison-Square Theatre yesterday afternoon before a numerous audience. The play was Tom Taylor’s “Clancarty,” a romantic drama of the Jacobite days, and the supporting actors, members of Wallack’s and the Madison-Square companies most of them, were efficient, so that the performance was smooth and satisfactory. Miss Jay, of course, played Lady Elizabeth Clancarty, daughter of the Earl of Sunderland and wife of Donagh Macarthy, an adherent of the Stuarts. Miss Jay is a lady of stately presence, with an interesting face, and her methods as an actress were evidently derived from a careful study of good models. Her voice is sufficiently strong, though her utterance is lacking in variety of tone, and therefore somewhat monotonous. In moments of excitement Miss Jay’s speech is apt to be thick, as if her mouth were filled with pebbles. This defect, however, may be partly attributable to the nervousness due to her first appearance before a strange audience. As a whole, her performance yesterday produced a decidedly favorable impression, and it is safe to predict that this lady will always please in characters which do not demand too great a display of emotional power. Her Lady Clancarty is a sweet and lovable gentlewoman, more at ease while hearing good tidings of her absent husband from the lips of the pseudo Hazeltine than in the subsequent scenes of sorrow and despair. Her graceful manner and her earnestness, however, pleased everybody, and she was warmly applauded. Mr. Charles Glenny was Clancarty, and Mr. Thomas Whiffen, in an admirable make-up, Scum Goodman, the smuggler and cut-throat. Mr. J. W. Piggott contributed an effective sketch of the King, William of Orange, and Mr. E. J. Henley, of Wallack’s, was the stern brother of Lady Clancarty.

___

The “new play, written by Mr. Buchanan specially for her, and accepted by Mr. Mallory for production” mentioned in the October article, never materialised, instead there was a revival in January 1885 of “Lady Clare” at Niblo’s Garden.

The New York Times (4 January, 1885)

     The little difficulty between Mr. Mallory, of the Madison-Square, and Mr. H. M. Pitt, whose salary it was sought to reduce, has been amicably adjusted, and the actor retains his post in the company. This week Mr. Pitt is loaned to Mr. Frohman for the “Lady Clare” engagement at Niblo’s, and he will for the first time undertake to be sentimental in a leading and lachrymose rôle. Mr. Pitt has hitherto flourished chiefly as a performer of characters of the sluggish and lackadaisical kind. The other item of interest in connection with the “Lady Clare” production is in the statement that Miss Harriet Jay will appear in masculine attire in the part played at Mr. Wallack’s theatre by young Mr. Buckstone. It is reported that when it was decided Miss Jay was to play the part she immediately sent all the way to London for the raiment in which she originally appeared in this character. It has hitherto been supposed that there were plenty of clothes in America.

___

The New York Times (6 January, 1885)

     A company of competent actors and actresses appeared at Niblo’s Garden last night in “Lady Clare,” Robert Buchanan’s version of “Le Maitre des Forges.” Miss Cora Tanner, as Lady Clare, acted with grace, dignity, and earnestness. Mr. H. M. Pitt, as John Middleton, proved that, while he was not as much at home in a serious rôle as in a “character” part, he had sufficient power to hold the interest of the audience and in some scenes to awaken their hearty admiration. Lord Ambermere was played by Mr. Henry Aveling, an actor well qualified for the part. Miss Harriet Jay appeared as the Hon. Cecil Brookfield, originally played by her in London, and gave a charming performance. Mr. Max Freeman displayed his eccentric humor as Mr. Gould Smale, and Miss Louise Dillon was a petite and piquant Mary Middleton. The other parts were in good hands and the play moved with smoothness and good effect. The audience was large and the applause frequent. On Wednesday afternoon what is known as a “professional” matinée of “Lady Clare” will be given, to which all the members of the dramatic profession in town will be invited that they may witness Miss Jay’s performance of the Eton boy.

Back to Theatre Reviews

___

And the mention of Cora Tanner brings us to arguably the greatest theatrical success of Robert Buchanan and Harriett Jay -

ALONE IN LONDON

I felt the story of “Alone in London”, both in America and Britain, deserved a separate section on this site, accessed from the link above.

___

Although “Alone in London” was the last of Buchanan’s plays to be produced during his visit to America, his association with the American theatre continued after his return to England. Buchanan’s other great dramatic success, “Sophia”, his adaptation of Tom Jones, was produced at Wallack’s Theatre in November, 1886 [review]. In April, 1888, “Partners” was produced at the Madison-Square Theatre [review] and in September, Col. Sinn produced “Fascination”, starring Cora Tanner, at New York’s Fourteenth-Street Theatre [review]. In October 1889 Buchanan’s “A Man’s Shadow”, his adaptation of Jules Mary’s Roger-la-Honte, was further adapted by Augustin Daly for its American audience. The extent of Buchanan’s involvement in this is unknown - some of the items below mention him, others don’t.

The New York Times (10 September, 1889)

THEATRICAL GOSSIP.

     William Terriss and Miss Millward, of all the foreign stars who are to appear in this country this season, are the only ones who will present a new play adapted by an American. The English version of “Roger La Honte,” which they will produce, is the work of Mr. Augustin Daly, and the company which will support them is composed exclusively of Americans, who have been selected by Mr. Daly himself. The scenery for “Roger La Honte” has all been painted at Niblo’s, and is now ready for the stage. Rehearsals will begin Sept. 23, under the personal direction of Mr. Daly himself, who retains control of the management of Mr. Terriss and Miss Millward during their New-York engagement, turning it over afterward to H. C. Miner. The tour will open at Niblo’s Oct. 7, and a season of five weeks will be played in this house. The later bookings include the Hollis-Street Theatre, Boston, two weeks; the Park Theatre, Brooklyn, one week; Miner’s Theatre, Newark, one week; the Chestnut-Street Opera House, Philadelphia, two weeks; the Grand Opera House, Chicago, two weeks; the National Theatre, Washington, one week, and the Academy, Baltimore, one week.

___

The New York Times (6 October, 1889) 

     “Roger la Honte” is a melodrama taken from a story written by Jules Mary, which was published in Le Petit Journal, a cheap newspaper read by the masses in Paris. The plot is like that of “The Courier of Lyons”—an innocent man is suspected of a crime committed by another man, who is his exact physical counterpart. Roger la Roque, a wealthy engineer, is the innocent hero, and Luversan his deadly double. Both characters are necessarily portrayed by the same actor. At Niblo’s on Tuesday night that actor will be Mr. William Terriss, a handsome, agreeable, well-trained English actor, who was in Mr. Irving’s company at the Star Theatre six years ago. Terriss has lately been associated in London with Adelphi melodrama.
     One of the great scenes in “Roger la Honte” is the trial of Roger. He is defended by Lucien de Noirville, a former schoolmate, and a man of prominence at the bar. De Noirville learns during the trial that Roger, who will not say a word in his own defense, was at the time of the murder in the company of his own wife, Mme. de Noirville. The revelation of the frailty of his wife and the falsity of his friend is a crushing blow, but he determines, from a sense of justice, to speak the truth in court and secure the acquittal of Laroque at the cost of his own honor. Just as he is about to speak he is stricken down and dies of heart disease. In Paris the actor who played this character won the greatest triumph. In London, where the play is now current at the Haymarket Theatre under the title of “A Man’s Shadow,” Mr. James Fernandez, acting the part of the advocate, has likewise made the greatest individual triumph of the production. Mr. Wilton Lackaye will be Lucien de Noirville at Niblo’s. The principal woman of the play, de Noirville’s faithless wife, will be portrayed by Miss Jessie Millward, who is remembered as a pleasing Hero in “Much Ado About Nothing” and a fairly successful representative of Pauline in “Called Back,” and who acted very nicely in “Sealed Instructions” at the Madison-Square Theatre.
     The play will be called at Niblo’s “Roger la Honte; or, A Man’s Shadow,” Mr. Augustin Daly having used Mr. Robert Buchanan’s London adaptation as the basis of his version of the story. Mr. William Gilbert and Mr. Dan Collyer will appear as two comic amateur detectives, Miss Henrietta Crossman will be Mme. La Roque, and the precocious child of the play will be Marguerite Fields.

___

The New York Times (9 October, 1889)

“ROGER LA HONTE.”

     “Roger la Honte; or, A Man’s Shadow,” a four-act drama, founded on a romance published as a feuilleton in Le Petit Journal of Paris, was performed, for the first time in this country, at Niblo’s last evening. The principal characters were taken by Mr. William Terriss and Miss Jessie Millward, from England. Mr. Terriss is a comely, well-built man and an actor of very respectable powers. Miss Millward is a handsome, graceful woman and a fairly good actress. Neither of them seem to have improved in their art since they were last in this country, but it is likely that they would both be seen to better advantage in a different sort of play. “Roger la Honte” is a melodrama of the most strenuous description. Its principal materials are assassination, robbery, and illicit love. The last element is treated very gingerly in the version now on view, described as the joint work of Augustin Daly and Robert Buchanan, with the result that the motive that inspires some of the action seems to be rather vague. The play, in its present shape, would undoubtedly have been very successful at Niblo’s some years ago—at the time of “The Two Orphans” and “A Celebrated Case”—when the public taste seemed to crave French melodrama of this description; and we are not prepared to say that it will not be very successful now.
     All that is worth telling of the story of “Roger La Honte” has already been told in this place. The play resembles that known in Mr. Irving’s repertory as “The Lyons Mail” in this particular, that the two principal male personages are men who closely resemble each other in outward aspect and are totally unlike in disposition and moral characters. Roger La Roque is an upright man; Luversan, his double and shadow, a wretch so unspeakably vile that words would fail to describe his baseness. The pictures of the play include the brutal murder of an old man by Luversan in sight of the wife and child of La Roque, who are thus led to believe that that worthy husband and father is a murderer; the trial of La Roque in the court of assize, concluding with the death from heart disease of his advocate and friend, Lucien de Noirville, who has discovered that the prisoner is indeed innocent of murder, but that to prove his innocence in court he must couple his own name with infamy; and, finally, the killing of Luversan in a roadside inn by gendarmes, who mistake him for La Roque, who has escaped from New-Caledonia.
     The plot is involved, and the drama has little to commend it as a work of art. It will be understood that its climaxes are exciting to the last degree, and that it contains some scenes that are very effective in a purely theatrical sense. Not the least successful of these, in the view of the multitude, will be the scenes in which La Roque’s daughter, a child of eight years, who says her prayers on the stage, figures. This infant sees the murder and believes her father to be the murderer. She is taught by her mother to say, when questioned, “I heard nothing; I saw nothing,” and thus equipped passes, with brilliant triumph, through the ordeals of the police examination and the trial in court, to the manifest joy of all mothers of small girls in the audience. The child employed at Niblo’s is a cunning little thing and has been well trained. But the precocious infant is becoming a dreadful bore in the drama.
     Mr. Terriss plays La Roque and Luversan. As the man of honor he is handsome and graceful, though oversentimental and affected in manner, and vociferous to a degree. As the man of dishonor he is scowling, spasmodic, and still vociferous. Luversan has been a spy. The conception of the part an ordinary actor would form would be a catlike, sneaking, whispering individual. But Mr. Terriss—in this part, at least—is an extraordinary actor. His Luversan is a noisy, boisterous fellow, with a meaningless cackle. The likeness to Mr. Irving’s thrilling Dubosc is not very close in the performance, but there is no doubt of Mr. Terriss’s aim. The result is that he makes the success of Luversan’s plot against La Roque seem incredible.
     Mr. Wilton Lackaye, now a member of Mr. Daly’s company, has one of the best parts in the play, in a popular sense, one that is comparatively easy to act, and in good hands sure of effect. He is Noirville, the advocate, whose sense of justice is so strong that he determines to save La Roque at the cost of his wife’s good name and his won honor, and dies before his declaration in court is finished. Both in Paris and in London the actor who played this part made a great hit, and Mr. Lackaye, who does very well with it, got a large share of the applause last night.
     Miss Millward is the wife of Noirville, whose lover La Roque has been—before her marriage in this version of the play. The character is unsympathetic and not very interesting. Miss Millward, like Mr. Terriss, is vociferous. The play is acted throughout, in fact, in the old-fashioned melodramatic manner. It is all well done, after this fashion, though, the minor characters all being in good hands. What humor there is is supplied by Mr. William Gilbert, Miss Hattie Russell, and Mr. Dan Collyer. The scenery is all good.
     Mr. Daly appeared twice on the stage last night to acknowledge the applause, and Mr. Terriss, Mr. Lackaye, and Miss Millward were recalled repeatedly after the trial scene.

___

The New York Times (13 October, 1889)

     It is strange that playgoers should express disappointment about the acting of William Terriss, for what promise was there that Terriss would prove an actor of unusual skill, except the appearance of his name in large letters on fence posters and his likeness in shop windows? Mr. Terriss was an efficient and agreeable member, six years ago, of a stock company controlled by the firm hand and indomitable will of a master of stagecraft. He did Don Pedro and Bassanio as Mr. Irving told him to. He has since been reveling in the boisterous Adelphi melodrama. He has acquired an affected, exaggerated manner of displaying emotion, and he has not increased sufficiently in skill to compose and delineate a dual rôle such as that of La Roque and Luversan. There are a dozen actors well known to frequenters of Niblo’s who could act this part and differentiate the two halves of it quite as well as Terriss. His La Roque is noisy and stagy, and his Luversan ineffective. He does not make the rogue, as Beerbohm Tree does in London, a whispering, sneaking villain, but tries to imitate Irving’s Dubosc, and fails.
     Miss Millward is a handsome woman and a pleasing actress, and her acting as Julie de Noirville makes the spectator desire to see her in a more effective and attractive part. No such longing is inspired by Mr. Terriss’s acting. One feels that he has had quite enough of him before the play is finished.
     “Roger la Honte” is an ordinary old-fashioned melodrama, with plenty of exciting situations, which outrages probability in every scene. It is done in the good old way at Niblo’s. No pains have been spared to make the piece go. Mr. Lackaye makes a good effect in his one strong scene, though he is always inclined to be grotesque, and this work will add to his popularity. There is little in the performance, however, to commend it to thoughtful playgoers. One does not sympathize with La Roque, and Julie is a repulsive personage. The suffering wife is played in a pretty, colorless manner by Miss Crossman, and the infant is interesting only to people who have not yet wearied of prattling children on the stage.

___

The New York Times (31 October, 1889)

THEATRICAL GOSSIP.

     The business of “Roger La Honte” at Niblo’s has improved so steadily this week that Manager Gilmore has decided to continue the play until next Wednesday, postponing the appearance of Mr. Terriss and Miss Millward in “The Lady of Lyons” until that evening. Bulwer’s comedy will be presented until the close of the engagement on Nov. 9. An extra matinée of “Roger La Honte” will be given on election day.

___

The New York Times (24 November, 1892) 

A VICTORY FOR MANAGER DALY.

MR. MINER’S “ROGER LA HONTE” SUIT DISMISSED BY JUDGE PATTERSON.

     The suit of Theatrical Manager Henry C. Miner against Augustin Daly for $5,000 was dismissed by Justice Patterson in the Supreme Court yesterday.
     The action grew out of a contract Mr. Miner made with Mr. Daly, whereby the former was paid $5,000 for all the American and Canadian rights in the play “Roger la Honte.” The play was originally produced in Paris. While in that city Mr. Miner saw and was impressed with it. He learned that the American rights had been purchased by Mr. Daly. On his return to this city Mr. Miner made the contract referred to. The first production of the play in this country was at Niblo’s Garden, in January, 1891, under the direction of Mr. Daly.
     The complaint alleges that Mr. Miner began the production of the play soon after. He then learned that the play was being presented in various parts of the country. He called upon the defendant to bring suits to protect his (Miner’s) rights in the piece. This was refused and then Mr. Miner demanded the return of his $5,000. This was also refused, and the suit followed.
     After putting in testimony to the above effect the plaintiff rested. The defense moved that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that Mr. Daly was not bound to protect Mr. Miner’s rights in the play to the extent of bringing suits at law. The court held the same opinion and dismissed the case.

                            Niblo’s Theatre, New York                                                Jessie Millward

_____

In January 1892, Daniel Frohman produced “Squire Kate” at the Lyceum Theatre.

The New York Times (17 January, 1892)

“SQUIRE KATE” AT THE LYCEUM.

     Mr. Daniel Frohman will present for the first time at the Lyceum Theatre to-morrow night a new play, written by Robert Buchanan for the Lyceum company, which has been in preparation ever since the opening of the season. It is called “Squire Kate,” and is a pastoral play, introducing certain types of English character which have not become common to the stage. The scene of “Squire Kate” is laid in Surrey, England, thirty-two years ago, and the story is told in four acts, the divisions being, the Farm Kitchen, the Hayfield, the Sheepfold, and the Kitchen.
     The play, which is founded on a French drama, tells the story of two sisters in love with the same man, and its dramatic value, whatever it may prove to be, arises from the complications growing out of this love. “Squire Kate” and Hetty, two sisters, without each other’s knowledge, both love George Heathcott. Kate is the elder, who does the hard work of managing the farm, and she has reared Hetty with motherly care, bringing her up daintily. The discovery of the affection between Hetty and George embitters Kate’s heart, and the struggle and mastery of her disappointment and the gradual return of her love for her younger sister form a great part of the central interest. Interwoven in the story is the love for Kate borne by the overseer of the farm, Geoffrey Doone, who is her attached and devoted friend. The comic element of the play is furnished by Mr. Harbury, Mr. Cook, Mr. Williams, Mr. Ormonde, and Mrs. Walcot.
     The cast is as follows: Katherine Thorpe, Georgia Cayvan; Hetty Thorpe, Effie Shannon; Amanda Jane Thistledown, Mrs. Charles Walcot; Geoffrey Doone, Herbert Kelcey; Gaffer Kingsley, William J. Le Moyne; George Heathcott, Edward J. Ratcliffe; Jasper Arundel, Charles M. Walcot; Mr. Nash, Augustus Cook; Lord Silversnake, Fritz Williams; Jack Dutton, Charles Harbury; Jabez, Eugene Ormonde.

The New York Times (19 January, 1892)

AMUSEMENTS.
_____

MISS CAYVAN AS KATHERINE THORPE.

     The question why Mr. Daniel Frohman produced at the Lyceum Theatre a play like “Squire Kate,” an adaptation to the locale of British rustic drama by Robert Buchanan of an Ambigu-Comique idea, was asked many times before the curtain was rung up last night. The people who support the Ambigu-Comique in Paris are not the same kind of folks as those who go to Mr. Frohman’s theatre in New-York. The Ambigu is the home of lurid melodrama. Les etrangleurs flourish on its stage, and when the fun comes the people like it to be simple and broad and plentiful. The Lyceum audiences, on the other hand, are dainty and fastidious.
     The question thus raised was answered very satisfactorily, however, in the second act of “Squire Kate.” Here Miss Georgia Cayvan’s acting, in a scene that is a faithful transcript from real life, was surprising in its force, thrilling in its genuine emotional power, and charmed the spectator by its unaffected simplicity. It was a piece of acting as near to reality as a good actor ever gets in the practice of his art. It was convincing, moving, flawless in conception and expression, and it will be remembered.
     Miss Cayvan has not suddenly acquired new powers, but, for the first time since she has been the principal actress at the Lyceum Theatre, a chance has been given to her to exhibit her powers. And that is the secret of the production of “Squire Kate”—a production that in every way reflects credit upon Mr. Daniel Frohman’s zeal, liberality, and good taste as a theatre manager, for it is beautiful in a pictorial sense, and all the acting is thoughtful, careful, and harmonious.
     The one great scene, in which Miss Cayvan’s acting recalls her worthy effort seven or eight years ago to save from inevitable failure a very bad piece called “Our Rich Cousin,” occurs rather too early in the play, perhaps, to secure a long-continued success for it. There is no other incident nearly so good. That, however, ought to attract to the Lyceum every person who honestly enjoys uncommonly good acting. We fear there are too few such persons nowadays to make success for any play. But their good opinion is worth striving for, and their influence is powerful.
     The personages in the scene are two sisters—Tennyson’s “sisters,” of course. The elder has drudged and slaved for years to educate the younger, to fit her for a life of dainty luxury and ease. She loves her fondly. But this elder sister, although she is patient in adversity and thoughtful of the comfort of others, is no mere cipher devoid of hopes and aspirations of her own. She has an intensely passionate nature, and she is deeply in love with a commonplace, good-enough sort of a young man, whom her love has transformed into a hero. Good fortune has come to her. In a day she has become rich, and it seems that her dream of happiness is to be realized. She has every reason to believe that her love is returned. She is fooled to the top of her bent, and placed in a humiliating position. When she learns suddenly that her nice young man has chosen her silly little sister, under the influence of the shock she acts just as such a woman would act in real life. She does not remember copy-book maxims, and quote them. All the force of her passionate nature is exerted in the expression of her natural indignation and grief. Her broken, hysterical invective is exactly in harmony with her mood.
     Miss Cayvan’s rendering of this scene could not be surpassed. Her powers are wholly equal to it. She brings tears of sympathy to every eye. Every tone of her voice is in keeping; every gesture is aptly expressive, and she lends to this perfectly simple and natural situation the effect of a great dramatic climax.
     This is nature. We too often have had the same situation perverted on the stage. We have had a debilitating excess of mawkish amiability on the other side of the footlights. It would be much better for the world if we could have a little more of uncomplaining self-sacrifice and picturesque benevolence in real life and just a little less of them on the stage.
     Miss Cayvan’s acting is strong and expert throughout the play, but she has no other scene that approaches the episode in the moonlit hayfield in naturalness and dramatic force. She had much applause last evening for her ingenious treatment of the inevitable scene of reconciliation between the sisters, in which Squire Kate assumes a cheerful manner to hide the sorrow that is still poignant. This was remarkably well done, but the art of the actress was necessarily plainly in evidence all the time. It is not a happily devised episode; and Mr. Buchanan, to tell the truth, is a very tedious and old-fashioned playwright.
     As for the play, founded on “La Fermière,” in which Katherine Thorpe, called “Squire Kate,” is the central personage—well, it is H. T. Craven’s “Meg’s Diversions” again without H. T. Craven’s real humor; with a touch of Douglas Jerrold’s “Rent Day” and a hint or two of “Daddy Hardacre.” Kate is Meg again, and Kate’s sister Hetty is Meg’s well-educated sister, who is loved by the man Meg loves. Jasper Pidgeon is there disguised as Geoffrey Doone, the faithful overseer of Kate’s farm; Master Bullfrog, from “The Rent Day,” brags, makes comic love, and gets drunk and behaves like a donkey in the person of Mr. Nash, the tax collector. The only touch of new humor is in the horse doctor, who is also a general practitioner, and who, when a girl is poisoned, treats her for incipient typhoid fever and partial paralysis of the nerve centres. There is another old friend in evidence, too, who is surely Edie Ochiltree of “The Antiquary,” now a shepherd and a herb doctor, who looks like Walt Whitman, but talks a good deal more like Robert Buchanan.
     Hodge and Joan are there, of course, as they are in every play of English rural life; there is the customary quantity of straw, and there is, moreover, a bent, scowling, leering, threatening, snarling, grasping, treacherous old miser, Gaffer Kingsley, who is in sight and in hearing much of the time. This is a fine part for Mr. Le Moyne, who makes it as grimly effective as the art of “make-up” and the skill of an experienced actor can make such a part. In most of Act III. this old miser has the centre of the stage; he poisons a girl, he lies about it, he leers awfully while he is splitting wood with a very sharp axe, he threatens, he cringes and whines. This is all old-fashioned melodrama, and good enough of its kind. Some of Mr. Buchanan’s humor, however, is very depressing.
     The acting is all good, as we have said. Miss Shannon is pretty and winning, Mrs. Walcot plays the hearty, stupid countrywoman in the good old style, and Mr. Kelcey plays a very thankless part in his accustomed conscientious manner. The scenery is capital, especially the views of the farm kitchen and the hayfield. The full cast of “Squire Kate” is appended:

Katherine Thorpe ....................................Georgia Cayvan
Hetty Thorpe...........................................Effie Shannon
Amanda J. Thistledown............................Mrs. Walcot
Geoffrey Doone.......................................Herbert Kelcey
Gaffer Kingsley........................................William J. Le Moyne
George Heathcott....................................Edward J. Ratcliffe
Jasper Arundel........................................Charles Walcot
Mr. Nash................................................Augustus Cook
Lord Silversnake.....................................Fritz Williams
Jack Dutton.............................................Charles Harbury
Jabez.......................................................Eugene Ormonde
Thomas....................................................John Hamersly
Silas.........................................................Hyde Robson

___

The New York Times (18 October, 1896)

     The new theatrical incidents of this week will be the opening of Frank Murtha’s Murray Hill Theatre, at Forty-second Street and Lexington Avenue; the production of a new Irish operetta at the Broadway Theatre, which has been closed since “The Caliph” suddenly vanished, and the revival at Palmer’s, by Georgia Cayvan, of “Squire Kate,” a drama of rustic life, by Robert Buchanan, in which her acting was greatly admired at the Lyceum Theatre.
     “Squire Kate,” is founded on a French drama called “La Fermiere.” Miss Cayvan has somewhat reduced its text and omitted two scenes. The play will now be presented in four acts, the scene of the first and fourth being Kate’s farmhouse, and that of the second and third the harvest field. New scenery has been painted, and great pains have been taken with the ensemble. The harvest merry-making will be elaborately represented. George Woodward will have the rôle of the miser, and other prominent parts will be taken by Frank Atherley, Orrin Johnson, Florence Conron, and Annie Sutherland.

The New York Times (27 March, 1900)

“Squire Kate” at Murray Hill.

     “Squire Kate,” a pastoral drama in four acts, by Robert Buchanan, which was presented at the Murray Hill Theatre yesterday, apparently was far more appreciated by the patrons of this house than the performance offered last week, judging from the size of audiences which witnessed the play in the afternoon and evening, both performances playing to the capacity of the theatre. The stock company without an exception did exceedingly well.

Back to Theatre Reviews, Bibliography or the Plays

_____

1892 also saw the American production of “The English Rose” in Boston and New York [review]. The original producer of “Squire Kate”, Daniel Frohman, also commissioned a new play from Buchanan on the subject of Richard Brinsley Sheridan. According to the following article, Frohman rejected “Dick Sheridan” which Buchanan then produced in London in February 1894 [review].

The New York Times (5 February, 1894)

THE STORY OF “DICK SHERIDAN.”
_____

A Play Rejected By An American Manager Produced in London.

     There is an interesting story connected with the production at the Comedy Theatre, London, Saturday night, of Buchanan’s comedy, “Dick Sheridan.” It is not often, if indeed it has ever happened before, that a play rejected by an American manager, has been presented to a London audience; but this is the case with “Dick Sheridan.” The play, which was thought too poor for New-York, has at last made its appearance in the metropolis of the world, and Mr. Buchanan’s wounded pride is probably measurably solaced, although the verdict of the audience was that the plot and character were “hackneyed.”
     The real author of “Dick Sheridan,” the English play, and of “Sheridan,” Paul M. Potter’s American comedy, so far as originating the idea and suggesting the story is concerned, is Daniel Frohman, Manager of the Lyceum Theatre of this city. When E. H. Sothern had made a success of “Lord Chumley,” Mr. Frohman, who is his manager, prudently began to look about him for a new play to take the place of “Chumley,” when it had run its course.
     It occurred to Mr. Frohman, who was in London, that Sothern’s personality fitted him to personate Richard Brinsley Sheridan, and that the romance of Elizabeth Linley, the beautiful “Maid of Bath,” furnished an excellent foundation for a comedy. The manager consulted Robert Buchanan. After a few conferences, during which Mr. Frohman expressed his ideas very fully as to what the play should be, Buchanan agreed to write it, and have it ready for production at a specified time. A contract was drawn up, a retaining fee paid—for English playwrights of prominence always exact a retaining fee before beginning work—and Mr. Frohman returned ton New-York easy in his mind regarding the success of “Chumley.”
     Promptly on schedule time Mr. Buchanan’s play, “Dick Sheridan,” was received by Mr. Frohman, but when he had read the piece he decided at once that it would not do for Sothern. It was nothing like the play he had arranged in his own mind, and he was not willing to risk its production. He wrote to Buchanan, explaining in detail what he regarded as the faults of “Dick Sheridan,” and suggested the rewriting of certain scenes on new lines, the excision of certain others, and the addition of some wholly new material.
     The English playwright was apparently affronted because an American manager had assumed to criticise his work, and he refused to make the changes. Mr. Frohman then returned the manuscript to Buchanan as “rejected,” preferring to lose the money advanced on the work rather than to risk the reputation of Sothern and himself by its production at the Lyceum.
     Paul M. Potter was then commissioned to write “Sheridan,” on the lines laid down by Mr. Frohman, and one of Mr. Sothern’s most artistic characterizations was the result. Buchanan, when he heard of this, made the charge that his manuscript had been used in the preparation of the new play, and accused Mr. Frohman of stealing from his work. A caustic letter from the American manager followed, in which he denied the charges, and practically invited Mr. Buchanan to take his grievance into court.
     As a matter of fact, with the exception that the romance of the “Maid of Bath” is the foundation of both plays, there is no similarity between them, and that foundation was furnished by Mr. Frohman himself. Certainly there is nothing “hackneyed” in the plot or character of “Sheridan,” and the fact that this is the verdict of London on “Dick Sheridan” would seem to vindicate the judgment of Mr. Frohman in rejecting Mr. Buchanan’s play.

[Daniel Frohman]

The rejection by Lillie Langtry of another of Buchanan’s plays became the subject of a court case in November 1890. The play, “Lady Gladys”, was eventually produced in May 1894 at New York’s Madison Square Theatre with Minnie Seligman in the title role.

The New York Times (29 May, 1894)

MINNIE SELIGMAN AS LADY GLADYS.
_____

Her Admirable Acting in Buchanan’s Play at the Madison Square.

     Minnie Seligman produced at the Madison Square Theatre, last night, a four-act play by indefatigable Robert Buchanan, called “Lady Gladys.” It is just such a play as Buchanan always writes, with an involved and impossible plot, dialogue that is generally both agreeable and effective, and a few situations that are undeniably strong. Lady Gladys is a young Englishwoman, whose lordly father is deprived of his ancestral estates through the machinations of his life-long enemy, Sir Gilbert Vane. Moreover, Sir Gilbert shoots her dog. Whereupon Lady Gladys strikes Sir Gilbert with a riding whip.
     Reduced to poverty, Lady Gladys, for no earthly reason, assumes an alias, and, with her identity thus concealed, marries Sir Gilbert’s son, Edgar, first exacting from him. as a marriage portion, the title to her ancestral home, which has been transferred from father to son. Lady Gladys and her unsuspecting husband repair to the ancient domain, and then the woman orders her deadly enemy, and his son as well, to leave the house—in a pouring rainstorm, too. The next day, however, Lady Gladys learns that her ill-treated husband was the unknown benefactor of her father for many years, and as she is desperately in love with him, the play ends happily.
     The main incidents of this piece, including the marriage of the woman under a bogus name, with the connivance of reputable persons, including a clergyman, are so preposterous that a sustained illusion is impossible. But, in spite of this, the play is not uninteresting, and may serve Miss Seligman well on the dreary but profitable “road” next season. A long run for “Lady Gladys” in New-York would be out of the question.
     Miss Seligman’s acting last night was admirable in every respect. She has improved wonderfully in a few years, and the force and naturalness of her expression of the conflicting moods of the strange heroine could be equaled by  few contemporary actresses, English or American. She has not only youth, beauty, and a sufficiency of physical strength for her portion, but an uncommonly large measure of dramatic aptitude, as well, and she has lately formed a distinct style. She has overcome her old tendency to overact, and keeps within the “modesty of nature” in spite of her dramatist, to whom that phrase seems to be unknown.
     The delicacy and subtlety of her treatment of the scenes with her lover in Act II. surpassed any previous work she had done, and if, on the whole, her acting seemed less real in the great climax at the end of Act III., the wild improbability of the fable at that point may be urged in her favor. There was certainly picturesqueness in her motions, there, and a note of true pathos in the colloquy with her husband. Miss Seligman is an actress who is much talked of, but little appreciated. She deserves cordial recognition, for her natural talent is of a high order, and her acquired skill and industry are now commensurate with it.
     She was supported last night in a frequently commonplace but reasonably capable way, and the play was suitably staged. The dignity and unfailing earnestness of John Glendinning were serviceable in several important scenes, James K. Hackett played his part with good intelligence, and Arthur Lawrence was acceptable as the gouty enemy of Lady Gladys.

Edgar Vane     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     John Glendinning
Rev. Jack Harland .     .     .     .     .     .     James K. Hackett
Sir Gilbert Vane    .     .     .     .     .     .     Arthur Lawrence
Earl of Doone       .     .     .     .     .     .     Henry St. Maur
Major Fitzherbert  .     .     .     .     .     .     Herbert Ayling
Mr. R. Mackworth Pope   .     .     .     .     H. D. Byers
Count di Wimeraux      .     .     .     .     .     Marcus Moriarity
Dick Penzance       .     .     .     .     .     .     Redfield Clarke
John Rudd             .     .     .     .     .     .     Edward Gavin
Lady Dolly Fitzherbert .     .     .     .     .     Lillian Lawrence
Mrs. R. Mackworth Pope .      .     .     .     Clara Braithwaite
Martha Rudd         .     .     .     .     .     .     Maggie Holloway
Mrs. Baxter           .     .     .     .     .     .     Lizzie Morgan
Lady Gladys Hope      .     .     .     .     .     Minnie Seligman 

___

The New York Times (3 June, 1894)

THE WEEK AT THE THEATRES
_____

MINNIE SELIGMAN’S ACTING IN BUCHANAN’S “LADY GLADYS.”
_____

The Play Saved from Utter Failure by Her Tact and Skill—Another View of “The Passing Show”—Mr. De Angelis and Miss Stephenson—Beginning of the Roof-Garden Season—Summer Night Recreation New-Yorkers Owe to Rudolph Aronson.

     Minnie Seligman’s acting in Robert Buchanan’s impossible play, called “Lady Gladys,” at the Madison Square Theatre, is so well thought out and so skillful in execution that it ought to have appreciation quite apart from the material with which it is associated. The love scene of Act II., for example, is played by Miss Seligman with truly remarkable delicacy and tact, with every possible emotion of the woman clearly expressed. That it still leaves the scene unsatisfactory is not Miss Seligman’s fault, but her dramatist’s. The whole scheme of the play is false. How differently Sardou, from whom Mr. Buchanan has taken this situation, treats the famous meeting of Loris and the Muscovite siren in the second act of “Fédora”! There the audience is never left for a moment in doubt of the design of the heroine to entrap her victim, or of her feelings, for her growing passion for Loris and her hatred of herself for entertaining it are plainly indicated. But Mr. Buchanan’s Fédora is a feeble creature. She does not know her own mind.
     The audience is led to believe that she loves Edgar, and that she has some idea, also, of marrying him for the purpose of avenging herself upon his father. But she does not even devise the plan of her vengeance, and has no part of it. The comic persons of the play induce Edgar to settle the estate upon Gladys as a marriage portion, and they have no sinister design. The love scene is as commonplace as possible—an ardent, earnest man, and a timid girl, who does not quite know what to say. It is true enough that it ought to have more passion and more complexity, but Mr. Buchanan is responsible for its deficiency, and if Miss Seligman had attempted to strengthen the episode, she would have been accused of overacting. She preferred to act it as naturally as possible, and she convinced good judges of the actor’s art of her superior skill and fine artistic feeling in this passage as well as in the stronger, and even less real, series of scenes that lead to the climax of Act III.
     Miss Seligman’s acting has saved the play from absolute failure and made it reasonably entertaining. It will be continued at the Madison Square Theatre another week.

Back to Theatre Reviews,  Bibliography or the Plays

The final play of Buchanan’s to be produced in America was “The Strange Adventures of Miss Brown” which, despite the review in The New York Times, had a successful run after opening at the Standard Theatre in December 1895.

I have to admit that this account of Buchanan’s theatrical ventures in America is restricted really to his ventures in New York, due to the availability of the archives of The New York Times. Information about how his plays went down elsewhere in the States is more difficult to come by. The following plays were performed in Washington, D.C. at the National Theatre:

“Storm Beaten”: 3rd to 8th Nov. 1884, 29th March to 3rd April 1886.
“Alone In London”: 27th Dec. 1886 to 1st Jan. 1887.
“Fascination”: 21st to 26th Jan. 1889, 13th to 18th Jan. 1890.
“Roger la Honte or A Man’s Shadow”: 6th to 11th Jan. 1890.
“The Strange Adventures of Miss Brown”: 27th April to 2nd May 1896.
“Squire Kate”: 16th to 21st Nov. 1896.

“Alone in London”, of course, premiered in Philadelphia, and “The English Rose” was performed in Boston before it opened in New York and according to this mention on a website providing “information on the camp life experienced by the 2nd Ohio Volunteer Infantry at Camp Poland, Tennessee”, “The Strange Adventures of Miss Brown” played at Staub’s Theater, Knoxville, Tennessee:

“A number of the officers and men attended the production of ‘The Strange Adventures of Miss Brown’ at Staub’s last night and enjoyed the show very much.”

And, if that wasn’t obscure enough, I also came across the following item, again concerning a performance of “The Strange Adventures of Miss Brown”, in the Cass City Chronicle (Michigan) of June 15th 1906:

And with the imagined strains of “Will You Love Me in December as You Do in May”, sung by Gussie Lenshaw, Lady Baritone, still ringing in our ears, I’ll leave this page of Buchanan’s American theatrical ventures. Except for one more item. It has only a minor connection to Buchanan but it’s a nice example of the strange tales which turn up when you’re searching through newspaper archives on the internet. At one point I did wonder about adding an aside about the trial of Dr. Robert W. Buchanan for the murder of his wife in 1892 which became rather a cause celebre and dragged on until his execution in April 1895. There were considerably more mentions during that period of that Robert W. Buchanan than the Robert Williams Buchanan I was searching for in the archives of The New York Times. But, beyond the coincidence of names there was no real connection. Although, given Buchanan’s passionate opposition to capital punishment and his letter to The Daily Telegraph touching on the first use of the electric chair (reprinted in The Coming Terror), one wonders what Buchanan thought about his namesake’s eventual demise in that device at Sing Sing. Murder also cropped up in relation to William Terriss, the star of the New York production of “Roger la Honte”, who was stabbed to death outside the Adelphi Theatre, London, on 16th December 1897. But, in the end, I decided to just include the following:

The New York Times (11 September, 1886) 

CHARGES OF MALPRACTICE.

     CHICAGO, Sept. 10.—Alonzo Blondin, leading juvenile of Robert Buchanan’s “Storm Beaten” company was arrested to-night as accessory to criminal malpractice. Dr. Albert E. Palmer was arrested as the principal. Miss Kitty Reber, Buchanan’s leading lady, is at the Harrison Court Hotel, in a critical condition, the result, it is alleged, of their crime. Blondin and Palmer deny the charges. Miss Kitty Reber is a sister of Sallie Reber, whose death about a year ago in New-York, under peculiar circumstances, created a sensation.

___

The New York Times (12 September, 1886) 

NOT A RELATIVE OF MISS REBER.

     CHICAGO, Sept. 11.—It is now said that Miss Kitty Rober, the actress who is lying ill here, under peculiar circumstances, is no relation to Miss Sallie Reber, the actress whose secret marriage to Mr. Fish, in New-York a year ago, caused much comment.

Back to the Plays