IN SLOANE SQUARE
At this time the Bancrofts' old and well loved comrade, John Hare, was
acting and managing in friendly rivalry with them at the original Court
Theatre in Sloane Square. In 1876, the Kendals, having concluded a most
prosperous season with him, left to fulfil an engagement in Tottenham
Street, and he secured the services of Ellen Terry, whose husband,
Charles Kelly, was already serving under his banner.
Before he went to fulfil his first engagement in America, John Hare
entrusted me with the task of writing his biography, and, apart from my
own observations of them, I became very well acquainted with the history
of the series of plays in which Ellen Terry appeared in the dainty
Chelsea playhouse.
Her first venture in her new home was as Kate Hungerford, in an original
comedy by Charles Coghlan, entitled "Brothers," of which great things
were expected. The cast included John Hare, Charles Kelly, H. B. Conway
(one of the handsomest young actors of his day), G. W. Anson (a born
comedian), Miss Bessie Hollingshead (the pretty and gifted daughter of
the valiant and erudite John Hollingshead), and the always delightful
Mrs. Gaston Murray. It was a cleverly written play, and the acting had
the _ensemble_ that John Hare had striven so hard and so successfully to
impart, but it did not "draw the town," and it was very speedily
succeeded by a revival of Tom Taylor and A. W. Dubourg's charming
comedy, "New Men and Old Acres," in which Ellen Terry played the part
created by Mrs. Kendal on the original production of the piece at the
Haymarket Theatre, and Hare followed Chippendale as Vavasour. By all
concerned this was so beautifully performed, and by the indefatigable
actor-manager so perfectly stage-managed, that solid and lasting success
was assured. The good work that was being done was generously as well as
generally recognised, and the critical _Athenæum_ spoke for the public
when it said:--
"Without going to the best Parisian theatres, it is not easy to rival
the performance now given, and there even the majority of the
impersonations would call for notice. The result is highly gratifying to
the public, unused to spectacles such as are now presented to it, and is
most honourable to the management.... We may congratulate accordingly
Mr. Hare and his company upon a performance that lifts off a portion of
the reproach under which we have lain, and that is the more noteworthy
inasmuch as of the dozen actors concerned in the performance, there is
no one that does not deserve praise."
The character of Lilian Vavasour had been so inseparably associated with
the name of Mrs. Kendal, who when she first appeared in it was still
using her maiden name (well loved by the public) of Madge Robertson,
that it must have been difficult for Ellen Terry to take it up, as it
were, at second-hand. That she succeeded in it to admiration, and once
more secured a long run for the pretty comedy, speaks volumes for her
talent and personal charm. I suppose nowadays "New Men and Old Acres"
would be called "old-fashioned." Many of us would like to see it again
as played by those dozen actors who all "deserved praise."
Early in 1877 it was apparent that Henry Compton, the veteran Haymarket
comedian, whose name will ever rank with the greatest of his art, would
be unable to return to the active work of the stage. By his professional
brothers and sisters he was both loved and respected, and they resolved
to give evidence to their sympathy by organising a history-making
benefit performance.
This was given at Drury Lane Theatre on March 1. The substantial item on
the bill of fare was Lord Lytton's "Money," with a cast that included
the well-known names of Henry Neville, John Hare, W. H. Kendal, Benjamin
Webster (he emerged from his retirement to play his original character
of Graves, and it was his last appearance on the stage), David James,
and Squire Bancroft. Mrs. Bancroft played Lady Franklin; Mrs. Kendal,
Clara Douglas; and Ellen Terry, Georgina Vesey.
All concerned in this undertaking were anxious to do honour to the name
of Henry Compton, and the happy thought was conceived of inviting his
son, Edward Compton, then a young fellow "serving his time" with the
provincial stock companies, to play the central part of Alfred Evelyn.
It was a nervous first appearance in London for so youthful and
inexperienced an actor, but he performed his task bravely, and delighted
his worthy father as well as his audience. He has often told me of the
kindly encouragement he received from the great artists by whom he so
unexpectedly found himself surrounded. Since then, as the founder and
indefatigable manager of the Compton Comedy Company, he has helped many
excellent actors and actresses to reach the coveted London boards.
As a motto to "Money," the following cynical lines are often used--
"It's a very good world that we live in,
To lend, or to spend, or to give in,
But to beg, or to borrow, or get what's your own,
It's the very worst world that ever was known."
In the little world of the theatre lending and giving ungrudgingly goes
on; the worthy, unfortunate, and unasking beggar is (to put him in that
light) charitably treated; and one will cheerily help another to obtain
his own.
Until October 1877, "New Men and Old Acres" pursued its prosperous
course, and by that time John Hare was ready with one of his most
ambitious efforts.
This was the production of Lord Lytton's posthumous work, "The House of
Darnley," and concerning it I cannot do better than quote Dutton Cook,
when he said: "A critic wrote concisely of the late Lord Lytton's play
of 'Not so Bad as we Seem' that it was 'not so good as we expected.'
Perhaps a like judgment might fairly be passed upon the noble author's
posthumous comedy, 'The House of Darnley.' It was inevitable, however,
that Lord Lytton's fame should stimulate hope unduly. The author of 'The
Lady of Lyons' and 'Money' may reasonably be reckoned the most
successful dramatist" (let it be remembered that this was written in
1877) "of the nineteenth century. It may be said at once that with those
established works the new comedy cannot afford comparison. But in
estimating the worth of 'The House of Darnley' it is very necessary to
bear in mind the peculiar conditions under which it is submitted to the
public. The play was left in an unfinished state; the whole of the last
act has been furnished by Mr. Coghlan, who was without other clue than
his fancy could suggest as to the original design of the dramatist. More
than any other literary work, a drama must benefit by revision and
reconsideration on the part of the author; in such wise weak points in
construction may be strengthened, gaps in the story supplied, the
dialogue braced, and the action quickened."
That in the face of all these very properly pointed out difficulties
success should have been won, speaks volumes for the tact of the
courageous manager, and the skill of his fellow-workers.
Let me again quote my authority:--
"With all its defects," he says, "'The House of Darnley' secures the
attention and the respect of the audience, and succeeds in right of its
own good qualities, and not merely because of the esteem in which the
performances of its departed author are generally held. If the theme be
weak, it is yet strongly handled, and demonstrates sufficiently the wit
and the humour and the literary accomplishments of the late Lord Lytton.
The comedy has been provided for with the good taste and liberality
which have so laudably distinguished Mr. Hare's management."
Ellen Terry acted with great distinction as Lady Juliet, and excellent
work was done by John Hare, Charles Kelly, Alfred Bishop, Amy Roselle,
and others, but, interesting though it was, the play did not long hold
the stage.
There was another performance in 1877 that must not be forgotten. This
was on June 20th, at the Gaiety Theatre, for the benefit of Charles Lamb
Kenney, who had through illness lasting over a considerable time been
unable to ply his facile pen. "The School for Scandal" was the _pièce de
résistance_, and it was then that Ellen Terry appeared for the first
time as Lady Teazle. Charles Kelly was the Sir Peter; Henry Neville,
Charles Surface; and John Clayton, Joseph Surface. By those who remember
the prodigiously long run of Sheridan's masterpiece at the Vaudeville
Theatre, the last mentioned performances of the admirably contrasted
brothers will ever be borne in appreciative memory. Mrs. Arthur Stirling
was the Mrs. Candour; and Mrs. Alfred Mellon the Lady Sneerwell. As may
be imagined Ellen Terry played Lady Teazle with winsome high spirits in
the earlier acts, and plaintive remorse in the great screen scene.
John Hare's next venture at the Court Theatre was not successful. In
spite of the care lavished upon its production, and of much clever
acting on the part of the company, Tom Taylor's comedy "Victims,"
originally presented at the Haymarket in 1857, failed to attract
audiences in 1878, and was speedily withdrawn. Withdrawn, it may be
unhesitatingly said, in favour of his greatest managerial success--the
stage version by W. G. Wills of Oliver Goldsmith's immortal story "The
Vicar of Wakefield," entitled "Olivia." John Hare suggested the subject
to Wills, and it was at once seized with the characteristic avidity of a
prolific and graceful writer. No one who knew that unquestionable, but
all too kindly and erratic, genius will be surprised to hear that the
first draft of the play was for stage purposes impossible. It was made
up of scenes of great beauty hopelessly choked with vast quantities of
irrelevant matter. It was not consecutively written, but was jotted down
at random in untidy copy-books, on the backs of used envelopes, chance
scraps of paper, and even on the eager but unmethodical author's
wristbands. At one time the task of bringing all this heterogeneous
matter into workmanlike form seemed to be a hopeless one, but with full
faith in his project and his author, John Hare was not to be baffled.
Night after night the two sat up together, and the play was
re-constructed and re-written in accordance with the practical
managerial views. When it was at last completed the dramatist prudently
withdrew from the scene. W. G. Wills had no interest in or talent for
stage management, and he wisely left the production in the experienced
hands of John Hare, only attending the perfected rehearsal on the eve of
the first performance.
John Hare can rarely be induced to talk about himself or his work, but
in connection with this production he is inclined to be somewhat
enthusiastic. "The beauty of the subject," he told me, "made the stage
management of this play profoundly interesting to me, and stimulated my
imagination and inventive powers to a greater height than I had ever
reached. By working out the whole scheme of the play in my home study I
planned all the movements and minute stage directions, so that at the
very first rehearsal it practically was the same as when it was
presented to the public. The part of the Vicar I offered in the first
instance to Alfred Wigan, making every effort to induce him to return to
the stage in order that he might create this beautiful character. I
could not induce him, however, to face the footlights again. So Hermann
Vezin became the 'Court' Vicar, and how admirably he played the part we
all know."
No one grudges Hermann Vezin his well-won success in the part, but some
of us who ponder over things theatrical, sometimes wonder whether, if
the Court Theatre had had another manager, and the services of John Hare
had been available, he might not have been induced to impersonate Dr.
Primrose.
The part of Olivia had of course been designed for Ellen Terry, and how
much she was pleased with it is proved by the following little note
impulsively dashed off to the author:--
"COURT THEATRE,
_Monday, March 5, 1878_.
"DEAR MR. WILLS,--I can't tell you how _much_ I was delighted with
the play, and with my part, but I _was_ delighted!
"I only hope I shall be able to please you in my part of the
work.--Believe me to be, very sincerely yours,
ELLEN TERRY."
Indeed, she always liked to study the words of this author. At the
Lyceum, in addition to the repetition of Olivia, she played his Queen
Henrietta Maria in the revivals of "Charles I."; his Ruth Meadows in
"The Fate of Eugene Aram," and his Margaret in "Faust."
Concerning "Charles I.," she wrote to him (this letter was published by
Mr. Freeman Wills in his highly interesting memoir of his brother):--
"I'm just returned from our last rehearsal of 'Charles I.,' and, coming
home in my carriage, have been reading the last act, and I can't help
writing to thank you and bless you for having written those _five last
pages_. Never, _never_ has anything more beautiful been written in
English--I know no other language. They are perfection; and I--often as
I've acted with Henry Irving in the play--am _all melted_ at reading it
again. An immortality for you for this alone."
She greatly grieved over her well-loved author's death, and concerning
it wrote to her friend, Alfred C. Calmour:--
"22 BARKSTON GARDENS, EARL'S COURT, S.W.,
_December 15, 1891_.
"Thank you for writing. Wretched news, is it not? A genius and a
dear fellow. I know how much you will miss him, and I'm very sorry
for you and for myself too.
"I hope he was conscious and had folk he cared for by him.--Yours
ever,
ELLEN TERRY."
She is indeed the most charming of letter writers, and, if it were
permissible, it would be pleasant to fill a chapter with her lively, as
well as sympathetic, correspondence with the famous men and women of her
day; but she very strongly, as well as very rightly, holds the opinion
that to publish private letters intended for one person only is like
asking an audience to put their ears to a keyhole and listen to a
private conversation.
But to return to "Olivia." The beautiful play was produced at the Court
Theatre on 30th March 1878, and at once won its well deserved victory.
The first-night audience having watched the course of the story with
that breathless silence which is the highest form of applause, having
been over and over again moved to tears, became, at the fall of the
curtain, a demonstrative one, and the unrestrained enthusiasm of the
plaudits could be heard without Sloane Square. The critics were in their
appreciation and praises as loud as the audience, and Ellen Terry's
triumph was complete. She was the idolised heroine of a memorable
evening.
"Mr. Wills," said Dutton Cook, "has been fortunate not merely in his
performers, but also in his manager. Mr. Hare demonstrated anew that he
has elevated theatrical decoration to the rank of a fine art; indeed,
his painstaking and outlay in placing the play upon the stage justify
suspicion that it was produced almost as much for its pictorial as for
its dramatic merits. In either case, advantage has been taken of the
opportunity to present a special reflection of the artistic aspects of
the last century with regard to furniture and costumes, china and glass,
&c. A sort of devout care has been expended upon the veriest minutiæ of
upholstery and ironmongery; a fond ingenuity is apparent in every
direction of the scene; and the foibles and fancies of those who love,
or imagine that they love, cuckoo clocks, brass fenders, carved oak,
blue and white crockery, and such matters, have been very liberally
considered and catered for. Prettier pictures have not, indeed, been
seen upon the stage than are afforded by the Primrose family, their
friends and neighbours, goods and chattels, and general surroundings in
this play of 'Olivia.'
"But a higher claim to distinction arises from the method of its
representation. In the hands of Miss Ellen Terry, Olivia becomes a
character of rare dramatic value, more nearly allied, perhaps, to the
Clarissa of Richardson than to the heroine of Goldsmith. The actress's
singular command of pathetic expression obtains further manifestation.
The scene of Olivia's farewell to her family, all unconscious of the
impending blow her flight is to inflict upon them, is curiously
affecting in its subtle and subdued tenderness; while her indignation
and remorse upon discovering the perfidy of Thornhill are rendered with
a vehemence of emotion and tragic passion, such as the modern theatre
has seldom exhibited.
"Only an artist of distinct genius could have ventured upon the
impulsive abrupt movement by means of which she thrusts from her the
villain who has betrayed her, and denotes the intensity of her scorn of
him, the completeness of her change from loving to loathing.
"Miss Terry is not less successful in the quieter passages of the drama,
while her graces of aspect and manner enable her to appear as Olivia
even to the full satisfaction of those most prepossessed concerning the
personal charms of that heroine--so beloved of painters and
illustrators--to whom have been dedicated so many acres of canvas, so
many square feet of boxwood."
This criticism well sums up the general opinion. Joseph Knight was
equally full of praise, and said: "Miss Terry was altogether life-like
as Olivia, and much of her business was extremely natural and touching.
It was full of suggestion, and, in one point at least, when she repelled
the further advances of the man who had wronged her, it touched absolute
greatness."
Clement Scott pays his tribute as follows:--"'Olivia,' as I first saw it
at the Court Theatre, is a memory that will never die while life lasts.
It is one of the most precious souvenirs in my collection.... Words fail
to convey an adequate impression of the original Olivia--the spoiled
child and darling of the English home as portrayed by Ellen Terry. I see
the idol of her old father's heart. Vividly and clearly is presented to
my memory the scene where Olivia, under the hypnotic influence of love,
bids farewell to her loved ones, scattering around her little treasures,
and that 'white face at the window,' when 'Livy' is on the high road to
destruction. All that was pathetic enough; but the dramatic effect was
bound to follow, and it came with vivid truth in the great scene between
Ellen Terry and William Terriss. At that time, both actor and actress
were perfect specimens of manly beauty and feminine grace. Terriss was
just the dare-devil, defiant creature, handsome to a fault, that women
like Olivia love. He looked superb in his fine clothes, and his very
insolence was fascinating and attractive.
"When Olivia struck Squire Thornhill in her distraction and impotent
rage, an audible shudder went through the audience. It was all so
unexpected. But the truth of it was shown by the prolonged and audible
'Oh!' that accompanied it. When we talk of the Ellen Terry manner, and
her indescribable charm, may I ask, were they ever better shown than in
the scene where Olivia kisses the holly from the hedge at home, and then
hangs it on a chair and dances round it with childish delight? And so it
went on from perfection to perfection. For me there will only be one
Olivia--Ellen Terry."
No wonder that this fascinating Olivia became the rage of the day. Her
photographs went like wildfire; the milliners' windows were full of
Olivia hats, caps, 'kerchiefs, and other items of feminine adornment;
everywhere such dainty trifles were in evidence; and how many little
"Olivias" were christened in 1878 it would be hard to say.
Among the pretty schoolgirls who figured in the play a young aspirant
for dramatic honours made her first appearance on the stage. This was
Kate Rorke. How highly Ellen Terry thought of her sister artist's
talents will be seen in the course of these pages. She has ever been
ready to recognise merit in her fellow-workers--ever willing to render
them a helping hand.
Ellen Terry has modestly declared that it was because of her popularity
as Olivia that Henry Irving invited her to be his helpmate in his great
projects for his management of the Lyceum Theatre. It was not only this:
many things pointed to the fact that she was destined to be the greatest
Shakespearean actress of the latter years of the nineteenth century.