VI.

It was among my later visits to Hartford that we began to talk up the

notion of collaborating a play, but we did not arrive at any clear

intention, and it was a telegram out of the clear sky that one day

summoned me from Boston to help with a continuation of Colonel Sellers. I

had been a witness of the high joy of Clemens in the prodigious triumph

of the first Colonel Sellers, which had been dramatized from the novel of

‘The Gilded Age.’ This was the joint work of Clemens and Charles Dudley

Warner, and the story had been put upon the stage by some one in Utah,

whom Clemens first brought to book in the courts for violation of his

copyright, and then indemnified for such rights as his adaptation of the

book had given him. The structure of the play as John T. Raymond gave it

was substantially the work of this unknown dramatist. Clemens never

pretended, to me at any rate, that he had the least hand in it; he

frankly owned that he was incapable of dramatization; yet the vital part

was his, for the characters in the play were his as the book embodied

them, and the success which it won with the public was justly his. This

he shared equally with the actor, following the company with an agent,

who counted out the author’s share of the gate money, and sent him a note

of the amount every day by postal card. The postals used to come about

dinner-time, and Clemens would read them aloud to us in wild triumph.

One hundred and fifty dollars--two hundred dollars--three hundred dollars

were the gay figures which they bore, and which he flaunted in the air

before he sat down at table, or rose from it to brandish, and then,

flinging his napkin into his chair, walked up and down to exult in.

By-and-by the popularity, of the play waned, and the time came when he

sickened of the whole affair, and withdrew his agent, and took whatever

gain from it the actor apportioned him. He was apt to have these sudden

surceases, following upon the intensities of his earlier interest; though

he seemed always to have the notion of making something more of Colonel

Sellers. But when I arrived in Hartford in answer to his summons, I

found him with no definite idea of what he wanted to do with him. I

represented that we must have some sort of plan, and he agreed that we

should both jot down a scenario overnight and compare our respective

schemes the next morning. As the author of a large number of little

plays which have been privately presented throughout the United States

and in parts of the United Kingdom, without ever getting upon the public

stage except for the noble ends of charity, and then promptly getting off

it, I felt authorized to make him observe that his scheme was as nearly

nothing as chaos could be. He agreed hilariously with me, and was

willing to let it stand in proof of his entire dramatic inability. At the

same time he liked my plot very much, which ultimated Sellers, according

to Clemens’s intention, as a man crazed by his own inventions and by his

superstition that he was the rightful heir to an English earldom. The

exuberant nature of Sellers and the vast range of his imagination served

our purpose in other ways. Clemens made him a spiritualist, whose

specialty in the occult was materialization; he became on impulse an

ardent temperance reformer, and he headed a procession of temperance

ladies after disinterestedly testing the deleterious effects of liquor

upon himself until he could not walk straight; always he wore a

marvellous fire-extinguisher strapped on his back, to give proof in any

emergency of the effectiveness of his invention in that way.

We had a jubilant fortnight in working the particulars of these things

out. It was not possible for Clemens to write like anybody else, but I

could very easily write like Clemens, and we took the play scene and

scene about, quite secure of coming out in temperamental agreement. The

characters remained for the most part his, and I varied them only to make

them more like his than, if possible, he could. Several years after,

when I looked over a copy of the play, I could not always tell my work

from his; I only knew that I had done certain scenes. We would work all

day long at our several tasks, and then at night, before dinner, read

them over to each other. No dramatists ever got greater joy out of their

creations, and when I reflect that the public never had the chance of

sharing our joy I pity the public from a full heart. I still believe

that the play was immensely funny; I still believe that if it could once

have got behind the footlights it would have continued to pack the house

before them for an indefinite succession of nights. But this may be my

fondness.

At any rate, it was not to be. Raymond had identified himself with

Sellers in the play-going imagination, and whether consciously or

unconsciously we constantly worked with Raymond in our minds. But before

this time bitter displeasures had risen between Clemens and Raymond, and

Clemens was determined that Raymond should never have the play. He first

offered it to several other actors, who eagerly caught it, only to give

it back with the despairing renunciation, “That is a Raymond play.” We

tried managers with it, but their only question was whether they could

get Raymond to do it. In the mean time Raymond had provided himself with

a play for the winter--a very good play, by Demarest Lloyd; and he was in

no hurry for ours. Perhaps he did not really care for it perhaps he knew

when he heard of it that it must come to him in the end. In the end it

did, from my hand, for Clemens would not meet him. I found him in a mood

of sweet reasonableness, perhaps the more softened by one of those

lunches which our publisher, the hospitable James R. Osgood, was always

bringing people together over in Boston. He said that he could not do

the play that winter, but he was sure that he should like it, and he had

no doubt he would do it the next winter. So I gave him the manuscript,

in spite of Clemens’s charges, for his suspicions and rancors were such

that he would not have had me leave it for a moment in the actor’s hands.

But it seemed a conclusion that involved success and fortune for us. In

due time, but I do not remember how long after, Raymond declared himself

delighted with the piece; he entered into a satisfactory agreement for

it, and at the beginning of the next season he started with it to

Buffalo, where he was to give a first production. At Rochester he paused

long enough to return it, with the explanation that a friend had noted to

him the fact that Colonel Sellers in the play was a lunatic, and insanity

was so serious a thing that it could not be represented on the stage

without outraging the sensibilities of the audience; or words to that

effect. We were too far off to allege Hamlet to the contrary, or King

Lear, or to instance the delight which generations of readers throughout

the world had taken in the mad freaks of Don Quixote. Whatever were the

real reasons of Raymond for rejecting the play, we had to be content with

those he gave, and to set about getting it into other hands. In this

effort we failed even more signally than before, if that were possible.

At last a clever and charming elocutionist, who had long wished to get

himself on the stage, heard of it and asked to see it. We would have

shown it to any one by this time, and we very willingly showed it to him.

He came to Hartford and did some scenes from it for us. I must say he

did them very well, quite as well as Raymond could have done them, in

whose manner he did them. But now, late toward spring, the question was

where he could get an engagement with the play, and we ended by hiring a

theatre in New York for a week of trial performances.

Clemens came on with me to Boston, where we were going to make some

changes in the piece, and where we made them to our satisfaction, but not

to the effect of that high rapture which we had in the first draft. He

went back to Hartford, and then the cold fit came upon me, and “in

visions of the night, in slumberings upon the bed,” ghastly forms of

failure appalled me, and when I rose in the morning I wrote him: “Here is

a play which every manager has put out-of-doors and which every actor

known to us has refused, and now we go and give it to an elocutioner. We

are fools.” Whether Clemens agreed with me or not in my conclusion, he

agreed with me in my premises, and we promptly bought our play off the

stage at a cost of seven hundred dollars, which we shared between us. But

Clemens was never a man to give up. I relinquished gratis all right and

title I had in the play, and he paid its entire expenses for a week of

one-night stands in the country. It never came to New York; and yet I

think now that if it had come, it would have succeeded. So hard does the

faith of the unsuccessful dramatist in his work die.

Literary Friends and Acquaintance; a Personal Retrospect of American Authorship · 第 106 / 126 题