About the Production of The Kiss

by Denise Conejo, Kaitlyn D’Agostino, and Christian Didier

Theodore de Banville’s Le Baiser, was performed in translation at the Royalty Theatre on March 4, 1892. The theater, which was constantly under renovation, had re-opened in 1883 as the Royalty Theatre. It was run by Mrs. Charles Selby who had been long acquainted with the stage and who used the theater as a chance to showcase young and fresh talent (Lloyd). Appropriately, Le Baiser was well regarded at the Royalty, as it works with themes of innocence, youth, and beauty in a charming and pastoral setting. The naive and virginal Pierrot was performed by Bernard Gould and the fantastical Urgele was played by Edith Chester (Wearing). Le Baiser, under the management of the Independent Theatre Society, was part of a three-show program which, according to The Theatre: A Monthly Review, was regarded as the “best selected programme that they had up to that date set before the public” (Eglington, June 1982). The play was licensed by the Lord Chamberlain produced by actor/manager Charles Hoppe, manager/treasurer J.T. Grein, and musical director Jan Mulder (Wearing).

John Gray, English poet and friend of Oscar Wilde, translated Le Baiser into English for the Independent Theater Society production, which retitled it The Kiss. The self-educated Gray was a member of a circle of English poets that patronized the controversial productions of the Independent Theater Society. He viewed the modern actor as a “bohemian, outcast, and poet” (Bristow 51). Critics were divided in regards to the success of Gray’s translation, which was reviewed by The Theater as having “uneven verse” while Dramatic Notes: A Yearbook of the Stage praised the English couplets of Gray’s translation as “graceful.” The production was also reviewed in Times, Era, and The Saturday Review.

The leading role of Pierrot was played John Bernard Partridge, credited in this production by his stage-name of Bernard Gould. Better remembered today as an illustrator and cartoonist, he was elected as a member of the Royal Institute of Painters in Watercolors, and served as chief cartoonist for the influential Punch from 1909 until his death in 1945. Nevertheless, Gould was an accomplished stage actor, appearing in numerous plays alongside luminaries such as Henry Irving and Johnston Forbes-Robertson. His success prompted Justin Huntly McCarthy to write, “Whenever I see him act, I think he ought to only be an actor, but when I see his pencil-work I think he should be faithful to that branch of art.”

Partridge’s performance as Pierrot was universally lauded by contemporary critics. Despite criticism of the translation, the Theatre wrote that a better performance “could not have been given,” while the Stage made note of his “grace and delicacy.” In his review for Gentleman’s Magazine, McCarthy again praised the actor and his take on a “latter-day Pierrot.” This is perhaps not a surprise given Gould’s history with Pierrot as a stock character; Strand Magazine makes note of several paintings he had done of the character prior to Le Baiser’s 1892 London premier.

Less successful was the performance of Edith Chester in her role as Urgele. Best known for her appearance as Lady Orreyed in Pinero’s Second Mrs. Tanqueray, Chester — the stage name of Edith Morgan Gellibrand — was famous not only for her charm and beauty, but for her tumultuous personal life. An 1883 Theatre report on an amateur comedy performance called her “one of the best amateurs we have seen for a long time; not only does she possess the natural advantages of a pretty face and sympathetic voice, but she knows how to move on the stage with freedom and grace.”

A decade later, in reviewing Le Baiser, the Theatre would call her performance “charming,” white noting her shortcomings in the “proper delivery of verse.” Others were less charitable. “Not successful” was the highest praise the Stage cared to offer. This was largely representative of critics on the whole, characterizing her as sympathetic, but her performance as lackluster. One wonders if that performance might have been influenced by concurrent events in her life outside the theater — 1892 saw her divorce her abusive husband amidst false allegations of adultery. Though she would make it through the scandal and even remarry, she would die of typhoid just two years after her appearance as Urgele.

Works Cited

Appelbaum, Stanley, and Richard Michael Kelly, eds. Great Drawings and Illustrations from Punch, 1841-1901. Toronto: Dove, 1961. Print.

Bristow, Joseph. The Fin-de-siècle Poem: English Literary Culture and the 1890s. Athens: Ohio UP, 2005. Print.

Capes, Bernard, and Charles Eglington. “Our Play-Box.” The Theatre: A Monthly Review and Magazine 1 June 1892: 206. Print.

Clement, Scott, ed. “Pages on Plays.” The Theatre: A Monthly Review and Magazine 1 June 1883. Print.

“Edith Morgan Gellibrand.” The Cairo Gang. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.

Eglington, Charles and Bernard Capes. The Theatre: A Monthly Review of the Drama, Music, and the Fine Arts. Volume XIX, January-June 1892. London: Eglington & Co. Google Books. Web. 6 Nov 2015.

Eglington, Charles, ed. “Plays of the Month: “The Second Mrs. Tanqueray”” The Theatre: A Monthly Review and Magazine 1 June 1893: 41-43. Print.

Howard, Cecil, comp. “The Kiss.” Dramatic Notes: An Illustrated Yearbook of The Stage 1 Dec. 1892: 40-41. Print.

Huntly-McCarthy, Justin. “Pages on Plays.” Ed. Sylvanus Urban. Gentleman’s Magazine 1 June 1891: 535. Print.

Huntly-McCarthy, Justin. “Pages on Plays.” Gentleman’s Magazine 1 June 1892: 421. Print.

Lloyd, Matthew. “The Royalty Theatre, 73 Dean Street, Soho.” arthurlloyd.co.uk. Matthew Lloyd. Web. 6 Nov 2015.

Newnes, George. “Mr. Cyril Maude’s Dressing Room and its Pictures.” Strand Magazine 1 July 1904: 49-58. Print.

Shaw, Bernard. Dramatic Opinions and Essays. Vol. 1. New York: Brentano’s, 1906. Print.

“The Drama.” Athenaeum 1 June 1892: 352. Print.

Wearing, J.P. The London Stage 1890-1899: A Calendar of Productions, Performers, and Personnel. 2nd edition, 109-110. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014. Google Books.

Who’s Who: 1907. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1907. Print.

About the Production of The Strike at Arlingford

by Nykia Blanks, Sandra Brown, David Castro, and Ramata Cisse

The Strike at Arlingford premiered at the Opéra Comique on February 21, 1893. Located in London between Wych Street and Holywell Street, the Opéra Comique opened in 1870 and was demolished in 1902. It was said to have been hastily built but nicely decorated, accommodating 862 seated patrons. Although the theatre had a brief existence, it was renovated multiple times since its inception, gathering positive reviews in the newspaper The Era, which praised its aesthetic and its introduction of Marie Tempest. After its closing, however, The Era stated: “nothing worthy of any record whatever has been attempted at this temple of the drama, which has had a singularly eccentric and mostly disastrous career.”

George Moore was a renowned novelist at the time. According to Opéra-comique: A Sourcebook, “George Moore was one of the most influential and versatile Anglo-Irish writers of the 19th century.” He rebelled against the Victorian culture and supported the Irish Literary Renaissance and the Irish National Theatre. His novels and short stories took on a feminist stand of “gender relations, sex, prostitution, adultery and homosexuality.” While he was praised for his novels, The Strike at Arlingford was not received in the same manner. The Saturday Review commented: “Mr. George Moore has hardly done much in support of his contention that the arts of the novelist and the dramatist are identical.” Moore was criticized for writing “novel dialogue” that did not transition well in the play genre.

The play’s cast consisted of Charles Fulton as Baron Steinbach, Charles Rock as Fred Hamer, Bernard Gould as John Reid, Ackerman May as the Footman, Florence West as Lady Anne Travers, and Elsie Chester as Ellen Sands. In addition to the ill-received plot, the character development was commented on heavily. Some reviewers felt that the characters made the performance. Mr. Fulton was said by The Theatre: A Monthly Review to have a “light and natural rendering of a highly effective part”(215). Miss Chester was said to save the final scene of the play as her acting brought feeling to the play’s closing. Mr. Rock was able to utter the reporter’s complicated language with ease. Mr. Gould’s appearance fit the role of a leader perfectly but his mannerisms did not seem to be suited to the role until the play neared its end. The critic felt similarly about Miss West’s performance, as she was “graceful, winning, and feminine, but not the woman to make a hero faithless to his cause” (215).

Other reviews were not so kind. The main characters were said to be “flat, pallid caricatures of humanity,” according to the Saturday Review (208). A review by William Archer that appeared in the World newspaper took the greatest issue with Miss West and Mr. Gould saying that she “lacked subtlety, seductiveness, distinction” and that he “lacked everything” (Elington 235). The reviewer from The Theatre stated: “acted with greater force, the drama would, I think, have created a deeper impression”(215)

The play’s reception is unsurprising since the net gain from the play was said to pale in comparison to the donation received from G.R. Simms to produce it. Overall, Moore was said to “[have] chosen a fine theme, splendidly human, rarely dramatic.” The fact that “the central theme is tamely handled” was probably his biggest downfall.

Works Cited

Diniejko, Andrezj, Dr. “A Brief Overview of George Moore’s Writing.” A Brief Overview of George Moore’s Writing. Warsaw University; Contributing Editor, Poland, 5 July 2012. Web. 08 Nov. 2015.

Elington, Charles. “Notes of the Month.” The Theatre 1 Apr. 1893: 235-37. Elington & Co. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.

“The Independent Theatre.” Rev. of The Strike at Arlingford. The London Weekly Times 24 Feb. 1893: 5. Print.

Letellier, Robert Ignatius. Opéra-comique: A Sourcebook. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, Print.

Moore, George. The Strike at Arlingford: A Play in Three Acts. London: Walter Scott, 1893.

Web. 9 Sept. 2015. https://archive.org/details/strikeatarlingf00moorgoog

“Opera Comique.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 04 Nov. 2015.

Parker, John. “The Theatres.” The Saturday Review 25 Feb. 1893: 208. Strand. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.

“Plays of the Month.” The Theatre 1 Apr. 1893: 214-15. Elington & Co. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.

About the Production of Theory and Practice

by Amy Dipre, Samantha Gomez, and Taynara Giandoso

• The Independent Theatre Society produced Theory and Practice on April 28, 1893 at Terry’s Theater in Strand, London. Theory and Practice is a one-act, twenty-minute play that came on before Alan’s Wife.
• A website on Terry’s Theater explains that “The Era reported on the new Theatre in their 15th of October 1887 edition saying: ‘On Thursday evening Mr. Edward Terry’s new theatre in the Strand was opened for private inspection. The style is Flemish renaissance, delicately decorated in apple green, old pink, and gold. From every part of the house an uninterrupted view of the stage is to be had; and on the matter of exits and fire precautions great care and thought have been bestowed” (“Terry’s Theatre, The Strand, London”). Terry’s Theater opened on October 17, 1887 and closed on October 8, 1910. In 1923, the theater was demolished to “accommodate the widening of Strand” (“Terry’s Theatre, The Strand, London”).
• Arthur Benham was born on October 26, 1871 and died on September 8, 1895. He was only 23-years-old when he died and this is probably why it is hard to find much information on him (Boase 1919). An entry in Modern English Biography indicates that Arthur Benham and Estelle Burney were brother and sister. It also mentions that the year before the production of Theory and Practice, they both worked on another play at Terry’s Theatre, a four-act-play called The County (Boase 1919).
• Philip Hunter was portrayed by Mr. Bassett Roe and Mrs. Hunter was portrayed by Estelle Burney (Benham 8).
• Theory and Practice takes place in a dining room. There is a table set for two in the background but the action takes place after dinner, so perhaps the table was set with empty plates. The action also requires a piano and a desk. The play provides little description of the room or the furniture.
• The play received mixed signals from critics. The Athenaeum said that this was a play “of little importance, treated a commonplace subject in a commonplace fashion” (Athenaeum 582). The Theatre’s critic called Theory and Practice a “trite but not unamusing exercise in playwriting” (Scott 335). There are reviews about Theory and Practice in Era, Stage and Theatre. According to The London Stage: “Era noted that this piece, about a married couple, with “diametrically different tastes,” provided a good contrast to the “grim gloom” of Alan’s Wife” (Wearing 163).
• Due to the fact that Theory and Practice came on before Alan’s Wife, it did not get much attention from critics. In many of the journals and databases, it is hard to find entries that mention more than one sentence about Theory and Practice after they discuss about Alan’s Wife. Alan’s Wife is such a provocative play that it had many critics talking about it and left little attention for Theory and Practice.

Works Cited

Benham, Arthur. Theory and Practice: Comedietta in One Act. London: French, 1893.

Google Books. Web. September 2015

Boase, Frederic. Modern English Biography: Containing Many Thousand Concise Memoirs of Persons Who Have Died Since the Year 1850, with an Index of the Most Interesting Matter, Vol. 4. N.p.: Netherton and Worth, 1906. Google Books. June 2008. Web. Nov. 2015.

“Terry’s Theatre, The Strand, London.” Terry’s Theatre, The Strand, London. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2015. <http://www.arthurlloyd.co.uk/Terrys.htm>.

Scott, Clement, Bernard Edward Joseph Capes, Charles Eglington, and Addison Bright. The Theatre. Volume 30. Google Books. Wyman & Sons, 1893. Web. 05 Nov. 2015.
Wearing, J. P. The London Stage 1890-1899: A Calendar of Productions, Performers, and Personnel. N.p.: Scarecrow, 2013.

About the Production of Rosmersholm

by Vivien Oye and Eileen Paige

Henrik Ibsen’s Rosmersholm was performed in London at the Opera Comique Theatre on May 31st, 1893. It was one of the Independent Theatre Society’s productions that appealed to its target audience’s intellect rather than emotions.

The Opera Comique opened in 1870 and was located in London’s East Strand. Since its humble beginnings of being hastily constructed as well as having long narrow tunnels, it earned the nickname of the Theatre Royal Tunnels. Despite being beautifully decorated, The Opera Comique was unpopular with audiences due to its French name. It went on to premiere comic operas of Gilbert and Sullivan after 1877. However, this success ended shortly after manager Richard D’Oyly Carte decided to move his productions to another theatre, and after that the Opera Comique was demolished in 1902. Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen, who wrote Rosmersholm in 1886, named its characters after his family and friends. His difficult childhood and the experience of self-exile from Norway are reflected in his style of realism. According to Victorian Secrets, this Ibsen performance was directed by Elizabeth Robins, who also played the challenging role of Rebecca West. She also produced and starred in the role of Hedda in Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler, making her a popular figure on the West End stage. Subsequently, she formed the New Century Theatre with her lover William Archer to continue producing not-for-profit productions of Ibsen.

The role of Rosmer was played by Lewis Waller, who was also well known for his versatility in Ibsen roles and for playing Lord Illingworth in Oscar Wilde’s A Woman Of No Importance. Mr. Athol Forde played the role of Kroll. Mr. Bernard Gould, who illuminated the role of Ulric Brendal, was also a famous English illustrator known as John Bernard Partridge. Mr. Scott Buist, who played the editor Mortensgaard, contributed to the successful role of Tesman in Hedda Gabler. Lastly, Miss Frances Ivornato played the part of Madame Helseth. The actors honed their craft through their acting techniques, receiving positive feedback from both audience and reviewer. Mr. Lewis Waller concealed his tough personality on stage, to deliver the gentle sincere persona of Rosmer. In the role of Ulric Brendal, Mr. Bernard Gould, the artist, played himself. His humor and hint of poetry gave Brendal’s character much originality in the production. Mr. Athol Forde’s experience in playing Kroll at the Vaudeville two years ago was evident. Mr. Scott Buist and Miss Frances Ivornado were both convincing on stage as Mortensgaard and Madame Helseth. The most challenging part in this production was executed with intelligence by Elizabeth Robins. Although the reviewer did believe there was still room for Robins to master the finer details towards the character of Rebecca, he still considered it her best work on stage. Overall, the Opera Comqiue Theatre production of Rosmersholm, captured the attention of a large enthusiastic audience, effectively engaging them through an intellectual standpoint through this performance.

Works Cited

“The Opera Comique, East Strand, London.” The Opera Comique, East Strand, London. N.p.,     n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2015.

The Saturday Review of Politics, Literature, Science and Art. Vol. 81. N.p.: J. W. Parker and          Son, 1896. 576. Print.

“Ibsen’s “Rosmersholm” In London.” The Manchester Guardian 1 June 1893, ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Guardian and The Observer ed., Pg. 5 sec.: 1. Print.

Simkin, John. “Elizabeth Robins.” Spartacus Educational. N.p., Sept. 1997. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.

“Robins’s Major Ibsen Performances and Directing Roles.” Victorian Secrets. N.p., n.d. Web. 8    Nov. 2015.

“Illegitimate Drama and Rickety Twins: The Theatres of the Strand.” London Metropolitan           Archives. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.

“Henrik Ibsen Biography Playwright (1828–1906).” Bio.com. A&E Networks Television, n.d.      Web. 08 Nov. 2015.

About the Production

by Porschia Rolle, Erica Small, and Frankie Thomas

Blanchette, a three-act French play by Eugène Brieux, was first staged at Paris’s Théâtre Libre on February 2^nd, 1892. Its first English production, translated by J.T. Grein and M.L. Churchill, was a one-night-only performance on December 9^th, 1898 at Albert Hall’s West Theatre, staged by the London Independent Theatre Society (Athenaeum 703-4). It was revived in 1901 at the Court Theatre, the translation now credited to Miss Martia Leonard and J.T. Grein, with a significantly revised third act (Athenaeum 704).

Eugène Brieux (1858-1932) was a French playwright whose plays critiqued society and carried strong social messages (Britannica). Born in Paris to a working-class family, Brieux rose to international prominence through his affiliation with the Théâtre Libre, a Parisian independent theater that popularized naturalist drama in France (Clark 157, Britannica). Besides Blanchette, his plays included La Couvée (1893), Les Trois Filles de M. Dupont (1896), La Robe rouge (1900), and most notoriously Les Avariés (1901), which was censored in France for its discussion of syphilis (Britannica). George Bernard Shaw declared Brieux “incomparably the greatest writer France has produced since Molière” (Britannica).

In the 1898 London Independent Theatre Society production, the role of Blanchette was played by Miss Martia Leonard, who is also credited as the translator for the 1901 production; critics assumed that she had likewise translated the 1898 production under the pen name “M.L. Churchill” (Athenaeum 704). (“M.L. Churchill” is additionally credited as the translator for a 1900 French play called The Troubadour, which also starred Miss Martia Leonard [New York Times 7].) In the 1901 revival, Blanchette was played by Miss Agnes Miller, whose performance, according to The Athenaeum’s drama critic, “revealed powers of pathos previously unsuspected” (704). The revival cast also included Mr. A.E. George (as Blanchette’s father), who had appeared earlier that year in the Incorporated Stage Society’s Pillars of Society; and Mrs. Theodore Wright (as Blanchette’s mother), who originated the role of Mrs. Alving in the London Independent Theatre Society’s 1891 production of Ibsen’s Ghosts (Athenaeum 704, Franc 176, Styan 26).

The detailed stage directions of Blanchette call for a single set, a realistic interior of a small tavern in rural France, to be used for all three acts; and plain, modest costumes for all the characters, specifying that Blanchette herself must be “dressed very simply” in the first act and “poorly dressed” in the third.

The 1898 London Independent Theatre Society production seemingly attracted scant critical attention, but the 1901 revival was more widely reviewed. The critical consensus in 1901 was that the new, revised ending was inferior to the original: the Théâtre Libre and London Independent Theatre Society versions ended with Blanchette becoming a prostitute, while the Court Theatre revival had a happy ending in which Blanchette married a fellow peasant and was welcomed back into her family (Athenaeum 704). William Archer called the new ending “banal,” while The Athenaeum complained that it was “subversive of the teaching of the story” and undermined “the satire on the education of girls above the sphere they are destined to occupy, which is the cleverest portion of the work” (Archer 53, Athenaeum 704). Regardless, critics appreciated the play’s social message, and Archer pronounced it superior in this respect to all of contemporary English drama: “Our dramatists have apparently no eyes for anything but a more or less conventional upper-middle-class, drawing-room society….Which of them, for example, has intelligently grasped such a problem as that which M. Brieux here handles? I cannot think of any single English play in the least analogous to Blanchette” (Archer 54).

Despite the critical backlash to the sanitized ending of the revival, this revision is the only version of Blanchette available in printed form, even in French.

Works Cited

“Drama: The Week.” The Athenaeum 1 June 1901: 703-704. Print.

“ ‘The Heather Field’: Another ‘Independent’ Performance at Carnegie Lyceum.” The New York

Times 20 April 1900: 7. Print.

“Eugène Brieux: French Dramatist.” Encyclopedia Britannica. N.p., n.d. Accessed 8 November

2015. Web.

Archer, William. Study and Stage: A Year-book of Criticism. London: Grant Richards, 1899.

Print.

Brieux, Eugène. Blanchette, comédie en trois actes. Paris: Stock, 1900. Print.

Brieux, Eugène. Blanchette, and The Escape: Two Plays. Trans. Frederick Eisemann.

Boston: J.W. Luce, 1913. Print.

Clark, Barrett H. The Continental Drama of Today. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1914.

Franc, Miriam Alice. Ibsen in England. Boston: Four Seas Company, 1919. Print.

Styan, J.L. Modern Drama in Theory and Practice: Volume 1, Realism and Naturalism.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Print.

Annotated Bibliography of Criticism

Bogucki, Michael. “Brutal Phantoms: Modernism, Anti-theatricality, and Irish Drama.”

Diss. Thesis / Dissertation ETD, 2010. Print.

“Brutal Phantoms” examines the works of early dramas that went against the grain of the Victorian commercial theatre. It examines George Moore’s, The Strike at Arlingford, praising Moore’s innovative character, the ability to center on the social theatre, and the attention given to “corrupt performance practices of British touring companies” (3). Nevertheless, Bogucki does not deem Moore to be a fully accomplished playwright. He thinks Moore does a poor job of developing strong characters that will leave imprints of realism on the audience. John Reid, for example, is “a weak man in a position too strong for him … and [the] inability to express himself” (38). Bogucki also criticizes Moore’s inability to follow through on metaphors, and “[a] weak production” [that] causes the audience not to view the characters in a purposeful light. Bogucki also comments on the luxurious decor at the beginning of the play that wanes to the point of no significance at the end. The author’s argument is that The Strike at Arlingford is an ingenious, creative, true-to-life play, but Moore struggles with production and implicit comparisons.

—Sandra Brown

Robinson, Hilary. Review of Anthony Farrow, George Moore. The Yearbook of English Studies 12 (1982): 334–336. Web.

Hilary Robinson alludes to Anthony Farrow’s scholarly book, which examines George Moore’s works. Farrow proposes that Moore centers around the conflict of life, marriage, and art. Robinson refers to three works to support Farrow’s thesis: A Modern Lover, Muslin Martyrs, John Norton, and The Strike at Arlingford. Robinson states that in The Strike at Arlingford Moore “Condemns the weakness that lets a man put a women before his politics.” Robinson suggests that Moore is in conflict with two worlds:” The Christian idea of marriage,” and the struggle to find meaningful relationships between the sexes.

Robinson explains that Moore’s other works also display another sentiment: The conflict of religion and its use for a cushion for the failures of life and marriage, as shown in John Norton, and the Muslin Martyrs. Robinson comes to the conclusion that religion and chastity, as well as the idea of identity when it comes to the opposite sex, is a topic that inhabits most of Moore’s work.

—David Castro

Shaw, Bernard. “Playwright Cut Playwright: Bernard Shaw on George Moore.” The Shaw Review 23.2: 90-94. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

Renowned playwright Bernard Shaw was asked by a journalist of The Star to analyze the portrayal of socialism in George Moore’s The Strike at Arlingford. Shaw believes that Moore accurately depicts the economic aspect of the labor industry: that raising wages would lead to the establishment’s financial ruin. Where the production falters, however, is in the depiction of the relationship between capitalists and socialists. In Shaw’s opinion, a genuine labor leader would not let the threat of ruin for the capitalist heads prevent him from pursuing his wage increase. He furthermore would not suppress the party’s funds to benefit the capitalists because of his romantic relationship with the mine owner. Shaw admits that depicting the labor leader as so weak-willed that he would turn on his men for love makes for good drama but in terms of being realistic, however, of all the things a labor leader can be, being weak-willed is the one thing he should not be. Shaw believes that a genuine labor leader would not have suppressed money at the request of his unrequited object of affection. He would have instead gotten the money out of her and still taken her to bed. He would know when circumstances were becoming dangerous for his cause and he certainly would not have committed suicide at the end. According to Shaw, Moore created a fine character for his play but, unfortunately, a play is the only place one would find such a character.

—Nykia Blanks

Annotated Bibliography of Criticism

Greenberg, Yael. “The Hidden Architecture In Ibsen’s Rosmersholm.” Modern Language Review 89 (1994): 138-148. Academic Search Complete. Web. 22 Nov. 2015.

This article states that Rebecca’s guilt towards her father leads her to turn down Rosmer’s marriage proposal. Similarly, it is guilt that drives her to suicide. In the play, the White Horse, which represents Rosmer’s guilt towards his late wife Beata, parallels Rebecca displaying guilt over her father through crocheting a white shawl. Since she functions out of her unconscious by holding on to the deceased Dr. West, she shows guilt through an act called “illustrative action.” In addition, she juxtaposes Dr. West and Beata through visual language that further emphasizes her hidden guilt. Through a dialogue with Brendel, the act of sacrificing one’s ideals is also linked to her past of sacrificing her life for Dr. West. Her speech, which comes across as ambiguous, eventually leads to Rosmer assuming that they should get married. It is also evident that Kroll’s words triggered Rebecca’s emotional reaction towards her father, leading to a confession. In this instance, Rebecca’s unconscious is revealed through associative thinking. This is evident through Rebecca’s confession, which recounts her life with Dr. West, associating him with an intention to confess about causing Beata’s suicide. Furthermore, Ibsen’s use of the word ‘corpse’ expresses Rebecca’s and Rosmer’s guilt about both Dr. West and Beata. Toward the end, Brendel’s metaphorical words “to sacrifice” pushes a guilt-ridden Rebecca to make a sacrifice for her father. She ends up committing suicide to make up for the wrongdoings against her father. As a result of perceiving another character’s words, Rebecca’s unconscious is triggered, leading to her own death in Rosmersholm.

—Vivien Oye

Annotated Bibliography of Criticism

Pharand, Michel. “Iconoclasts of Social Reform: Eugène Brieux and Bernard Shaw.” Shaw 8 (1988): 97–109. Web. 22 November 2015.

Pharand’s article compares and contrasts Eugène Brieux with George Bernard Shaw, two didactic playwrights whom the author regards as ideologically similar but stylistically antithetical. He characterizes Brieux as a “now-forgotten and, in retrospect, mediocre French dramatist” (98) whose preferred literary mode was the “thesis-play” (98), a genre disdained by Shaw. Pharand notes, however, that because Brieux and Shaw shared so many political views—feminist, socialist, sex-positive—Shaw was inclined to admire Brieux’s work, hence his oft-quoted statement that Brieux was “incomparably the greatest writer France has produced since Molière” (98).

To Pharand, the central difference between Brieux and Shaw is one of characterization: where Shaw wrote richly complex individuals, Brieux never transcended broad archetypes. To illustrate this, Pharand briefly discusses Blanchette, asserting (uncited) that Brieux actually wrote three endings to the play, such that the “two-dimensional” (100) heroine alternately ends up as “a prostitute, a corpse in the Seine, or the wife of a local boor” (100). By contrast, Shaw’s women have agency; he never reduces them to mere victims of circumstance.

Pharand identifies several other areas in which Brieux and Shaw diverge, including their views on family structure (Brieux’s was more conservative), their attitudes toward religion (Shaw was more skeptical of it), and their use of wit and humor (or lack thereof, in Brieux’s work). Pharand concludes that while Brieux and Shaw were “intellectual soul mates” (104), the former was a sociologist, the latter a psychologist, and this fundamental difference accounts for Shaw’s enduring popularity and Brieux’s obscurity today.

—Frankie Thomas

Rowland, Durbin. “A Realistic Comedy as a Textbook in French.” The School Review 32

(1924): 469-70. Print.

In this review for The School Review, Durbin Rowland considers Blanchette and other plays such as Le Gendre de Monsieur Poirier and L’Abbé Constantin positive contributions to American high school and college students’ studies of French literature. Through reading these plays, Rowland expects students will believe that the French are mostly made up of people of high social status and wealth. Rowland feels that plays showing the French being “made up largely of people of title, the landed gentry, beaming curés, and flunkeys” are misleading. Therefore, he provides many French plays for reference in order to illustrate that not all French literature is about people with high social status and wealth. This allows his readers to research other French plays similar to Blanchette, which is about a family that possesses little to no social status. He then mentions a play called France, Her People and Her Spirit by Laurence Jerrold as the epitome of a play that Rowland feels shows the true colors of the French nation.

Blanchette, according to Rowland, will be an adventure for the reader. Like many plays by Eugène Brieux, this play proves to be more realistic to the average family trying make a living in the middle-class world. Rowland feels the play will hold the readers’ appeal until the last scene. Rowland closes by thanking the publishers of Blanchette. The play is important in providing “the American student a better understanding of French society as a whole.”

— Porschia Rolle

Scheifley, William. “The Déclassé.” Brieux and Contemporary French Society. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1917. Print.

The play Blanchette by Brieux serves as a critique about lack of upward class mobility in French society. Scheifley’s book, Brieux and Contemporary French Society, uses Brieux’s plays to show how the peasant class and the government are at a disagreement. Chapter four, “The Déclassé,” looks closely at the situation between the two. Blanchette’s story is one that is becoming more common as peasants try to elevate their class through the educating of their children. According to Scheifly, Brieux points out that although the peasant class feels entitled to better positions in life because of their hard work, French society is not ready for the elevation of the peasant class: “They have been told that talent leads to everything, and they process talent. They have been told that social superiority follows intellectual superiority, and they are intellectually superior. But when they encounter the harsh realities of the world they find all positions taken” (86). Even though the peasant class is willing to send their children on the path to a brighter future, nothing is guaranteed. Most importantly, the guarantees they are seeking are already filled by those higher up in society, leaving their efforts wasted. Scheifley also notes that Blanchette’s family is not along among peasants to have this idea of social mobility; peasants must compete not only with the upper class, but also with those in their own class.

—Erica Small

Annotated Bibliography of Criticism

Whiting, George W. “Volpone, Herr Von Fuchs, and Les Heritiers Rabourdin.” PMLA 46 (1931): 605-7. Web. Web. 20 Nov. 2015. <http://www.jstor.org&gt;.

Whiting examines the similarities between Ben Jonson’s “Volpone” and two adaptations, Emile Zola’s “The Heirs of Rabourdin” and Ludwig Tieck’s “Herr von Fuchs”. Jonson’s main plot point of greedy heirs awaiting the protagonist’s death is used as the main storyline of “The Heirs of Rabourdin,” however, Zola makes certain modifications to the scenario and characters, and omits several of the sub-plots. Whiting holds Zola’s adaptation as superior to Jonson’s original in fleshing out natural and believable characters, saying that Jonson’s characterization did not accomplish much beyond carrying out the plot of the story. “Herr von Fuchs,” which preceded “The Heirs of Rabourdin,” left more of the original plot intact. Whiting states that Zola may have drawn more of his inspiration in his characterization of the protagonist from Tieck’s adaptation than the original. While there is not a single innocent character in “Volpone,” “Herr von Fuchs” takes a lighter tone and creates more innocent, sympathetic characters in the protagonist and his female accomplice. While the plot comes from Jonson, Zola’s Rabourdin and Charlotte very well may have been inspired by Tieck’s “Herr von Fuchs.”

—Danny C. Miller

Emile Zola’s The Heirs of Rabourdin is an English play that was influenced by Jonson’s Volpone. However, the influence was not on the essence of the play, but rather on some of its minor parts. Owing to major innovative elements of Zola’s play, the influence is barely recognized. George W. Whiting, in his article, “Volpone, Herr Von Fuchs, and Les Heritiers Rabourdin,” exposes not only the similarities between Emile Zola’s The Heirs of Rabourdin and Jonson’s Volpone but also the outstanding differences between both plays. The essential element of the “original” of the play that influenced Zola to make his adaptation of The Heirs of Rabourdin is the central theme. However, “the plot and the characters of Les Héritiers Rabourdin have only the most remote resemblance to those of Volpone” (Whiting 605). Zola altered the underplot of “Sir Politic, his wife, and Peregrine,” as well as innovated the main plot that is not in the least involved in the original play’s “mountebank scene, . . . attempted rape, and, consequently both court scenes” (Whiting 605).

In addition to these significant differences between the two plays, Zola highlights his emphasis on his characters and characterization due to their importance to the plot. The heirs are voracious and unthankful. Regarding Rabourdin’s wealth, it “exists only in the imagination of his would-be mercenary heirs,” due to his heirs’ consumption, unlike Volpone, who “has, of course, immense wealth.” Moreover, the main characters of both plays are relatively different with little in common except Rabourdin’s pretense of illness to trap his heirs’ avarice. Rabourdin is a more benevolent and good-natured character than Jonson’s protagonist. Furthermore, the character of Chapuzot, who is remotely similar to his prototype, Corbaccio, is very different in that “he is much more human and plausible than his original.” Additionally, there are many women characters in Zola’s play, unlike Johnson’s. Unlike Johnson’s “puppets,” Zola’s characters signify “a decided advance in naturalism and truth of characterizations;” such an element of the avant-garde renovates “the unique physiological and psychological attitude of personages” (606).

All in all, the two plays are slightly similar yet they are very different from in each other regarding their emphasis. The themes of both plays overlap, highlighting the influence and adaptation of Zola to Johnson’s Volpone. The plots and characterizations of both plays accentuate more their “remarkable contrasts than their similarities.”

—Mekdad Muthana

Annotated Bibliography

Davis, Tracy C. “The Independent Theatre Society’s Revolutionary Scheme for an Uncommercial Theater.” Theatre Journal 42 (1990): 447-54. JSTOR. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.

In “The Independent Theatre Society’s Revolutionary Scheme for an Uncommercial Theatre” Tracy C. Davis argues the fact that the Independent Theatre Society was not a commercial, capital, or competitive theater because it produced plays that other theaters at the time did not want or cared for. Davis mentions that various schemes for an uncommercial theater were proposed by many, including George Moore, who wrote The Strike at Arlingford, which was produced by the Independent Theatre Society. But it was Jacob Grein who was a manager for the Dutch East India Company and a part-time drama critic who accomplished this goal and in 1891. Grein’s proposal for the first of the five subscription seasons was implemented. Although Davis talks about the Independent Theater Society and how it came about with it founder Jacob Grein, most of her article talks mainly about Ibsen’s Ghosts which was the first play produced by the Independent Theatre Society. She mainly emphasizes the effects Ghost had on the overall image of the Independent Theatre Society. Davis explains that because of the sexual content, among other themes, in Ghosts, many thought that the Independent Theatre Society did nasty things and should be considered illegal. Despite the problems that the Independent Theatre Society faced, according to Davis it demonstrated “that an independent, free theater was intractable, and that organized and committed professionals and amateurs would give modernism a season” (454).

—Ramata Cisse

In Victorian London, plays required by law to obtain approval from the Lord Chamberlain before the could be produced. Prior to the establishment of the Independent Theatre Society, plays were highly censored. The Independent Theatre Society gave writers the freedom to experiment and perform daring plays. The Independent Theatre’s performance of Ibsen’s “Ghosts” and the lack of any repercussion from the Lord Chamberlain left many critics, like Clement Scott, frustrated due to the fact that they felt that the Independent Theatre Society “presented a threat to the very organizational stasis of theater production.”

The first production of “Ghosts” served as a test for the Independent Theatre Society and, according to Davis, this controversial play was key to the success of the theatre; however, it was not the subject of the play that was most offensive to the public, since the public had already been exposed to the subject in earlier writing. What was considered most offensive was the implicit political and class friction that play focused around. Apart from the socio-political issue brought up by the play, the fact that the play circumvented the traditional structures of the theatre, such as the traditional actor-manager system, and the typical approval of the Lord Chamberlain brought a lot of opposition to the play. Yet, ironically, the same issues that got play-goers talking about the play were what helped the Independent Theatre Society strive.

— Juan C. Hernandez

Davis, Tracy C., and Ellen Donkin, eds. Women and Playwriting in Nineteenth-century Britain. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1999. Print.

Women and Playwriting in Nineteenth-Century Britain, edited by Tracy C. Davis and Ella Donkin, contains essays that highlight the involvement of women as playwrights in Victorian theatre. The essays cover a variety of topics concerning the motivation, perception, and reception of women who wrote plays in this time period. Davis and Donkin establish that women wrote plays as a sort of social involvement. The collection highlights the disadvantages and inequalities in the field of theatre and examines how the playing field in playwriting mimicked real life, in that the involvement of women in the writing and production of these plays was as overlooked as women and their participation in society. An example of the focus of these essays is one by Donkin that discusses Mrs. Catherine Gore and the criticism of a play that won her the Haymarket prize for being the best comedy “illustrative of British manners.” Gore submitted her work anonymously, and when it was revealed to have been written by a woman it was received negatively by male critics—despite having won the award.

—Amy Dipre

Kelly, Katherine E. “Alan’s Wife: Mother Love and Theatrical Sociability in London of the 1890s.” Modernism/modernity 11 (2004): 539-560. Web.

Kelly’s article is an analysis of Alan’s Wife as a modern drama and its relevance to theater in London during the 1890s. The more fascinating and useful part of the article is when Kelly strays from analysis of the play and writes about its production in the second season of the Independent Theatre Society. We begin to see the ITS as a theater community that was able to work via underhanded sociability: “gentlemen’s agreements”(551) and the ability of women such as Elizabeth Robins to balance “befriending men and becoming intimate”(550) in order to achieve upward mobility and respectability in the non-commercial theatre. The ITS modeled itself after the “Free Theatre” (547) by rejecting “not only the aesthetics but also the funding mechanisms and managerial style of commercial theatres” (547). Controversial dramas were represented on the stage and the ITS also made sure not to manage itself as commercially licensed theaters did. As a result, public and private realms were often blurred when bringing about a production such as Alan’s Wife. Robins, while working on the production of her play, faced bigotry at the hands of William Archer, a man closely linked to the avant-garde artistic and socialist political parties and a man who could either help or destroy her career. Despite the ITS approaching many important and controversial social issues, women still faced gender limitations.

—Denise Conejo

Katherine E. Kelly’s “Alan’s Wife: Mother Love and Theatrical Sociability in London of the 1890s,” discusses the new meaning of “private” and “public” in the history of events that constitute London avant-garde sociability of that time, when the theatrical performance and its variants provided a “familiar and flexible” form for displaying the very social life (540). Particularly, Alan’s Wife (1893), a short play in three acts, authored in a secret collaboration between Florence Bell and Elizabeth Robins, offers a perfect example of how the avant-garde London theatre provided a staging ground for displaying and shaping modernist sociability. In fact, the play explores the gap between the family’s intimacy and motherhood, and the public sphere of law and commerce. Furthermore, Kelly illustrates the history behind Alan’s Wife, mainly its original author and the plot of the original story, and describes changes that were made by Florence Bell and Elizabeth Robins in order to adapt it for an English audience. The article continues to reveal information about the play’s production and publication. The author notes that the two co-writers struggled to complete the script due to William Archer’s constant criticism and editing. Moreover, a close friend of Archer, George Bernard Shaw, even suggested that Archer should have written Alan’s Wife himself. At last, the play was submitted to the Lord Chamberlain’s office for approval, and, by omitting its controversial scene, it was permitted to be performed. Even though it occupied a brief moment in the history of London new drama, Alan’s Wife nevertheless delivers striking evidence that theatrical productions functioned as “vehicles for modernist sociability” (554). The play’s story represents a conflict between the intimate sphere of motherhood and the instrumental realm of law, and, at the same time, its creation and production provide an indirect view of gender and class interactions among women and men of the London avant-garde.

—Lena Matos

Kelly, Katherine E. “Pandemic and Performance: Ibsen and the Outbreak of Modernism”.

South Central Review 25 (2008): 12–35. Web.

This article analyzes the influence of playwright Henrik Ibsen on both English theatre culture and its practices and traditions, and on the society of the city. Kelly argues that the negative reactions towards English productions of Ibsen’s plays caused a positive ripple-effect towards modernity in London society while the complex structure of his plays changed the ways that theater companies performed. Kelly argues that the “inward” and “outward” actions of characters in Ibsen’s plays broke away from the traditional narrative structure of the popular melodramas of the late-Victorian Era and necessitated a change in the way actors worked with each other as well as how they interpreted the texts for performance. The subtleties of Ibsen’s narrative required a study of all characters in the production, not simply that which each actor or actress him/herself would be playing. Kelly supports her argument with careful textual analysis of the London productions of Ghosts, A Doll’s House, and Rosmersholm and contextual analysis of the London society that would have been the audience and subject of the social commentary of these productions. Although many productions of Ibsen’s plays in London were the target of a great amount of public scrutiny and opposition, a counter-opposition developed, led, in part, by prominent “activist woman” who supported not only the performances of Ibsen’s work in London, but also pushed for the social reform that was the subject of many of his plays.

—Kaitlyn D’Agostino

Langbauer, Laurie. “Children And Theatre In Victorian Britain: ‘All Work, No Play’/The Nineteenth-Century Child And Consumer Culture.” Victorian Studies 51 (2009): 536-539. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.

Laurie Langbauer’s article highlights children’s theatrical appeal in the nineteenth century by providing a review of Anne Varty’s Children and Theatre in Victorian Britain. She outlines different views of Varty’s thesis that the cultural impact of the legislation for regulating child labor influenced playwriting and the subject matter of theater. Langbauer also notes the breadth of Varty’s argument, as the shifting social constructions of Victorian children and childhood provided a change in the responses to children’s death both on and off stage, and to child actors’ authenticity.

Langbauer also outlines shifts in social construction by referencing popular pantomimes, such as Lucy Clifford’s “The New Mother” and “Wooden Tony,” that exposed class inequities and childhood obscurity. Explaining Varty’s report that many didn’t believe that children authenticity as an actor. Langbauer further explains Varty’s reasoning about the recognition of child acting came from the new form of characterizing of children as being both innocent and monstrous after the legislation. Where she highlighted Varty’s report that characterizing both the purity and monstrosity of children although transient provided a chance for the considering of both the Victorian child actor and childhood because it shed light the child roles on stage and in society.

—Kashamire Jean-Baptiste

Moore George. “The Independent Theatre.” Times [London], Tuesday, 13 Oct.1891, 5.

This is an article addressed to the editor of The Times written by George Moore, in regards to the influence of the Independent Theatre Society on English drama. Moore describes the effect critical reviews of the Society’s first play, “Ghosts,” had on the Independent Theatre Society. The article goes on to note that the popularization of theatre had a negative effect on dramatic writing. The article provides information on the history of the Independent Theatre, detailed analyses of the plays it produced, and a description of its mission.

Moore goes on to explain how The Independent Theatre Society took the idea for this theater from Paris and Berlin, specifically the Théâtre Libre and the Freie Volks Buhne as they were very successful. His idea was to have a theater that did not focus on the popular culture, but instead on the quality and depth of the play itself. In England, though, Moore expresses that it will not be such an easy success, because England has dwelled in a slumber of dramatic writing for a while. Overall, this article places the Independent Theatre Society in the context of recent theater history in order to gain support for the Society.

— Samantha Gomez

Stokes, John. “Varieties of Performance at the Turn of the Century.” The Cambridge Companion to the Fin de Siècle, Ed. Gail Marshall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

In his article, “Varieties of Performance at the Turn of the Century” John Stokes argues that fin de siècle drama turned away from the premise of cultural theatre, which focused on the political and nationalistic motifs of Empire, instead focusing on issues reflecting the purpose of religion, the idealism of engaging with the future, and most importantly, the changing role of women. He examines the works of Henrik Ibsen, Oscar Wilde, and George Bernard Shaw as forerunners in these themes and notes that the three wrote social satire with women, who were often sexually or in some other way deviant, as the moral compasses. The thematic change that occurred during the fin de siècle, Stokes notes, created a performance by women and is reflected in the topos the theatre often borrowed from novels and short stories published between 1880 and 1910. He argues that these roles often allowed women to achieve an impressing degree of cultural autonomy by portraying the fallen and treacherous—the female outsider. Stokes claims that the phenomenon of the internationally successful actress, making a case study out of Sarah Bernhardt and more specifically her portrayal of Hamlet, aided in this. He argues that despite the critics of early feminism who argued that Bernhardt’s portrayal of the Danish prince was overly and wrongly educated, among other horrors, her performance crossed the line of the gender binaries commonly found in fin de siècle drama. Within Hamlet Bernhardt portrayed femininity as adaptability and masculinity as self-determination, but she used her femininity as a way to tap into Hamlet’s masculinity. Stokes argues this role and other similar roles portrayed by notable actresses of the time aided in taking the theatre from pure decadence into social progress.

—Olivia Blasi

Woodfield, James. “Ibsen, J.T. Grein and the Independent Theatre Society. ”English Theatre in Transition: 1881-1914. London: Croom Helm, 1984. Google Books. Web. https://books.google.com/books?id=ea8xFP0Z5Q4C&dq=independent+theatre+society+j.t+grein&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s

The chapter “Ibsen, J.T. Grein and the Independent Theatre” discusses the beginnings of the independent theatre in and its influence by Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen’s plays. In this particular period, English theater was not being received well by the middle and upper class audiences the plays attracted, for the conservative art that was once popular was losing its appeal. This was because in a sense, the elements of drama were overplayed but not necessarily progressing and evolving to meet the desires of its audiences. People wanted plays that were intellectually and socially more sophisticated than what was popular and being showcased. Ibsen’s plays, however, possessed the sophisticated artistic expression and commentary that was lacking in England, even though reviewers were generally appalled by their controversial subjects and the commentary that plays like Ghosts and A Doll’s House made about society. A Dutchman who was drawn into the world of theater, Jacob Thomas “J.T.” Grein, began the Independent Theatre Society in London in 1891. His goal for the Independent Theatre Society was “to stimulate the production of new, original English plays independent both of the censor and of commercial, profit-oriented management” (Woodfield 43). Grein and the Society’s focus was very much on the literary value of plays rather than their theatrical qualities, and this perhaps contributed to the Society’s ultimate failure (Woodfield 49). But the nature of the Independent Theatre Society’s membership-based organization allowed it to legally showcase plays that were at once disturbing and memorable and normally banned under English law, and this fulfilled its intention.

—Anais McAllister

Wearing, J. P. “The London West End Theatre in the 1890s.” Educational Theatre Journal 29 (1977): 320–32. Web.

This article covers many different aspects of the theater in the 1890s. It provides information on how many plays in a certain genre were produced, how many of the plays took place in certain time periods, and the seating capacity of theaters. It provides information on different authors of the time and the frequency with which their work was produced. This article tries to give a large overview of the plays of the time period instead of focusing on the most popular plays. Wearing explains that the plays that were mostly being produced sought to please the middle class and, thus, the middle class was controlling what was being produced in the commercial theaters because if the masses weren’t coming to the shows, there wouldn’t be money for the production. This article clarifies that the Independent Theatre Society and J. T. Grein were working toward plays that were more intellectually intriguing. Subscribers to the Independent Theatre Society helped shine a light to playwrights like Shaw and Ibsen who were struggling to gain a fan base in the beginning of the decade. The mainstream plays were so unimpressive that they actually gave a chance to the “experimental” pieces that the Independent Theatre Society were producing. The article concludes that these same patterns of commercial and experimental plays still occur today.

—Taynara Giandoso