SOCIAL 'FRGTBT m min .; " ..
189031915

 

THESIS marmarnmmzzgdm‘ A,

MICHIGANISTA’PE UNWERSETY . '

=mQ.-1\4A3vanmzwaay %
‘ 1:9 5 7: ‘

 

 

 

mrnc':
80cm mom-r nu can mm mm: 1099-1915

by no.” I. Mary

name: this ltmvuquMIE-
CI. of tho "vagrant” rotor- WQ 1090-1915 on the
hos-Lon “out”. and to cvaluu ch. “120' I contribu-
tion to that mu.

m M: (m can on have boon you“. no
In an ”no “harm ' a mu- Couocttan at m
Gaut mun tymettpto o! my mull!“ 91m: hov-
W. W m provide tho only avathblo talu-
Iouon on my plan which won write-n dung cu.- m.
‘0 10ml: :0qu. luv 10:): 21-» bu boon 0W
trauma and mom 1:: the any lock. and “but.
I.“ consonan- :- won :- tho Library's cupping 211-.
.00. um“. a «on «cum 0! «mum opinion I“ m-
1-1 btmamofl. “Inflation. Artie)... on m that“ in
the 1011.1” ”310410.10 nan boon and: m m. ~$
m. w. W. .114 th- Public. noon on
gum by mm mm um. Brando: new.
m In... I“ Coon- Jou um hav- hoon «111m.-
Wnpllu by mute. rho-u and any.“ Willa: hm
also he. and“.
ac} -.- lust-g tho “chm-Mutton the nodal rotor.

 

 

 

 

Thu-.00.”

low-oat woo totloctod 1n oottroo at tho utotoorooy which
Broom Iowa-d bod ptooootod doting tho nowtooo dooolo.
ntooooh ployo o! can typo totolood oooLo 2.11.1. o”.
no othot ouch-not“ tootoroo. tho button oottoo 1o-
’11.: toot loot on ooothlool proctlooo “tho: tooo hood
work mat oboot ootottol ouoooo.

no pMoot oovoooot woo oloo an.“ to fio to-
onottc Goo-Io o! aoooo lot-no. noroo'o otouoo o! tho Cool»
11¢. o! a. low Inglood ”ohm ottrootol too-M
o: '11.th noon lav-o1“. loll“ Gull“. Ind om: I.“
totonootoolo. no loco: ployo tonootoa tho ham 0!
loouh Ibooo ooo Hoary oooxoo.

“to tho out” of tho “union-hon“ Io: tb' -'
Mot ploy woo omlootod by tho wot ploy. m flqo ood
month oolodroooo dooiootod tho Anoucon thoott-o at“
an. A oootol ootuo by c1,“ titan ood o ouiool N,
by Doom no what «nuance hortooo topoxtoltoo to me
”to wooo too‘ooly oojot pootoot ployo at can on. n:

oqmunq 1a 1304 a. mum nflootod m
noun tototoot 1o oootol. rotoro. Off-om” tho D.-
woootwo Itogo loototy oodor tho loodoo'ohtp o! Junoo Iopp
odwoootod oodouoo oo tho col: ooluttao to hortoo'o olooo
plain-I. ‘ loo-tog tho rootindo: o! thto dooodo flopp'o too-

out. loopsoo ooottoool unoootol antenna. ”who to

“who to: tho Sociouot potty uongot tho oooooo on tho

 

 

 

 

M'om

mo: loot lido.

0o Irooavoy populo: ooiodroooo by Glorioo lioio ood
Goono Bzoodhont totiootod tho moron iotoroot io rolon.
Ioithor lioio'o Tho Lion out! tho lloooo no: Itoodhotot'o 322
loo cg tho loot oootoiood toy origiool idooo: thou wolo
oooooootol hoooooo oodiooooo out-o4 thot thoy woto tokoo
1m tho tindingo of Ido forboli ond Lincoln Itottooo.

no pool: room of protoot in tho Prooxoooivo Ito'o
thootro wot-o 1901—1310. During thio oto oooioiiotio ilooo
woto oo oo—oo oo tho otogo thot ono ooooorwotivo. Clowoiooo
lottott. wroto o no); for tho oopitoiioto. Dino by
Joooph lodiii 'ottotooo, quooo loitor. ood um.- mint
wot-o orioiool ooottihotiooo to tho protoot oovoooot. no:
poi-found otigiooi rooooroh ond druotiood thoir oopoo‘.

Although loyord Voino: one doorqo W
wtoto moot-u to dopiot tho hottlo oqoioot whito om.
looktohioowoooothodooliooottotiuo. oodthiowoooo-
tiootod in tho horioo'o thootto. Ihiio oritioioo or ooiot-
ioo inotitotiooo oootioood io plop ptodoood in tho stowio'
iittio thootxoo. thio ptotoot holoo'o to o tovoiotioooly
rothot thoo o roioto oovoooot. Pimrighto iiko Philip
honor. noyd Boil. John Rood, ond mono O'Iloiu rojootod
Mon oo iopoooibio. rhoit idooo bolwgod ooro to tho
poot-wot opirit of protoot thoo to tho Proomoiwo rotat-

Wto

 

. -‘:_‘.

 

:‘flmortholroorooommoomm'fi- ‘11,.

* R‘- rm“ .
- u. . 1

”animation-33mm" m. .=-:"
1 ”u t...‘.“a.. 1m? 3"

. 1:
none: .: . .. .e ‘9‘”
.' .*'u:}4;\‘1ii'c:‘ 3"“..w 0 I" . -o‘

- emu... nun. mm boo. mot-ooonoooufiou-i- ? 1'"
“(loom of tho Pmmwo.mwmg ' .1‘ I 72%}
old tho inflooooo of tho hm]. oo now”; P.
ion-ms. m1. thoo-o 1. «mm mm i'? 5353""

£3?th
ottiotio oorito of tho Aooriooo thootoooi do 1‘ db a- 3.1.9:»;

honintol otody oz tho toiotiooohio o! th m1. 'k‘ghfl m 1; .
“A... ‘ “£2: ° 7 ?

Monmttothooooriooo mmmwmt 4 2&1

lllnopot'pooootthiootaolw 1......”qu 51-.

I? w." .-
tho Droorouiwoo oo tho thootoo. .0 u m “on“ L:,,\

“"1““ m en um- um». -- rkiii’-,1¢
7- Tho oooon thootmo human on W". ya i. #3:;- I";

I... tho pth PM)‘ of tho DW “*m-ff’i ,. I
”too O‘loiil or on ((013 w M,z.~,m¥f 135‘

lot-it . .. ..
human 1- ' ”fix" .4: «41“

-oovo m W%W~t i§§\¥

O

. ._ ‘I ’
" (1“.

   

     

'- 1,.
: . to tho iott wing muwm d“ to)...” é°§~
' “ih‘, " r" J
. “tom oooio1 onoo a: 1% on, no! homo- “q “

{Wu to tho Wt of too Do. my
our- hioooaooo howo poid iitoio no“- boo-toot".

»- . cu:

WWFW'

5305

b
;

J~'L,i.-;U.L;=: ~a' 1m Q’Ju:

Countlooo oeulloo homo loo-xIlttlllriar1nullvihocri~
toll-no. o: no Prognouvo Mon-Wmvwmol,
4lma'uho Moll-oooo a! thoxno~.l«CirfifllrlluhllouloUUIlllnt
tour-ms. unto-thou 1o mum WNW
mono north at «to W Wat-«mo "on; not
Illumhlglil otn‘y ot’tlo»lolanmalufluupwot~¢ho IIUQIUIII'Ih»
“(on Mt ummnmmmwm
ilho1pur’ooo o! unto oinlw to tarilfllllllll!ml|‘IIHIIIIII{I‘i
to "mum on tho motto. noun-unto on Inu'o
“min“.- ho a» ”halmt. ~- .~. >5 P-Jirf-‘o

‘IIOWIIIIII'CIOItrithilt-I‘lliIHMIANIIIIQIDI'UUIIF'
In.“ tho Wampum W wanton-Mom
Incooo'mn: out outta-I «on.» ‘Wru‘w
4Illi0lillril’puiluldda'{lluunnllfl'llthull§llt&lflliltl.lllfi‘
-QIII«OoViHuuuooam:cul‘tho:lluknun4lsollh. {I‘lllllllfl1rlllllilt
Iinnni4ol-iho ’IUQIUIILVItIflNIGNIIII. borthnuunlflurclllnlnul
‘Ufliiflliihtft‘Illj'fifllflflflflllwt‘filo all-nullrwdhtltlll»Ilriub tho
lolosqo.oooloa.¢uulu|¢ut EGDICII:Ifliy-IIIII'lllfllblllflllflh
«lilullplqro*hovo stool. toast-oaamvnmlltuII1INIcumlaloiluoo
Illflndulitttlttlbiflui4flU'IllilllMBlE!‘fiII¥IIMINlI"llllhrdlllv
’IlllilflllfltlillulIII'IIIMMMIltflttllllflllllt‘cll{Iblplflflllliiill'l
‘lflflttouuihlnuny‘thllrynnflull. A"

(Lt-D

 

 

sum it to trio thot tho notional-onto! tho
W» on woo ohuootoruod by ouhploto. canto to-
uot. and otho: We “mazw mum-u.
Mo 01 Ito-ooh loam :- tho “toot-Mah- m-
oon thootxo boon to ”float tho oooto1 athl- «M
n toot. o goofing o: tho Boo m flooo‘. mayo-1.5.x:- -
ooggooto thot ootoo tun mono). «loot-o ottoman».
tom]. otto: tho muons Io: Muflono‘onosdt-
u dull. GIL. port“ that “d actual-mm.

Ihilo it to .100 tub “I. I“ ““1...qu
1.10 hon on: Coop intent into tho ,0“t1oo1.»oo~k. old
oouo1 m o! thto no. tho moth“ olive-um
tight, to Woo too-W non-moo WWI.
wauqooo who nod ooooptoh1o huhou nothou hot quo-
tlouohlo othloo to oohtovo notoriomuo cool. which into
not 13 tho M110 totoroot. looouo ho mood typtool hoot-
oooo nothodo, ho ooh ho uttomuotod In. tho mt.“
ummmmmulmmummum
thootroo. “to: tho turn of tho cotton. unto“ “to
chorloo xloln ond Ooorgo Itoodhmt dxo-ottood tho roton
hott1o ogolhot huotaooo 1n£1uonoo on gown-out. Iovorol.
pmo hotvoon 1907-1910 con ho ooh-Loom ottgthol coutu-
huttooo to tho protoot oovooont. Joooph M11 Pottotooo.
logooo loltox. ond unun nut-wot not out and rohod La

(1.11)

 

 

tho out. not: oxpoooo woro ptoduood Ln tho thootto o!
thto oro.

Although no “no moxoh1o to m :31- onto".
thoro 1o mun-u ovtdoooo thot‘v-tho‘. m «manu-
oooo‘tho xoton m.- W ottooooortootthootu
“In mutual oopoouzo to plan at.» mun-woo (dot-
min-unau- oq 'hoVo“unM70~1thooW‘to
mt loan onuootoo. lho “oooolw-mwm
an to many um m «Mammohwm
M1034 uottott wroto o “91’ to dotoooo o1 oopitouon
moh woo W [h— ”... onto-o “WWW
moo and that tron-tints mum-Wm to:
W "on: by somoltoto'. fhotoot'o ouo M
duo—tint tho out-o4 tholr pmo hot Wt)“ ”out-

“‘1'” w. r- '. ',‘= .43 ~ 22.” it»: Wilma’uh t-r,
. r u 2;. ; ,..,. -. ,._,:. . ._ _. .. ”I." ”39...".93
.o- .. ’ -31; C-J‘itfit?
3*..‘21393' L
wt": $.1-

“x 9" ?' £11.58

(1')

 

 

I on portiouiotiy indohtod to mtoooot Gil-u
Ootrohdor who ooporviood tho writing of thio thooio out.
ottotod my worthwhilo omootioho. 'lhohho oio too “oioo
to Doolooooo me- man. on «gum tho hood to:
ohoh o otody ood ohooo oxitioioo hoo hooh hoot ‘hoip'to'i;
tooo. ' . “PAM? .

I ootohd grototu thooho to: \oo'oiot'ohoo to tho ' Si
uhrotioho ohd otolfo o! tho Michigoh Itoto Oii’voroitr
Lihrory, oopooioily to tho Intorhihoozf “Lbivioiup
tho ’irihootoh (Minnie: Lihroxy. «Mon: a M. ion-l
hoot “may who Dodo tho thootro ooiiootion ovoiiohio to
no: tho Bow tort m1io hihrory. oopooiouy tool. Hoyt:-
ohd tho otott ot tho thootro Ooimtion ot Lincoln Canton

tho hotgoro Uninroity hihrozr: tho “unity of Doohoyi-

a '1
1...”

ml
‘ .

vohio Libra-y; tho low York Btoto Iiotorioo1 Iooioty hi-
hrory: ohd tho rohiooht Inotitnto Libra-y. which oootoiho
tho hood Bohoo1 co11ootioh.

(V)

 

I.
.u.
111.

W.
V.

Wo o o o o o o v o o o o o 3"" i'-'oit"%"~i

<14‘

-'-'"I :—

Imam

o o o o oOoo‘o‘} we‘ve i‘of‘oty" '

(

8001“ PM”! All) “In! I. m ‘1
Mo o o o o 0'. o o o 0"o I‘VO‘M‘S'Uohh-“oig 1

mmmmmm DWI}. "W‘s-5'
mwnmummormm. I!

v" ' 1 fit-"‘)rr}':~ an;
“I 31" 0' ”I W“ ”In.
1’.‘nl’.‘ o o o o o .-. . .;‘4. 3’57t5C:.l$h;ohg“

W“ m '9 W! Stu-”i. ‘ovfi 9991"" I1
“3“ mm, m... .M“*W'u‘ii’ o-"7‘3£3iz*m
o*6~31§1

\a- 5

I ‘ ) .-* o

of. 3.“.1'

a.‘\ 4' \.:IC'“.'( 2.“ in-

k I": '4 ‘oLH .‘ («1‘- f: 3’11.

"i-J'."‘;&'!lb ’

i '.' "- ‘

 

cum I
m PW! MID BA?!” I! m oxm-umuu

During tho oiqhtooh-hihotioo Intorhotim Capr-
tight 1ogio1otion ohd puhiic ihtoroot in notion oitoo~
tiooo providod notivo dzmuoto with on opportunity to
ooouo loodorohih of tho motion otogo. Ions-.1 twat-o-
m Motion druotioto dooit with poiitiooi. Me.
too oooioi puhio-o. Buodwoy oudiohooo. howovot. iuiotod
‘thot tho thootro provido Wt. Ilimo, om tho hori-
«n dronotiot who oomht m dopict mioi pmbiuo W
conic roiiot. oohhioto. ond othor uhooto o: lunch touo.

‘ tho tint Morioon «notiot to too tho thootoo oo
o hodiuo of hutoot ogoihot tho mo: of big huoihooo m
Iuhooh loword.|thi1o hio ployo oohood notion oMiohooo.
thoy ihpiiod thot mothiooi prootiooo ood inch rothor thoo
was work 1.4 to notorioi ouooooo. not. during thio dooodo

.- ho'uotoo who.“ dronotiood lohot'o huhio-o. Chhr1oo loyt

dohiotod iifo in low York'o oiuo. ohd Chotioo noio iiioo-
tootod tho mm solos: hon-oat. oh tho 1owor oiooo oto'go
oiu huhiono woro and no hootquohd to: hoiodro-o.

rho putoot hon-out woo oioo rotiootod in tho oo-
hiiotio don-to of Jun lono. Iono oooght tooiioo rothor

(1)

A

(2)

than nosing ootioo. lio otolioo o! tho dooh “no: etio-
huiooo working-oh ottwootoo tho otuotioh dzmwo.
“up I‘m Gill-‘0 I. 0. two dothmlootoo il-
iho not-It Mt in tho “tun “ifificflnm
“i- “ tho flpohioh-hoxiooh lot. Jimiotio wot him
mint“ pntoot him‘ bolero tho muo— ltotoo'. ‘W
m a Spoil. ~ . r: w-w ‘1'... r :-,r.'
Although tho ootitoo o! m WICIwz—v
thio ooo o! oooioi tom“. “WWItw
I. iittio Ion thn o uiooo to: m4: WWfios
thootoowoo owoxidotoohfliots hmmtaoo
"in. at hittoo ouihoo wooo “out. -- MW...»
atlo woo o wooid o! moo-oat: Guiana-MW
ooo moo-woo. thothootro woo o-piooorwhouo'oofih-
howl-o oooid ho tomtooo. on tho who“. omtho
no. fliiiio- Ilihtor o: tho low took uihuho. hood hio tro-
noodooo iofluoo tom thoototoom... -' ;. gum-L:-

. Doohito mu. Iihtow'o min-.- “A'WQf
oiootioowoo-oooouoolohuootootholoooiooothootn.
tot-W Wt Wu: 1091. tho W
”dwmmm. mwflMQOW-
toooo-l-iiiu‘ooohoooothootogo. anm’utoum
ohoot ohohgoo in tho notion thootro. ‘

Doioo a nu W mm m u- dihih‘oi

 

(3)

photo: tho: oloptod "ouch out! Conan 91m» hem
aootoaooo. ano tho Iatoxaatloaal WWW
otgaoo. loos-Lou oaoa'oxo coon ho loops too” w»,
m- without paying mutton-.1 ho a WWW
o-o Ion noopuvo to moan. pmo outflowihctoao
Mm. ...-<19:

'lho Mop.» probl.‘ ploy had only on MM 13--
11mm on tho horicao thoatao. to My“ .oatro-
qoou-ood loo!- ova-anon douhod tho gin-y ”yon-m-
toot ouyo. any pnton'oo nolooralao with "Ito-hoof v
mu on! (moat tntonoho “V“C‘w‘ou l-ovor.
my an. “coho motion amount- hogan to rdoalMth
tho I“ nodal 9M1. Nd! hol It. mud two-m
looopoan oooial. «notion. thoo. althoofl m buo-
mu oojoct’od tho pooomoa ottho m oootal. cut-
Loo, thoy hogan to doptot donor pooh-o to not!“
'1”... . ,- -. ., ,. g M , . .. mm;

M W” W on!- ooro momm-
oo: my won traohly ohm.- .oohast wag;
Ioa'ooo. pooouood at tho that“ uhoo in Porto Calla.
3m, otttaotoo anthootaotto am. Wot halo-'-
Johoo hon“ that Mm hototoo'o pm of loopt-
mu halo. which portray“ uto in tho «and auto 0!

‘

 

1‘!th o. «nun. 0o: Itaoo. Vol. 1. ho run at

tho Cohtggz' (loo rm: W“ ”W-

 

(4)

"moo, dooorvod and: o! tho clout to: tho oootal tote:-
«oa-pxma mm m. m} a on oootho mu
luau. III-v Jun-y. an Mm aun to ”than:
nth Joh- Iloot. tho I“ Whoa: thozoaot... lotto“
uuWuuthhoMuo/twutho
"Ohm loarod that tho coo-oven“ minim -
mum to sum}

m muo'o daotro to ooo hookah oooaoo oat
hug ottaattooo on tho otago Woman-rd)...
mummmnthothootu.~u1~oodaoauo-
otloo Won tzoquootly hood ”out hooooo norm
202k “Giotto “to tho mm I"... in m -llI-r3
Me otudtoootthoaluo. cameo-m
ooototy ployo doptctod my a! tho ”I. loo-tum‘
a.” rich in an: hattla. lu- oootal ooooptaaoo.

.Xatoooot in boat. ooaaoo. aao “toot“ hot to
ho patoot ploy. hoot hortoaoo u thto m “a“ 4
m-hwlvoahouaupootuthohattlomm-
u no Loon.» m pm.»- loco mun-oh
to thto loooo just ao tho bourbon amnot had hooa.
mmMquv-uuoqmuum-
hon m1).- or m Iollaoy. u an mum no nude

fi “

 

1'Iomlooal comm. lot noatroo to: Old (law 1023:
to 'o W . 00.. m”0 Po

alow York mantle um: (horoattor I.Y.D.ll.)o
m: o 1 Do

 

(I)

or protoot which dooiaatod tho no. ‘ " ~_’-“‘.F‘:.“.

rho taro-cot barium Moo tumou- Broa-
ooh Inward. hio (trot oooooomi- play. W
3;! in mo ootirirod big huoiaoo'os- Wm ;
loo. Winthm, and m Boariottoa promo-hon use.
oiqhoooa-ninotioo. thou Iouoldwvlo tho.ollr(loildoilomilori-
ooh oroootiot. oioo rolatod to huhooo pm. A-tué

Iiho1lohy hoorioah orolooioto*lho~hoilooolnho hio
toototopo. Word Con to tho 'thooooo om moaroaoaao»
Milt. no '8. horn in Dotroit. vhoro hio lotion o
prooporouo nor-chant, had ohoo oorvoo o to. um Io-
oaooo of poor oyooight flavor! ohooooooo”pholotoo¥otoollci
roio and toruod to journolioo. oio traioioo‘aosodvoioor
out ao a ropertor on tho notroit ggo mop-rcwofm
m rum. and oovoral othor W.’ -- mm;

1‘ loom Mum can Woe‘mzosoooaovoho w:-
5.3.: thooo in tho notion mom soot nonunion“).-
it, can a iamito“oobjoot in tho-Imoh-thootro,=faao+ztho-:.
mu oyotoo too o popular tap“ in thotlhgiioh mama:

wfi‘w .3 i a v—V" 7, w w .R

1 3.)“; .5

Arthur Baboon Quinn. h lioto of tho horiooh
mm m- m cm: m» u m” .-
I My.“

hon:u Drona; «addu- 3151... on». a e... out)?
a raoo lortohoo. 'Iroaooh Mark-noon oi hoor-
on ”motion.” motto '1 (mt). no». r.- n.

aoramlor hatthovo. “M mmiatioofl In honori-
o 'v "V

W (loo tort: harion Drooo, um

 

(t)

lio playo did ouch to bring thio ohoht. Irho mg. for
mu. oot tho iaohioo to: W oightooo—aihotioo. -- . _ .

lo oritioioo o! oapitoiiot hoorioa vrittoojog, tho
thoatro may um dooooo coup-coo (M:.h.w:
221!- Iohiad a out o! onio roiiot and output; mar:
to aoooo tho ouioooo. Ioward ottoohod tho om ,‘m{w3
Wot. rho opooulotor woo portroyod ao iittlo ooro
thoo a cation look woo tho ohio! iolrodiootiohio -.;_~
ooooooo . hot hio oatorialiotio othioo with“, 1.081)”
oooioty. . . , . u.-

fraoitioooi loony niatioaohipo and roiioiooopm --
voiooo tort omitiood to tho pmoit o! wooith tattooi-
otrhdooihotod.hy tail Itroot othioo. notord'o.ioooioc
ohotoctor. Iliohoioo Vanoiotyho. taught hio ooa thooorgio
oflotho oortott «.11 an option on Iohraoka oat moor?
Xfiouooihq to wotos thot otoct.tooooroo. lonorzcoohioupow
no: it ioh't right. lqooooo tho mm. that hooiaooo.
o; .-.- 1 ooo tho ton atroot lohho aro buying Hohraoha ohd
lootooa my trooly. . . .4 ho o roouit at an ado-nun.
vaooiotxao. Jr.'o dooiro (or ooohooio powor tar oroooood my
mot loony tho you. on night hovo. Io oorai “who
mt“ Vaholotyho. Jr. tro- tryin to dootroy hit to-
thor’o lioaaoial panor'ohoo ho thought ho oooid hohotit

L

l“rho honriotta, in nu: Gotoo hauiho. hooricoh
taro (low 303E: Foo-icon hook CO” 1938): p. 413.

 

(7)

gm ‘.. ." t..- .-'4°.‘.4:‘L."7";.C‘.
Vonoiotyno'o qitto to hio silo lnrthor iiinotrotod
tho input of notorioiioh on thio mioty. Io govo hohoy
ond urqod hor to invoot in ouno portiouior otooh. tic-our.
Vonoiotyno' o oito mid not troot hor tuba-Ct ho oiroyo
triod to win but tho 'gitt' by who Ionipoiotiu at tho
an». ..
rho lonriotto oioo iiinotrotod tho iotinonoo at 1.
big buoinooo on «worn-oat. hiohoioo Vonoiotrho'o povor “ .
ourpooood thot ot Dnitod Itotoo Sutton: ho roooivod lo-
torototo Cn-oroo Motion hoporto hotoro thoy voro pro. ‘
oontod to tho “Into. A mnrootion hotroon tho titan-
oiorondhiooonrouoiod thotgovoruontonhoththo ....
ototo ond tho notion“. lovoi woo controuoa by mrtoi
hooinooo intorooto. Mord'o mtory on tho «toot 9!

Pi

”Momamtvuoiuiortothoooo-

Woumrymtuoyth
nag.

Vonoiotyno. Jr. 'hotior 0: mm, oritoo thot two
w roro denoting linoo o: roiiroodo.‘ 2'
Vonoiotyno. "toil hi- to boy th. hath. '
- V-oiotyoo. Jr. "tho iogioiotoro o! lovooo -"
Vonoiotyno. “lay thot. too.“
‘ . Voooiotyno. Jr. 'l'ho how Courtitution o: tho ototo --'
Voooiotyno. "Eon our ogotto to hovo it ma
_ ot onoo - oo-o oo Ilium."
Vonoiotyno. Jr. 'hoiiioton hoo boon minotod cor Con—-
qrooo in Konooo. thou vo otntrihtto
to hio oiootioo oxponooot'

 

(O)

- Voooiotno "ho. :oit unto-”7&1”.
. 1 L 'fiJlJ .
tho iopoot at ootorioiion on hoorioon roii.iooo

" QL-U. mefih.

ioodoro did not oooopo liowhrd'o ootiro. In :hio

nornio. ooroono on. Dr. hurry niitan prooahod chriotion
othiao ond ottoahod 'tho onivorooi otro..io in “hie: for
an world (arthno-coopooioiiy tho .rhvin. tondonoy mom
opoaoiotivo cabling." During tho roooindor of tho wooh
iiho hoot noohoro at hio can-grogotionfho ogoamtiotodrin‘hho
”otoah nor-hot. ‘ J . ,_-., a“

, iotoah hottio hotwoon Vonoiotrno ond hio ooh
aooorrodinthothirdoat. naththrowthoirootiroroooorooo
into tho hottio for omivol. 'i‘ho oct oonoiodod with tho
dooth at tho iooor, Vonoiotyno. Jr. “... dooth aaoorroo in

0
° F.

.WU-

'..:~‘t'

o otooh hrohoro aftico in o notnroiiotia ooono with tho
'tiah-tiak-tick' of tho otooh tiohor in tho hoohgrotnd

0“. pl '2' r“ 7 fi’ {t ‘1‘”: h

rho conclnoion woo not on ondoroooont of noxhort
lponoor'o oaoioi horwinion, in «Loki; tho tihuot oar-
Avivod: it woo on indiatnont o.oinot o oacioty whiahhod
”forgotton Chriotioo othioo ood ovon tho hooith o! ito nu-
horo in o wild rooh tor pronto. hithoo.h thio ondin.
r. artoznha

light howo boon onitohio for o itovon Crono ootoi a!
oi.htoon-ninotioo. it too not ouitohio tor tho hooriaon .,

 

. - ...,o

- . 1...»... IN. pp. 116-11.
2flaw-I'm We to m-

 

(fl

thootrotot thio out. ostoooth ootgooo.oooooootzriorohioo b“
thoropor'hooow'oooioo=woo rooohod to ootiol. tho pohiio.
W m “I W. wodmhdtm
noun «00.000. Ilroitioo too- thin moot.
duct-ht rovivoio o2 tho pioy' oodo lowoue {ionoioihytil- -~
ton-mot.1 Drondor mono-o ootoootooioooo no oootxo-
diotioorto'tho .oooroiir ooooptoo thoory thot tho oouhliio
ih.odvohoo of tho drolo in ito iovootiootiohoaiototooototy.
tho dot-o poooootod o piotoro o! hooriooo.iidoLoodwohohooih“
tor ohorpor in oooiioo thoo hod‘hooomoohiooodwhy-oo.coowoi-
“'0 who tho oothor “W4 1- rm
.looord'o toot-ooh pin. ooo toil-oodwh. ooooooooatsai
ioitotiooo. tho Ioii ltroot opoooiotoo oooo hooooo o
0'0‘OOtihOd'ohorootor. ‘oo ooooooi...ogog.’..5 .....,....
moo oorod nouo ohoot hio «on; no outta-gm
Nth rioto ooooohooo :otrhooio homo-ounce.“ 3t!
ICIOIo Ihtohoh iotriooto Illiphiohihno I. thoo... titl-
UOIII'OC that: hord‘oorooo loud-almondmuhdooogold«olpllli
ol.thoin4ooo.or*iohooitooooo. w., . ;a 33%
.lritoro o! pioyo ohoot‘ oooaiotoro tom Odor-5"“ ~
Mm-mnmoamm. tantamount-noon
oolo~ooooooo iorghgplooohoot oomdio.loorrwooy4c-oiotonwto»«n

H T.

1
dioo.ll.hoo .h «at tho
W mm.’ W

2lrondor Iotthowo. 'An hpprooiotioo.‘ to uooorioo.

 

'o ‘1o

 

(10)

o doiidod root. hot hoth Moo Imoooloword‘vo ohiiiti to
ootirioo tho opooniotor'o Mt od wooith. .- ..:-.:-

rho moor. prod-ad in it”. -~toiood 11-: -
m1 idooo. hot it did Wot. alonoh- My
whi. woo iotor to Ioho doom Iroodhuot thoo! Mo'o
'Oot uncouth]. M33“. tho mm'flhfilur.
pow-r o1 two o'ooniotio. tit-o oooioot .oooh afloromfio
..hottio toot piooo on tho mono Ioord 01:” oodooti-
oipotod M horrio' ooro oritiooi otod. odlhioooom-
iotoro. two otoah tiohoro wooo mood io “too-onion)
«umwmuw.m
i-o.o.o1 tho opoooiotor hod not boot in“ howoorotiii
portroyod oo on how” protit ooohoro

rrohohiy tho loot trot-thoo ottflt ot .ootdto
'hrio. thio dooodo woo Iydnoy meow-
-«~ooo1ouootthooiothhotioooiloohonddiowhiohhod
.00!!!“ o yoor ooriior on .tho.~oto.o. lowoo o hit too
'ofitio. hoojorohonotorwoooodontoiooh iihotho-
~:oopouooooooot o! tho Iowlorh cioorio. too-o. Juno 5
m ELI. Ito“: ”lot ooo It! I“ i- 3.0..v'mllro
c“ by oi.ht. whiio to tho Iojority on of 'i’irot Wt-
,ooo- tho oporotiono of tho tioorinohouoo oro oo oyotoriooo

 

‘low York Tina. hprii it. it”. p. u how tort
.a' W“. ’o ’o .

K.'

 

(11)

oo tho proooodin.o at tho Chiio.o o! Cordinoio ot”ihih."“”‘
rho ootiro or oppor oiooo woiood‘woo'onothir“idpo¥’
m to:- o: pmotoot to tao thootto of tho moon-ow.
m loword'o Ariotoorogx (1092) brought throo ionio
at tho idio rich into ooomotp tho 'oowiy' ...." u‘tdr‘
Pronoiooa. tho thiahorhoahoro or hot rot-t. on] torso-mt,
at turnpo. Boword‘o ootiro woo dooorihod'di"ot5tlhoo '3‘ ‘
hittor ond biting“ by tho how‘tart.liooo oritto.a' It‘s
ottoohod tho oooioi oobttiooo o: tho tony riot." two.-
iorly thooo.loohoro at thin aiooo‘who‘oooowrhuod‘thhfr‘“
doo.htor to marry i-poworiohoduooihoro of'tho“oooioi‘3fihh
to ‘ordor to foaiiitoto tho 'i'o-iiy'o oowao a... ‘hohiihy.
ton-bozo at tho woo taunt, out" Hot this
dhiirohio 'ootohoo' thon hoorioon oriotooroto.‘*lih3rif
none... .itio woro 'ioaty' onhodh to lorry mo 'tho lohii-
ity dorio. thio oooooo.‘ “hill“! (2.“ int-om W
ooogat m nootto mot and Joy Iotid'o mat-mitt.“
canto out do tootonoho. 'h‘lt ... to...“ “pt-loo" «hit.
tho ninth auto at horihorotoh. woo ooo.ht hr Into coiihohi“‘
Wut.’ laword'o ootiro hraovht ohart on otongo‘ 1t

 

A A_
v v r ,7 v ‘3?
, .. _ .-

w ark r _ Oatohor i, 1890. p. 6: I
19-!- com: ... M
1«on: r355 “not, W: 15. 1002. p. s.

 

 

(13)

thu. pronoun: bottom ounoooght soon: outoo thooooh
man. to 1mm minty. and ”It. WWW to
not mono om ugh-1: moot“ to .: thy magnum-
any.1 V . _. and». «L.
now-rd samur- WWW
um 01 how York'o uhtmoq. but luxun'o;w.. 3.4,,
mohotto: out“ to portnito at tho Mil-HF!“ with
tho mount at tho oootologzot. Butte» mum at
kill-on. tho noun. and tho 309:0. MYM.,M3}§¢oo1.L
ouch nooono taooqat mat 'to roouy “0.9590. ,thoo
thoutootpooplovhodoootmhtotoumt '2 m
anwhtumuowmmmml.
moron o: doom: amp- and th- emu-.9 9,! '24! W»
honoro ploood on tho otogo that-putt»! ”“9!” W31
”‘9‘ W “'"m m“:“‘ M19!“ 3.-..
. In We. 9mm» amount.
m: o: o than can onto to; my”, my»
”Mun at o otock bottlo. ho loot tho Ithoo “My;
W and uhohlo to an amp! htloouohonm mgfih
ago dough“: to tho ozooootooo ton. lho up. to too
otrooto to hoop thoo on». nonvol- tmt mung”
oootoa quota, one tho pout“- at tho out” M 999133

 

o - -.‘V.

1""). U.h.‘g. w, by 1,. 1"39 Do ‘o ,. .5:

’ ’- _~ ‘flmoo boot lovono “mm“ It“! ' 3..9.£22__1‘":
mu. ’o "’o . ' '

 

(I!)

nououootnooptotoo to tho an." mm; 1 mm tho
Although mu m Swot-to “that
Moo-o! 1m: olooo “to. on. W‘WM
tr mo oo‘od ooroly oo W 'Wflflrmm*
Coo-to. nooo oolodroooo oooo vottowioo two-do flou-
‘oinooo In tho ohoopor hooooo. “soy ’ofloooav’om'fi M
£0 fittiault prohlono. Although tho: won not protoot
ployo. thoy 414 out o lid. of ”flora “Mo W”
Indy oooplo would hovo ”loom to favour-”Ohm“
m in doom Bm‘o M‘o M1 d’MW‘o
ammo notuct ot'lov rook voo W. mutu-
‘1“ Coon. m dooortbod it! no Inf“ MI "W
on tootooo o: coo-ooo uoo tn oao otooo tooooooo and
ill“ tho 1111.!!! out!!! M £11.. ‘5. pl“. "w‘m "’
tho thou-noon“ Otho: noun: now 0!“ .1
onto: mun. hoooooa- nooooy oooooo, 3.6 mm»
1!!!” thou“! 600160 01-11.: M ICC-0f”. Ubd
tI,“"I!"-otl.oto who hepod to baht-hoot you“ “I‘m“
7mp‘iit during tho Whoa-aim“ mom».
may o 'oovioo to otttoot tenor olooo ooOtooooosv'i to I
I“? " it. bottlo m with! lid 10.08 woo ““2
Moroohjoot to tho lotto: olooo thoottoo. two “‘2‘
How 2 a uooo. Ootoho: 1. an. 9. u: loo root
AW'oaatmyoooooom'ogfi'ua. o. .' mm'

ahoot York 3&8: Johnny 1|. 1091. p. o.

 

 

(10

ohoopor hooooo ooldoo oat-thoo our boy moth.“
outs-oat ooo hodmoyod than to ootroooe Won-mm
ooooo. Ihtlo to opt“: thooo noun-tomato aflo—
tooo of tho no. only o loo-o! th-fiooltotoo'm
moo-non. no at thooo woo oun- ce MW 'm».~ez‘
Moro ploy mutt“ tho W.’ moo-
you to: tho oototy o1 hu-oqloyoooo vooooooo o oool oloo
ovoor tolloo to ooho nooooo motto lolhlo Iloo-ys-uxalvw
plouao cooouoo Momloooooao-W loco»
lotu- olooo opt-ton at tho ooopooy otooo moron-o-
tootoo. no noon oooo ooooo tattoo. mum-“he
W than oroto too ployo-ohooo who-pu-
luoootloo .ohlo hooodoo 3.12.5.5! “Ola WM
1.8. on! I. flood to 1090. ‘m hot W!“
hood hooolooooot pound. ooo ooooulo goo-mt at N
“no. hohoo oorvod oo o pogo to tho Mood-widow;
who; no yooro lotor. ohllo hold-o o olollo:
oooltloo to Ioohlooooo. Ihoooo’ otuotlo tolooto loo'ooz‘oe
hot-loot o-oooblo oootlhg not ooooool Ioojulo lotto“;

*7" j T

‘fify
.‘._ .

a» t.
'1... x x u... root-ton u mu 9. l0:
m WW. ’ ' M

 

amt" rho-oo, rho hint of

“bronco (loo
Ion a Chuloo' m‘o '

   

 

(l!)

tho-to too drown to oooolaovouooooolo ot’ouoool
ottlox which droolotoo to tho toooooottooooo-ot thorn Luw
loooo. portlnlorly. thoo tho toootol-‘oootoooloo'o’oooooh.
Dotlorootthomonlmfiomtotuoto Io
ploood hlo loooooh hot on tho boy'o hoot. tho ”.m-auw
our logo too hot o hloh my tho tot-'tooooooothuoo'
ohotldoro. to thoolrho'oo tom-Ma-thaoohotho
Oooorol 03!! "M rot ooh till thoo hot. m use.
too on» tortoototoo ot ooooool loam!" 4‘ 1. .~

Moo “not boo-o “to!” “It thou“
loot ot tho no o! m. 'mlo ho oh wanna.
oouoooo holoht you. hoool ooooooo cot-too “flux! x
tutor toollooo thoo hlo toooloooo othooouoonturm
toolo oopoolto thou noon-go. hlthoofi “I’m lotion
ozootoo to our ottloo. onto-o oou coho-o oooooootoo-
ottlhoo ioh you 'loooco olthoooh' out: My .ooo‘o ooo’
tho hobo: lorty'o condlloto tot oloxk of tho ottoolt to it.
hoolo. loooootho tintamymoo mm
tu- out-too} . 3w;
" Ibo-oo' “manhohlohhlttlthmoifi
m hood to lohoo. ooo oovoo proooooo. thoooq-to-
qoltooohonloootltoohoor. omhooo-oohoooo

._.‘__

5- No We v- 90.
‘1. m. m. op. sot-co.

 

(10

”lung olll olth o rod-hot otool toll lodo. “loll run .-
.ot tho oodloaoo} It too. at moo, tnootthloto W
wotthoooottootolhthothootn: Wm
‘10“ M Production at m L-oooolhlo. mt,- ..
Tho-n Coon hound tho lloltotlon o1 tho thootto:
'0; Itchy ulttoa with Clo: Ctooo. too poo-tom. ma-
ooold ooollr ho "and. tho ploy tllootootoo thotooo. tile
homon Mg htolhooo and tho ollltoxy m o: thoototomy
tho ploy'o loodln ohorooto: on tho otoolooot o! slut;
lath ottootoor won: on! o ooloool la tho loool ollltlo.
thlo connotation o! mot-o old ollltoxy ooooo.- thooh
oononllx motod vlthoot ouch ohvlooo tloo, on homo»
olttotlon oolculotod to ooooo lobar looooro. booms:
oodlonoo “only round to oooopt tho ploy'o otot. lull-
Coon. lh o tot-loot rolo. hotvoon tryout onnnooto to
Clogolohd on hoohlntoh. tho-to m tho than ploy oo
o torch: -
ht tho ploy'o oonlooloh 001ml '13qu lot-noon.
Whathoollltloontothootoootoqoolluotln
otolhon othlo “mutton-poor. hoooorlotoornno h
ooohototldhovo boon otron ootlro. moron dotooooohy
thotolooothlghoolnoowlththopooozotthootototo

1:. nan-u may I» m-

2‘o M. mm. "o ’1’-30o

 

 

(17)

"noon oppootttoo. hot on o “no tho unmanaugm
to do otth tho otonolo hotvooo oopttoh.-ohds~1obluomsm;za
otttho woo tootoooo by tho minun-‘M‘c-“Wf‘fi
hog-o W dolo'oho' LI ocdoo toms-om: Uhothoo o
noon 1on4 m or hto “1.1 .- e.<'.;..--.vo‘

loo um. M‘ out M. W W»
tho-o! o. oooot tout. u don-stood nzmmfihooooulho
ton-to . vol-o hot tho. hot-ooh onto-o o1. own it"-
glow thoy vooo tho roooht o1 Wool-ottomlmnl
“no min to ohoot tho ”it“ w-‘ ' ”--‘~.-‘.;:-xi;2 -.--

!ho plot of W :olotod tho ottnglo o! o
young idoouottoloototthotonottoooloma M...
honlnodoojoththth. monotonous-um”
um ood ottowtod to «uh an. an tho m;.‘k.~‘q=gfi._
voolthy toiood. tho you no ootohuohol o, MCI-8.;
w Ind. m1: o-Iodoh ”o: : iv ‘m! a:' mum or

low hlood voo'uoot M «an. stool—poo!
nus- Chuooo. moon- tho our“ tho Wm.
nooooot own-o hoooo on no: u, Ihon 3.300 ”than; ”1.9.5,.
my aunt-om onto-unchan- “WM“
0..) town. loootoo north o1 Chico”. volhod mm

3050- On Jun- 3‘. tho mum unm Moo hogoo .--~-- ~-
“ .‘T TV * ‘ * W AAA M" "1»:

13on to? ”no. loptnhoo 10. MN. 9. 10; IJJJH

Jam 2 p p p. o
W. W 1.6. nu. p. a.

 

 

(1”

hoyoott oc toil-oh oooo. h (on doyo iotoo httooooy Coooooi
limo Oiooy pooooodod moidoot Ciovolood to oood uoopo
ioto Chtoooo. lhio ioouoood tho violoooo: on My 5.
m Como woo ootiootod ot ”40,0003

low Mood woo fioot prodhood in tho toooo ot-oo-
phorootooityoodoroootioi ion. Ihotroio ooxtyiogtho
myooo you“ by oiioo 0! Min tooightooro oo ito why
ioto tho oity. rhootoogoooo voro ohiiood to ohov thoi:
ttohoto to potoolo oioog tho otxoot. lhiio voooi pohiio
optoioo no noioot tho otrihoro. Ihoooo' onti-hooioooo
onoo no "no: in chum}

lo Ioptoohoo. tho ploy opoood in tho quot otooo-
ohooo o! no tools. moo roootioo woo Motorohio. ood tho
ploy-too o “appointing m. hoido troo tho ooh: toohoi-
ooihloooooo‘ndoiothopooduotioo. thoptooo looodtho
ooiotioosoootioootol. l'orthorooto. loo root oritioo ho-
Mthotooto’iohtovhwooovozooovilthoootnot.
hoooooo-tho oo-opoxotivo town on potorooiiotio.’ tooth
Morn-n ooooiudod thot tho ploy hod toilod hoootoo tho
mono“ oo ouch ohout lobe: prohiooo in tho oovopopooo
ooithooooooiooo thot thoy moo tirod of tho ioooo, at

y W

-, r 1 I Ciogor. higoid'o hoorigo (Chiooooa Monk
w. ‘..5 g ,o l‘lo

1;. rho-u, loo-boom, pp. 339-40.

’hov root riooo. loptahor 16. 109‘. p. 2.

 

(1”

tho: on no not to hoot oooo ohoot tho Mootho
«no.1 I'hootoo ooooooo Chooioo taboo-noun“ lo
mood ohot &- you no ioi-ioo hooooooitwvoo om
oo tho oido o! Lohor. dlioh hot littlo onooh oo-oov not“;
“1%.: 5 ' .- .-..t.rr':. 2.3-2: ..:<5
loony on o: lhoooo' pioyo hod poiittoohooooh-oo.
hot ottoo tho loilloo ol loo-hm ho room-W
mo mm. lot Duh tho mm- “fi 1.-
opiood um Iotooo. thin out W,“ cl. 2mm
'ioto o tootm' hot hot iittho voodoo-ow. do“.
voito ooot'oor «no oo o poiitiooi pootoot ioooo. rot.
Moo rotoiood hio iotol'oot to tho'ot'hi. “wring“!
oooohiooouhr than moon '1 dooolr mummlm
nothing oiooo o1 tho oomtoy, to whiohl «thooohtl W.
ooo thou onhlooo oooooo or no oo too oo»: not!“
who“ on»! ho tohoootod oo o ooohoo ottooo ol thoio um-
ooh oohitiooi pom-.33: - no oioo oootioooon-hiooothootio-
tooooo io politioo. hithoooh ho oooiiooo m .3.)
on to: noxiy out: ouioo in out loohhotooo hum
m “to. loco]. m1. ho “It" ood “'u’mfl‘flrj
m. lo ooovod oo 'poooidoot of tho lam..-
oootiotioh. ooflhooooohooohodootthoooitooolohomoooi

_r_

 

1h. rho-ho. ”moo. 9. 3‘1.

1h. ”.4W. 9. “1.
3h. fhoooo. hoooohooooo. p. 131.

 

(1°)

oovopopo: who no priotod oomoi oioooioowooooho- hhoot
than oo- o ooiitioioo. to ootioooi “Manhunt Arne
(stood on otoooo oopportor o1 um. Wewmho
ooooododthooniootioootooyooothootootomts tl'ioo
mm: onpoioohooopoortooltiiooo. how
Iooooootio oootidoto to o loo root ooily. httoo tho oioo-
tioo. thooo woo oioo opoooiotioo thot tho pimxmu
ho oppoiotod Iioiotor to Ira-coo hot who. “-..Mmrmart
ooiiot. to Iloohintoo hr loorotooy moo. ho ooh ottoooitho
pooitioo ol oioiotot to ooioiu. lo hio iotorooototzlhfloo
min-o tho you} W”
lo othoo oooiooo ottooh on tho toooto ooouvoittoo
“in thio Iooolo. ltho trooto. hovovoo. woro o popoioo
oohjoot too ooiodrnoo. tho ooot ootohio of thooowom "M
alonoola'oom'o M o! looith, ohioh mom-own.
ohtotootio’o o! oovoooi non onpotitooo hy o oooot-toflt.
Wot tho troot pouoodod woohooo to ottooh ”at. m:
lotuoio'o oi: iioo tootoxy. Whoa thio toiiod to hioodhio
ootaolh'hooinoo. tho tout, oidod hr Iofliold'o 3&5”-
oooroooooooooo o no on Nottiou'o hook. Jolt oo looiioid
ooooooottootod with on 'oogoy ooh of dopooitoro oinoo'ior-W
toothoioooooy.‘ thiiip Iortoh. o you-q on o! ooooo “5
lov'o with tho hohkor'o doo'htor. mind with on ooprooo

fHT. '—
'\.<

1‘Coolno loot! Porn, “hognotoo rho-ho,“ Crooh loch
W; I. ”o 111-13.

 

 

(21’

woooo coming hut o oiiiion doiioro insult”: .
m1. too-trotto io 1m oto'oohooh mono-iv.
thoio oo-otitoro out o! huoioooo. tho-2y“ an no
iuootroto oooo o! tho ooooior oioouoqoiooodootm.
. no tho ”noun“ thoo not “to.“ W“
'0‘ “109.1 Mon to ooovioo. . .- x ..;..\.-.m:-,-.,
volitiooi dr-o Goring thio on “Ema-7mm
obviooo ootiro. loopito tho toot mom-count mt
wooo (may orittoo hr «notion whoholdiooh not,
poiitiooi oooorioooo. than” o1 ooomoioooo‘rozloooonthr
oooo. hot no ploy writtoo Goring this-ooh ooh“ ho ohoroo-
torioodooohoopool. ooooopiorouorooofiomw
proorootorrotooo. - - w l ”to.“
--tho ooot oooooootoi ooii-tiooi Ar-ozot nib...“ ooo
tho moor... m. min ...—a, ooo mad.» 5;“;
Mot Lloyd and It“, Ioooololo. um mm
on woito oo oooooooootoi ootiro oo hooioooo oothooomho woo
poi-only o oouohorotoooorioo thio «cu-.3 mono-o
orittoo W. o ootiro o! tho-oiotrioo We:
oooooooioo io ‘...o‘ to no oooo ooovoo oolooootorroo
luprooo Court Juotioo Colo-oh t. Chooo. ohd ho woo mm-

iootoooooroopoooootlorthoWlooom

 

‘Io'l k f .o m up 1.“. Po .O h 'azo'oo
I“ 2' .0 ’o o . , .

alion tort tiooo. Johoory 19, 1090. p. 12.

 

(31)

ytoro. lo woo tho hrothor of Hoary Doooroot Lloyd, whooo
oootroworoioi otooy o! tho tmto. looith'goioot fig:
wooith. ioliuooooo oooy 'rotooooro oorioo thio‘éooocl’? r???» ....
tho ooootoo orouooo oo gloot oootoooooors‘" amour
howooor. oouoot oo tho orootioo o! to. ooitioo ioworhhoo-
ooo ooooor. tho ioooioo ohorootor woo hoooo oorooootoo‘u-
trootoo o. ”It. o Drooooooiwo hot oot rooioolooootooklo.
looooo. tho plot iowoiwoo o ooootor'o otlooto'toroooooo
ooooooo o! o oioio. tho oioio groom ooopoooottoobloono
ohip ioot oorioo tho tor of 1012. to ooo ooooopthoooootor
ootorooo to hio oltioo ooo toio hio ooorotoryu
8'” not throo ooro moo for tho Ito-omoioh.

hoho o ooooroodu thot hoot ooooioo I oo to woto tor

ooo ooohio toot ouioo for loootor Coin“. no ooooito.

oootooo-houooo for ooootor uoiwiuo. on! ooo oourt

‘hotoowith o ooooooo tool tor ooootor Itor. mono“ firm.

ohout log-roiling! tho logo I roll to put through

- oooooo oioio would boiio our oow roilarood.a

north pioy on not trio. ohoot oo too to loo-rout”!
hoooworroltoo wiowiog tho ploy ooo oooqroooooo r-oohoo
.ot-ho ooo othor ooo'roooooo would "roioo tho Moo?“
oioioo- iooioiotioo io Cohort” tho out ooooioo ooo oohotoo

tohovo- it ooooootoo io o ooro oopooioot oohoor it tho

 

tcool». hohooo. to tiho ohd thio'hhoriooo Brno
(loohihgtohc Cotholio tort o oo o. 0) o_

Po -So
. ~ ’wiiiioo nu: Connolly. tho hito of trootoo l.
tint: 1031-1091 (Chiooooc nrowoo o loon. III”. 9. no.

 

 

(13)

stoma“

Chorioo Iloyt too hooo o- how .otooootico oowhofl o
oopootor. one o ooioooioto ooo:o!“o-ooioofomtiootvuhooooo~ho
mo to piorwritioo. lotthoio of iooropioiuaol W
I“... tho! Holy-ho tho‘ht. Wholcw
ion ooopioo idooo to oooo oohtto homo.z yhl two-ooitnhio
nioyo oopooooo opoo.hioot.ootioo. loooooooixrthoréioohooaoq
oioorir ooiiood.piotn1ooworthoioooo:tloo'oooofloooooooootoa
to o: loyt'o oioyo. h trig to Chiootowh. no for on on-
oooutiwo yorioooooooo'hotwooo it”. u'rmts'€r*-hma
hiohoo o rooooo whioh iootod until 1919.3 ..wm: ‘v'esx'nmt,

to g m otoor mu). ”Wow
”...“..W. .Iovorioh hoootorawoo Md'tc. .
togrotilrtho oooioi “tint othio “donut-.410”.
mt woooo. oodxhio putty douuhtor. . . .1;..Jo:hiorau
untrict thoro'woro 6.000 totoro. too-do: “swatch,
Wig ot o ooot oi ”0.000 poo-won. Coma.-
vqopoo .ioto-o poiitiooi ioooor. mcouingoiozouaoi to
otiiioo robot. whiohoy. hrihoor, out “ooh-oil... ammo tho
oh. who oooo into o mio with will ho'oro Mfggfifll.

W W 17. 1.90. p. O.

Wmto'thouioooomum :
m- moo gm Donotio, 1m! (Joouory, ,
"o " o

:3» ’Iuot. 'Chorioo loyt.‘ p. 1!. ~ 1

 

 

m:

an you}

loithor loyt'o otooo wiowo o! pohitioo oor‘hio
oyoiooi wiow o! tho poooio lotto-to “too-monot-
oiootioo- it tho poiitioo o: low M 1- lo «II-m
oiootod to tho ototo iooioiotoro to. tho Chooiootooflao-
toiot in it”. although thiowoooo-ony ~o ooo‘liou.
oiotriot. tort. o Doooorot, woo ro-oiootoo in it". Iorioo
tho tirot too! ho roooivod m ‘totoo to: ”1 it“
M u u.- m.’ ... m mus»: >

tho oooroot ont oooo to o hittor ooohoooohm w—r
h m roooo town. proouooo ion”. to 'WMom‘mo
o rootouoou owoor oiohtoo tho ototo'o. orohihitioo «tow-«w
Iiooo hooouiohotooy tho 07.000 lino. howoo oootoooooto
work it out ot- thioor'oooto poo- ooynor oiofi m. “tot-
thoooht tho iow oo oral oo tho moitiu. otm hot-no
loin! to provido w. ' Ihilh thooloy woo 1r”.
io-tohooory it”. loyttoohthomtomoon-
hooo lobby holoo'o tho low rap-oi:- ltoto mini-twos’

tho ooh. roto. opirit o! tho oiohtooo-oiootioo
woo tirot totiootoo in tho thootro by tho niotoiot 'w.

v w

 

' .xo {L355

lug! 19;): tmo, 'Doooohor it. me, p. 1). \

. 3o x on m 10. ion. p. 4. W,
I.“ -.o ' ’. ”.

’o.t.o.o.,-ooooo 2o. iota: . - W.-. ooroh

   
      

 

‘5

(I!)

M to annoy. ht”. tho m1!“ HIM):
Choxhoo non. o voodoo hon ooooo. ooo loath-59m m.
u- «u— at .... W W
thhodoooboooot mmmumuooo.-W
hoot: moat. old to nohh'o phor o mom
MWMthooolol-omdfiw
mot. - . a r316 man-5e.
thorn. “Mmomomohyoho-hvm .
m not... out o ho'uhottvo notation-too to». w
“.m. to tho oouqht at tho oooooooothou-
”Loom oouhoo to no oooohoohoo doophto tho anon-tun
in comm “thorns-hot too .oog tho mm
o; tho magnum} local
a“ ...» tho ohoyfio tho-o too on thou thot '1'. honor to“.
tho hod boon o loo toot thootto nonoqor for hoot: goon-u,
dooo to oo no Hoot bottom poodoothoh. m+tho
Mommtnhthohomcu-Lttoohodm.
muumaommmmucoumrmuu m»
m. “mountain-tannin. photo“
”on. polo for pro-cum, otorokooporo ond ohiopoto poll
"that”; moon: hoodhhooo for “tho hod proud-to tho

*—

 

1llow York “not. Johnny :3. 1095. p. 5: $230.!”

M 1W

 

attoho o! lot tort, ' ,. ad 1... - of
' u ‘ “A“ . ~ to . 3W“ -
m 0 31111. 0   9‘ “‘ ’ 3 C... 0 '0
". -Y. .

 

(’4

(1‘)

hottho uohoot quot whhoh thou W on: .6 WE’-
uthoo'h not. hot tattoo tho our,“ or am
know “woodcut“. tho mounts-nag .mtomho ooh-
hu'o o-ooo {or neon. which W.maonoooo~v
pooho. Iowhowo ooouod thot tho ploy doototoo tho roooht
“mucous-I. a. low m g “mm
ploy . . . dooho with o- ouhjoot with fir-thorW‘ loot
”unholy thoohr ooo M on ”to!”
oohtthooh Woo to on. ours? momma-ood-
g'o- Motto: hohtotod: 'lhto phoy to to‘ m}!
too-out, without or “to to tow Ion. nooofimflth
hoooh non-pm:- thot to no. ohutt ntoo thooomot o!
tho otorhoo whhd that to light (I. “foo-"Id” w
Ihoto'o oohoorooo oooo ho omhhoh Who
Mot- thooohto‘ 'uho M's “to: ohoyty fio “Mfl‘fi
2292.11 ooh-h: looowooo tho-m otoooto tiaflfm~52
m’oovoooot. It oootothoo no ooohyolo o8 tho-ooh“ o!
”marathon. ohottofloooooooohothoowtho
”1... In em.
whatnot roouootothothootroooroootooloot-
u, ooooooood with ooctol rotor-3 howowot. hoooooo thoy
ooooht to motohy oortwoy hooxtoon lilo, tho: hoouo ’-

vv— ww— W

1low too-h “not. Johoooy 30. It”. y. 10.
M4. tho I.r.D,5.-rooooooy ht. 1095. p. 17.

—,"x
,.

 

(fl)

imiwoc with poctootiooooo. noshooooo “sumo:
woo Joooo h. loo-o. lio doot oiotoooo ooloohohooomooo
not unto Inna Goi'lsolt'o otooioo at thouflhom
Iouo'o our! ottxoctoo intonocttohodoo omguwn
tho thootoo. . , . » ~~., 2- tv'\ ‘icxmr'l u.»
Joooo noroo woo horn io eohoouztochm My
ooht-oooootoo. homo woo iothoooooo h} thomwoioiooo com
loot-u toohooo no Ghoohoo Dot-win. Io woo o moo-um
with total no thootro looooor in I. Worm
ho .twiod ploywritiho; “to: woitioo Mom'o‘wrxm
W ood Rig Von liohho. ho ochhobcrotod with mu
Iohoooc ch o mum. loooto o! 4%} ,5:-
Iooho'ohowtohqwooooodiooloopowtooouatho
oohooroooo-o! on. coo. w. sou-o sumo-o9
hood ’io It“ hi“. woo o “loot“. ”but“ wolf
tho moot ct ooooooiwo drink on o ooh. I! Mh‘JICt-u
wthohoottwoooto-iotooooouooooo, W
ooohohhywcchdhowohooooioodooxhihhooriooooooho-o-u 1:0
to h." outing. which woo poooihho cohy hocoooo of thou;
doom oooooooo. Moot oppoooo tho how tort oritioo. Wad
“not“ by winioo tihtot, cppoood on coo-o which pro-
wohoo We}

1“cohort. J. ldworoo and Julio h. homo. Joooo h
It (or. loin-a mitts-it: o1 Ioioo moo, “CIT", x
lib ' o .

IIhoooo ooo homo. m. pp. 38-36.

 

(It)

- Although “12“” 25 wornoboLngo
to‘oootoo. it no ottooot~iotoihoooooheooo new oooi-
ooooo'. tuna-on» ocw‘ono “mo-commons". no
psoiood tho osooosl loco ottoo chooses. one mm
looooooigt ottohdodao Wampum-cow»
I-Iio toshooo ooo ooiot "too ought ”autonomic”
to'ol ooiog tho oooo thing on tho“- otooo'thotqoo ooolliooa
unno- ooo' mung tooo tho ohoot‘ mssénmomm
tooth” mlooo ncto obhouoo to loooo Mount-o
my old o honor Monolith. hotwooolloohooflwtbim
can, 2.1m“); , '. ~. ...-c. owzve'? no man...

"rho noon” oo-ooshooonwoo“ hocwo to. McMahon-a
ouo o populos ond soopoctod goo-t ot tho losoo'o hat.
Lotos ho‘oouniood tho otooooz'ct. o' «thin—thoo. ho “1'“.
too con own-on “m toowopl-ooqeuooo 'muooomoo
tto‘ trim! to “aux-oaocotho horny- hm cloud on:
thoooi'isototcsioo WWooW
too“ to tho «but at coon-vi “3‘ mica-ow to
sowioiono ch Driftigg 523st stood nosoo' o hotoo ohoyo “oi-

. m. -

W tho troll-tut in thoJioootiao o: ...qu 2m ...

W M tout, 2355,). a.

alto-11o Goo-hood. h too ct tho um- Icsdos (low
'0“! W1 "”’o ’9'] ”I '

3noon hon",- I-iio coo-g (hootioa voiwoooity
at Not too“. ”Oh: ,- o.

‘Iaoosdo ohd hosoo. l___o____soo. pp. 53-56.

 

fl”

ohoo oooottocoo tho oooiony ocoooiooo r'loooo tow 9*.
ootiwohy tho no.» foo. out-tho “MUG!“M'Q‘W
Iono'o hotos ohoyo coo ho tooooo to {loo-um»l ‘ " 2- -'-~'
gout rial”. lono'o hoot'ohoi. ouavooaooooé
toohiotio thoo W. thoo oo'oooooo'o tooid‘tflo
tho dr-o. lowouo omootod thot tho'roooosiooototo Mlow
tho oooooho o1 tooosoooo in loom. ood-"hiso’o'htn It
too-o thoio owo osodocooo.”2 hltoo'o toooOt"'ih’-‘-mt”‘1
loooochoootto. W woo W in tootooso
motoring ton on no: 4. 1091. oosiood nonhuman»
woo tho ant noon mono io ooooioo.“ t-lo‘ooooooof‘oo 'Ioo
in Mt“ lot on wooho withoot motto-Mo’btothor woo in
tho “u"; . , ,. ._ magma“
. «mu. tho-“Iato‘ofmo'oosl‘oodi as to“;
on oiluoo noon 'ooooixo.‘ mot tho-iorwoo'ooo-o-ttooofic
oioh ooooooo. v-AAoi-roohooo—ototiog hot to ohq-woflolfll—
tooootto that 'to wt. ”hoot-o ho hoooos Whom“?
oooosooo oy «mu ooo noon.‘ Photos chasm-ovu-

TfTfiY—‘ “1‘ w “'3 w" "' ' "7'“ i »." y. .I ‘7th
Julio h. Bosoo, 'ticgs icoh loto,’ so hcooo

fi-Othor ”Pg. oo. m. Into {loo-too 3
. a o o "lib-lilo ....--

3doshooo, h too of m ugh ooodos. o. ”o: "“3:
“‘1‘”. ”I“; Do o

’oooiooo. o a c! tho mono oooooo. p. on.
4

hoonolttooimho‘sioosiotodiohosohhoo‘
hsioh, " ~ ~ o ct lotusohioo in hosicoo fictions
"o ‘“."o ~

 

 

 

()0)

dsooo in tho agooos 'ho [pooh Iohioo Boo-oo';hoxoohholyito.
Icwohho dooooihoo tho ploy ooo ito aopoot to lootooo« tho»
ohor woo coo-oh ooo oioio. hot tsto ooo iotooiotibitb ’lits
osotoso. loohico. toiioich. oohoootoo,thois oooooooototitoo’
tooooit. . . toboooooooooonootoo-oouoouohoo-
otoo cohtiwotod ooooio oot..'1 lo «town..- Motor. tho
otitico diohihoo.tho piou...¢oo doocoihoo»it oo.Ptooronl-
too. nacho” . . . “word-u.“ Wofitootot
thot.losoowoioht.hottoo 'doooto.hio oooooioo tow-oitioom,
ooophhoto co contribution to tho hrooo.’3 tho ploy ottooot-
to only o (to iotohhoctooho: it hootod.£oto'tooho oohlmoto
ootoo thowos hohooo to tiooooo-tho outdootiooo -.'. Jn ~
Although Bout “not to: room.“ ootm
iotho ‘thootso, io-poivoto no to no. o mm
to: IO‘OIIh Io oupocotod.toroo io oooooooo oooochoo..ooo.ho
loot-ohm Woo“! “thoo-'10“ Io...-
Ilooo tho. Baotou Micah lochonioo Mon I-boo'o Illhw
join. on, ototo hintin- "too don't know tho but: “any“.
m you with Do unto opooto thoot “to mlohhow
not... who :- oohioo o dooooo so: poi-coma“

 

"Editcs'o Buoy." nfls'o Luau (haunt. 1091).
”o ‘7'-”0 . . .. "r

W In: 24. 1m: o. n.

figgggiloo m 1.. 13”. 'o Io
‘lgrmmn com» 3. 1093. p. a.

 

C 313

Ito Cinch. In: shits-09hr “‘L.P’..'“'”!!!!!LQEIESI
o oootioohtol ds-o iisot poodcod io inhuman.-
oosihod hostih W'o ottonot to grow sich thsoooh hood
opoculotico. Aidod by o locoi otooohoooos..nom.ho
tsiod to thoo hio ooocooot ton lo Ioiooioto om“
oowt. tho och-o toiloo, Ind tho-tuihyionwoowm
M Iottio‘o hocthoo Iothooioi oooo‘ilicoo‘ hho m-
ooy dobto oooooooo.io.eoo oiohy oooaoioooov 'IIIIIIW;VJ Lno
loono'o oioypoohohiywcoodcohwostotothooiooho-MJ
hot it woo wohl- oocoiwoo.

GoslooowoctomolorowhichoooccotoofloMu
homing thio docodo. but oototoo tom oosiotohyme:
“no pudding thoo. no on tha: Wan
onliohod in go- hsooo. lt woo lotto odwittoo oo total.

N: .r-Lillo'mhondwiihim Iooo Itwoiho mum.“ ot

ploy-outing. - odollo hod writtoo ouosouo ohost ccoodioo
which woso law 2h: m. but only. o tow hoo- M‘
bongo oo notouo production. “to: Iotoo ow“
ohccooo with soohi. on tho otooo. Iowohho dooidoo to“ in
tow o toll-longth dodotiootioo cl rho Iioo 3; gig brow
5-5222. ohd actor-produce Willioo Ctoho oopsooooo iotoxoot;
m Iootos oooiotod Idollo it tho oscjoct. thoo cont .
hoot iotoooot in tho oujoct. loo-ho oocoooogod thn toot-
thud. hanwos . whoa tho pscjoct woo cc-piotod , Bosoo

 

1tenuo- ohd Iosho. noroo. pp. 54-55.

 

(32)

olwiooo moiMroblo rowioion. nowollo woo ottondod: ho
W tho projoot. ond hio triondohip with Homo woo
“round."

Uoootthothootrooo ooodiuoo! protootogoioot'
pliticol. oooooolo. ond oociol condition ohowod o ooxhod
Coolioo in tho toll 0! ll”. 'l'ho notion thoottogaihc pub-
laio woo iotoxootod only in tho qwootion of Cuba impoun-
oooo. Dotwiotioo onpplohtod diooohtont in oudiohooo oo tho
Unitod ototoo hocooo involwod in tho 'Cuhon rowlhtioo. ood
woo ployo roploood protoot ployo on tho otogo.

rhootto oohoqou loud thot thoi: ottoodohoo liquoo
dooliood. hocouoo tho public woo woo intorootod in tho wor
thoo in tho thootmo. Andiooooo opploodod pottiotio mo:
-'!ho-ltow lpouglod Munoz." "ronkoo Doodlo,‘ ood “Dixio‘
wowo melon. hot ooot owaionooo :oopohdod Mowwohly to
“flooding- !hwow'h (.‘ioowgiofl'a

rho lint ploy which copitoliood on tho public'o in.
toroot in Coho woo button. It woo wwittoo by noon do:
Corloton. who hollowod thot duo-out not ogitotioo woo tho
propoo luotioo of tho otogo. Cowlotoo'o holed!” involwod

.5.

tLilo ohd hottowo o! willi- Boon lowo . och,
lildtod w .5 lodoy.
howoo I: Go... 1920). It. lowollo lotto: to hio oiotor hallo.
m 1. ll”. 9. u; Iowollo lotto: to floaty Jonoo. July ll.
13:. ”o’r“”' M1. 1““! u .o no €1.01”, hunt 2.
9 Po o

13d York flaoo, Roy l0, ll”. 9. 5.

 

(I!)

politiool ohioooooy io Ioohinotoo at o hill to plooo Coho:
owooo oo tho Itoo liot.1 5 ., t'huci‘w «mir-
A low omtho lotoo fig. whioh woorwoittoovh: “no

looo ooo Idio udio. woo voodoooo io‘lownioohuhlqthoxhooo-
(it o: tho cubo- oowolntiooooioo. Mill-roman!
tho can m woo «gum in WWII“) .5:-
lo tho loot oot 0! LOW nun tho“. g
oooolo oohiowoo poooo ooo W392,» '
donoo ohowt hooicoo wiotooioo m. on. .hooiooozrtho-
otoo. rho loo 0' Ioo'o Ion. whioh Wow hottlov
hodooo ohipo o! tho lloitoo Itotoo-Iowy ootthmmtm -
Ion. woo .oog tho ooow m-W‘MIo-fl Ihoothorohooom
woo oonolwdod. [o-oootrotiooo ot oilitooy‘oodoooa-ohol
We. . norm 3133-323 mm o! no ltd. Ihito. I“
9333 doootihoé tho oMiohoo'o roootioo to o ty’iool solo-
‘tfio ohout tho won

3223mm :...* mtzgnmm-m:

m, mumtz www.mm‘htn

powdo: thot woo hunt tho won plooood oo-od tho outi-

onoo, which hod owidontly ooodhlod in oopoctotioo of o
jolliliootioo on: tho Slog. ooo lihod tho ~110‘~~~

 

A_
W “iv 5.. *7. I-“
-

5.7.0.51” Iovoohoo 2, 1555. p. 15.

2W. ““210 ’5'", p. 1.. " 1’ T1313
W: octobot ll. 10”, p, 1.

 

(J4)

powder ond tho rottlo of omoll ormo.1

Humorouo othor molodromoo capitoliood on tho jinqoiot opiro

it. Tho Dawn of rroodom portrayed tho horoio ottorto o!

 

Amorioon ooldioro to oovo tho robolo in tho Boutioqo oom-
poign.2 Many votorono of San Juan Hill pnrtioipotod in o
oilitory opootoolo about thio hottlo, which iovolwod o hun-
drod.mon and o dooon horooo. Tho opootoolo oonoludod with o
potriotio opooch by o nook Colonol Roooowolt.J

The oiqhtoon-ninotioo oloood in tho oidot o! o
poriod or romantic oolodromo. during which protoot ioouoo
woro forgotten. Although only Auguotuo Thoooo undo o oori-
ouo otfort to plood tho rotorm.oouoo, tho troquont thootro-
qoor could View tho politic-l. ooonooio, and oociol problooo
of tho ago in ootiriool concdioo, rooliotio droooo,.ond oo

background for melodrama.

 

1New York Timon, April 26, 1898. p. 7: How York
Times, November—59, 1293. p. 6.

2Now York Times, September 13. 1893, p. 14: New York
Times, September 20. 1898, p. 14.

3

 

 

New York Tinoo, March 23. 1898, p. 7.

CHAPTER II

POST WAR ROMANTICISH AND 5OCIAL PROTEST! THE ANERICAN
THEATRE AT THE TURN 0? THE CENTURY
Pow protoot plays woro offered botwoen 1899-1904.
Whilo protost idoss dominotod tho theotro during tho ro-
oaindor of tho dccado, they woro unusual in tho thoatro in
this oro. Radical idcos woro suspoctn cno anarchist pro-
duction woo supproosod. Clydo Iitch did, howcvor, writo o
sstiro of Row York's oriotocrocy with romarkablo insight
into tho notorialistic values of social climbers. Goorgo
Ado's oatiro, Tho Sultan of Sulu, received considoroblo
occloio so o protost against American imperialioo in Asia.

Janos Horno'o lost play was Sagmparbor. Horne

 

contributod to tho proqrosoiwo movement both as a dramatist
and no a locturor. howovor, his efforts to popularioo
tooliotic dramo woro not successful. 0n the Broadway stngo
or this oro realism ooont graphic reproduction or familior
scones. Tho pOpulor ghetto plays of this era illustrated

thio. Chsrlos Kloin'o poPulor melodrama, The_§uctionoor,

 

hood ghetto conditions only no background motorial for
comody. Gimmicks ouch as machinery, mines, and slum oconoo
woro frequently omploycd in lower class theatres to attract

audiences, but social problems were rarely discussed on tho

(35)

(36)

lower class stage.

The Spanish-American War had a pronounced affect on
tho public, and hence a lingering influence on the theatre.
Long after the conflict had ended American victories were
re-onacted in popular melodramaa. The War also contributed
to a revival of romanticism; the public awed by the display
or American military power and the prestige of tho empire,
expected similar heroics on the stage. As a result, roman-
tic plays with swashbuckling heroes enjoyed a vogue during
this era.

The most outstanding American dramatist at the turn
of the century was Clyde Fitch. He dominated the American
stage as no one also ever has. He once had {our plays run-
ning on Broadway at the same time; two of them had opened
on the same night.1

Fitch was quite out of stay with the values of the
strenuous Ago. In an age which valued blustcring energy,
Fitch sot patterns for refined manners and taste. His
brownstone in the East Portico and his Italian country homo
exemplified his sound judgment by their elegant but not os-
tentatious decor. In contrast to the somber dress of the
period, Fitch wore bright blue suits, white gloves, fur

ovorcoats, and jeweled bracelets. In New York his clothes

 

1Morris, Postscript: to Yesterday, p. 172.

 

(37)

caused quite a stir as they had at Amherst and in high
school. His voico was so uncommonly high that oven in
ordinary conversation ho sounded liko a hysterical woman.
His portrayals of femalo roles in collogo productions were a
”sensation."1

Almost from his arrival in New York, Fitch travelod
in the upper echelons of society. “'1 live my life in a
mist of shams," he once wrote to William Dean Howells.2 He
never saw lite except as it was recorded in the society
pages of the newspapers and in his own plays. Tho problems
of tho lower classes Hero never noticed by the playwright
of tho aristocracy.

After 1900, Fitch's plays frequently satirised and
realistically portrayod conflicts between the newly rich and

tho aristocracy. He described Zhe Climbers, produced in

 

1901, as 'a picturo of contemporaneous life in flow York.“3

as advised other playwrights to write in a realistic manner
about things they understood.‘

Nearly ovary new York manager rejected The Climbers

 

 

1Wosloy B. Griswold, Hartford Courant, Septembor 16,
1934: Undated clipping in the’hew York PuLlic Library's
Theatro Collection (horoattor H.Y.P.L.): Baltimore Sun,
September 12, 1909.

2

 

 

Morris, goatscrigts to Yesterday, p. 175.
3

‘Clyds ritch, “The Play and the Public,” The Smart
Set, I? (hovesbor, 190‘), pp. 97-100.

Boston Herald, March 3, 1901.

 

(38)

because they feared the public would find the pley's Opening
scene ohjectional. The scene depicted the conclusion of a

society funeral. Nevertheless, the Climbers was popular.

 

and critics found it far superior to Bronson Rouard's Aria;
tocracx, which was revived soon after the production of
Fitch's play.1
In the opening scene Fitch unveiled the shans of
aristocratic New York with an insight no other American
dramatist of this era could.uatch. The scene revealed that
for the upper classes a funeral was merely another social
event. In a conversation with her three daughters Mrs.
aunter described the 'success' of her husband‘s funerals
“the whole thing over without a hitch. . . . Hy dear. it
was a great success! 'Everybody was there! . . . Jesse.
you've mortified me terribly todayo-that child hasn't shed a
tear. People'll think you didn't love your tather.’ Mrs.
Hunter's youngest daughter had done better, Clara had cried
buokstsful, but Clara had good reason to cry. Because of
her father's death, she could not have a coming-out party
that year. Hrs. Hunter. at least. could relieve her grist
by thoughts of 'her' social triumph. Even her husband, she
believed. would not have complained about the turnout:

 

1Montrose J. Moses and Virginia Carson. Cl do Pitch
and His Letters (Boston: Little, Brown. 8 Co.. 2‘),
p. 26: Richard Cordell. Representative Modern Plays (New
York: T. Nelson a Son, I§29). p. 465.

 

(39)

“well. you.know he always found fault with my garties being
too nixed. He wouldn't realise I couldn't throw over my old
set when I married into hie.~~not that I ever acknowledged I
was your father's inferior. l conuidered my family just as

good as his. only we were Presbyteriansl‘1

 

Only one incident had marred the occasion. Another
family had also used the funeral to further their social
ambitions:

are. Hunter. 'One thing I was furious about.--did you
see the Hitherspoons here at this house?‘

Clara. '1 did.“

Mrs. hunter. 'The ideal when I've never called on
them. They are the worst social pushers I

RHOWe.

Clara. ’Trying to make people think they are on
our visiting listl Using even a funeral
to get in!”

flies fiuth Hunter. sister of the deceased. represent-
ed the values of a less asterialistic era. She reproached
Mrs. Hunter for staging a social spectacle instead of a
proPer funeral. hrs. Hunter's problems were soon compounded
by the news that her husband had died penniless. Pressed by
his extravagant family and another costly coming-out party
scheduled in tho near future. Mr. Hunter had speculated in

the market. It proved a disastrous failure. Hrs. hunter

1
2

Cordell. godern Plays. 9. 405.

 

COtdellp Eodcrn Playg. ps ‘07e

 

(40)

feared that her daughters might have to work. or that they
night have to take in boarders. Both these alternatives
were abhorative to Mrs. Hunter: she had a better solution~-
an advantageous marriage. She had two eligible daughters.
and young Mr. Trotter was available. He was newly rich and
anxious to gain admission into society. Clara would he a
fine catch for Trotter.
The arrival of two young society women brought

about an interesting confrontation in which Pitch satirised
the crass commercialism of his own society. The two young
women visited the Hunters to offer sympathy and to profit
from the family's misfortune. The girls were well aware
that the Hunters had recently purchased dresses from Paris
which would be out of style before the family's period of
mourning was over. and they heped to buy the dresses at bar-
gain prices. Mrs. Hunter was anxious to sell the dresses.
but she haped to improve her financial situation as such as
possible by the transaction. The bargaining scene which
followed between expressions of sympathy was so impressive
that critics forgot the melodramatic conclusion to the drama
that followed. Howells praised the scene in The Atlantic:

A certain essence of new York had never been so perfect-

ly expressed. . . . The play is worth while if for

nothing but that scene, in which the incomparable world-

liness. the indecent hardness, breaking through at times

the shed of their decorums, at all times palpable under
them. represents these women the spirit of the most

(41)

commercialized society in the world.1

Other critics agreed: the New York Evening_6un’s reviewers

 

thought it “the most original, daring, and witty drama to

which the American stage has given birth to in many a long

day.“2 The New York American's critic found the play 'al-

 

nest vitriolic at times: so deeply does it burn under the
surface. Clyde Fitch wrote it with the confidence of feel-
ing that he knew exactly what he was writing about.”3

Fitch failed to sustain the realise of the first
act. The remainder of the play involved a nelodresatic
stock battle between hrs. Hunter's son-in-law. Richard
sterling. and the sharp operators of the market. this
battle between old wealth, Sterling, and the newly rich "all
street wissards could easily have been treated without asle-
dranatic overtones. he Fitch demonstrated, this was a
battle which Sterling could not win, for he did not even
understand the rules of the gene. he could not comprehend
how he could win $100,000 is one day and loss even more the
next. Fitch. however. unnecessarily complicated the plot by
turning Sterling into a thief, who speculated with fandly

funds. In a melodramatic conclusion, Sterling was forced to

 

1"The Recent Dramatic Season," No. hm.. CLXXII
(1901’s Po ‘75s

2
3

Egg York Evening Sun, January 16, 1901.

 

new York American, Hoveeher 15, 190‘.

 

(42)

admit his guilt.

George Ado was the only dramatist whoa. auocass
rivaled that of Clyde Pitch during this era. Although Ada
was a well established journalist and author of fables, he
laid not attempt a érama until 1901. Eis first drama, £233
§ultan or Sulu, was an unusually satirical musical comedy.
It was the only protest play of this ara which dealt.uith
foreign affairs.

The Sultan of Sulu was the result of a trip which
Ade mad. to the Philippinaa in 1900. American troops at
this time were encountering considerable difficulty in thair
efforts to assimilats the natives. The moat protracted
Opposition came from a group led by noguinaldo. At the out—
braak of the Epauisnnnmorican War, this group had revoltad
against Spanish rule. They claimed they had been pronisad
indopenéonco by the Americans, and they vigorously resisted
the imposition of Amorican rule.

fihils other groups of natives did not rasiat Amari-
cau control of the islands, they did object to the substitu-
tion of American laws and customs for native traditions.
Iron several frionés,1 who were in tho Philippinas to report
on the progress of the war. Ada heard the story of American

negotiations with an untamed Moro chieftain, the Sultan of

 

1George Ade, "Recalling the Early Tremors of a
Timarous Playwright,“ Tho P1ayors1_flow York, Tha County
Chairman.

(43)

Sulu. or Jclo. The Sultan was willing to be 'assinilsted'
and accept American laws. but he preferred to retain certain
customs of his own culture including polygamy and slavery.
Although Americans tended to think of both these customs as
especially barbaric. they wanted to avoid var. Ade thought
the efforts of "American civilisers to play ball with the
little brown brothers” would make an interesting tapic for

.‘tirOe 1

Ens Sultan of Sulu was the result.
The comedy began with the arrival of the American
Army on the Island of sulu. Sulu was the scene of continual
tribal warfare between the Sultan, who was the most powerful
chieftsn on the Island. and several tribes who refused to
acknowledge his rule. Through several victories the sultan
had captured several young semen: they had been forced to
become his wives. The American army was determined to civ-
ilise the island. They marched on to the stage singing the
philosophy of imperialism:
We haven’t the appearance, goodness knows,
0! plain commercial men:
Iron a hasty glance. you might suppose
we are fractions now and then.
But though we came in warlike guise
And battle-front arrayed,

It's all a business enterprise:
we're seeking foreign trade.

 

1Ado, 'Recalling,‘ The County Chairman.

(44)

We're as mdld as any turtle~dove
When we see the fire a-ccming.
Our thoughts are set on human love
When we hear the bullets humming,
we teach the native pepulation
what the golden rule is like.
And we scatter public education
On 'ev'ry blasted hike!
We want to assimilate. if we can
Our brother who is brown:
He love our dusky fellow-man
And we hate to hunt him down,
80. when we perforate his frame,
We want him to be good.
We shoot at bin to make him tame,
If he but understood.1
The Americans quickly instituted democratic reforms:
the sultan renounced his title and became Governor of the
Island. and four New England school-na’s were brought in by
the army to educate the natives. Democracy had both advan-
tages and disadvantages for the natives. The Governor de-
nanded protection from the attacks of Dottc Mordi, a rival
chief. which was granted by the army. However. because the
constitution followed the flag, the Governor was forced to
give up all but one of his wives. The captive wives might
continue to serve the Governor if they chose. but he was re~
quired to pay them union wages if they stayed. Later. the
Governor was sent to jail by the Americanized local court.
because he could not pay the alimony required by American

law to his seven captive wives. The Governor was later

 

1George Ade, The Sultan of Sulu (how York: R. s.
Russell, 1903). p. 12.

A

(‘5)

(road by the Supreme Court. which ruled that thie case in-
volved interference with native rule.

Ade did not believe that American culture could be
exported. Laeineee and the drinking of cocktaile, Ade pre-
dicted. would he the only laating effecte of American occu~
pation of the Philippines. Although Ade had eericue doubte
about American foreign policy. he did not vieh to he eerioue
or didactic.1

ghe Sultan of Sulu wee written ae an amusing nueical
comedy. but neither audiencce nor critic: coneidered the
play an ordinary nueical comedy. Audioncee ignored the
play'e einple plot and.muaic. but they enthueiaetically
applauded Ade'e witty commentary on American foreign policy.
One critic compared the author favorably to Arietophanoe.2

In Ade'e next play he deecrihed an election in a
email nidfleetern town. Deapite a trite euhplot. in.which
one candidate wae in love with the daughter of hie opponent.
hde'e character eketchee and hie deecription of a political
campaign have retained.much or their original vitality. and
the play hae been revived occasionally ae an example of

early twentieth century realiee in the theatre.

1'Gecrqa Ade Talke of Hie Stage Ideale,‘ Theatre. 1V
(November. 1904). pp. 287-88.

zflev York Tinee, December 2. 1902. p. 9: gov York
Tinee, January ll. 1963. p. 3‘.

(‘6)

Although ghc County Chairman was realistic, it was
not a protest play. In fact. except for :3a Sultan_of Bulg,
Ade's plays aimed at realistic and humorous portrayals of
the American Middle West. but not at social reform. he had
little interest in progressive reform.

Unlike either George Ade or Clyde Fitch. James Horne
advocated progressive ideas to reform American society. He
spent much of his apare time giving speeches on behalf of
the single tax. As a result herne's death in 1901 was felt
deeply by the Progressives. B. 0. Flower wrote of Horne:
“Almost to the day of his death he was ever ready to give

’1 In

his services freely for the cause of the single tax.
the first issue of The Single Tax Review, Henry George. Jr.
noted Herne'e services to the movement: ”he gave much time
and effort and was liberal with his purse for the new slav-
ery cause, and there are probably few large cities in the
United States where on some Sunday afternoon or evening, in
church or theatre, he has not discussed the great theme with
that exquisite blending of actor's art and prepagandist's
intensity which gave singular fascination to his elegance."2
Horne was not a radical in the theatre because he

condemned the upper classes; he ignored than. he was a

 

1'James A. Horne: Actor, Dramatist, and Man,“
Arena, XXVI (September. 1891). p. 287.

Z'Jamoe A. Horne,“ Single Tax Review, I, pp. 1-3.

 

(47)

radical because he sought to dignity labor “by his portraits
of the everyday life of the working class.“ It was not al-
ways beautiful, but Horne believed that art demanded truth.
Years later in Theatre Arts Fredrick Morton compared Herne's
approach to the problems of the lower class to that of
Clifford Odets:

It was even more disturbing to Berne's contenporiaa that
he wrote plays about the simple lives of lowly peeple:
New England farmers. seafaring men at home in Long
Island harbors, small tradesmen and their sons who
thought of going west as a "hazard of new fortunes'.

. . . There is little actual difference between Herne'e
lowly folk and those of Odets except a few labels.
Herne's men fight with the storms of nature on their
farms ind.their ships. and Odets' fight with the I.“
Chin. e

Kerne's last play was Seg_8arbor. It depicted life

 

in a small. fishing village on Long Island, where Horne main-
tained a summer home. It was more sentimental and more pop-
ular than gargaret Fleming or drifting hpert. Howells de-

scribed it as 'notquite believable.“2

Horne was already in
poor health as a result of a political campaign and his
direction of Israel Zangwill's Children of the Ghetto. when

Sag Harbor Opened in Boston. After a record run of thirteen

 

weeks in that city. Berna took the play to Chicago. where he

1Sheatre Arts, XXIV (December. 1940). pp. 899-900.

2Undated clipping in the Players' Collection,
fl.Y.P.L.p Sag Harbor Pilot, October 28, 1899, p. 1: Willie-
Dean dowel a, The Recentwbramatic Season,“ North American,
CLXXII (March. lSOl). p. 472. m“““

 

 

(48)

became too ill to continue.1

Playe about Ghetto problems enjoyed a brief vogue
during thie era. Few of these were written in a realistic
manner. In tact. the moat eucceeetul of the Ghetto pleye
treated eooial and economic problene of theee arena in a
humoroua manner. Hevertheleae, even the humoroue playe de-
picted the equalid conditione of life in the alums.

The meet elaborate production ot a Ghetto play wae
George Tyler'e preeentation of Ierael Zangvill'e Children of
E§° Ghetto. The leader in the.novenent toward realien in
the American theatre, Jamee Berna, who vee aleo a talented
actor, vae hired to direct a eter-etudded oaet. zanqwill
adwieed Tyler and Horne to utilise the New York Ghetto ae a
eource of background material. he a result. although the
play wee eat in London, it accurately depicted New York elun
conditione. nerne hired many entree trou.tne Ghetto for mob
ecenee and engaged a Yiddish interpreter to tranelate hie
directione.2

langwill'e play delineated differenoee between lib-
erale and coneervativee within the Jovian religion. Prob-

ably beceuee New York theatregoere had only a eupertioial

 

1

2Edwards and Horne, Horne, p. 1361 Letter from Sang-
will to George Tyler. April 55, 1899, George Tyler Collec-
tion, Princeton University.

Eduarde and Borne, Kerne, p. 147.

(49)

intereat in rcligioue and eocial problems, Children of the
933322 had only a brief run on Broadway.

Charlee Klein, who wee always keenly aware of the
epirit or the tines, wrote a popular Ghetto play in 1902.
The Auctioneer depicted typical Ghetto ecenee and charac-

 

tera, but it vae written an a comedy with no intellectual
diecueeion of religioue or eocial conditione.

Direct attacks on American inetitutiona were unpopu-
lar during thie era. No American dramatist except Horne ad-
vocated radical change in political, economic, or social in-
etitutione. After the aeeaeination or Preaident McKinley
radical ideae were auepect. even on the foreign etaqe. An

Anarchiet production of Senza Patria wae blocked by New York

 

{101100.
Genre Patria (Without a Country) was written by

 

Pietro Geri. an anarchist or international reputation.
Anarchiete or the new York area arranged for the production.
They rented a hall in the Bowery, hired a company or actore,.
and engaged the fleet Hoboken Band. The performance vae
echeduled for November 10. 1900, which was the thirteenth
annivereery of the hanging of the Chicago Anarchiete. The
proceede tron the performance were to go to the family or
Gaetano Breeci. Breeci. a eilkweaver from Patterson, New

Jereey, had aeeaeinated King Hubert of Italy in July.1

 

 

1new York Times, novombo: 11, 1900, p. 3. New York
Harald, Noveiber II. l§00, p. 7.

(50)

At raven-thirty the anarchists began to arrive at
the hall. They were surprised to find that a group of
policemen and plainclotheamen had occupied the building.

The law officers maintained that since the group had not ob-
tained a license, they could not hold the performance. A
group of several hundred angry anarchists gathered outside
the hall. Among than reportedly was Caetano Breaci'a fam~
ily.1 After a vehement exchange with the police, the group
adjourned to Mori and Lorenci'a Cafe on Beaker Street. At
the cafe a few apeechaa were given. One radical charged
that Consul General Branchi had persuaded the police to stop
the production. The meeting was brief: it was broken up by
the much hated police. 'Are we slaves. or is this a free
country?‘ asked one diagusted member of the group as they
disbanded.2

some of the more determined members of the

irate group-began another meeting at 228 Thompson Street.

 

1The flow York World's account, which differed con-
siderably from thoeevin the how York Times and New York
Herald, reported that Mrs. brébbl nan Lean intercepted by
the police on the way to the theatre and persuaded not to
attend.

 

 

2hew York Timon, November ll. 1500. p. 3: According
to the yew York worldTi more dramatic account, the anar-
chiete 53d already occupied the theatre when the police
arrived. Led by Sergeant Charles A. Place the police
marched into the theatre. The anarchists proved hostile.
In anawer to a police question the anarchists replied that
they had no leaders, and when the police ordered them to
leave the anarchists urged the band to begin playing. How~
ever. the authorities prevailed. They turned out the
lights, and the radicals decided to leave the hall.

 

(51)

but again they were pursued by the police. This time the
anarchist. diaparcod, but they threatened ravango.1
Molodramaa about alum problems offended no one.
They often dealt with the problems of the lower classes, but
because they did not suggost a plan for action, they were
not a threat to the existing order. Frequently they relied
on simple gimicks to attract audiences. new York landmarks,
factory scenes, mine tunnels were popular. The heroine of

Manda Banks' The City‘s Heart, for oxamyle, traveled from a

 

taahionablo Fifty Avenue apartment to the ”Blue Elephant”
and othor Bowery divaa.2 The operation of an iron works was
shown in gLHunan Slave. Miners at the bottom of a coal
shaft loaded cars and operated an elevator in Pennsylvania.3
The problems of the lower classes were the theme of
numerous moloéramaa by Scott fiarble and Theoaora Kramer.
Both were éaeply aware of the problems of alum-duallers, but
neither orpocted to use the drama to reform aociety. They
wrote for audiencos in the cheaper housea. Marble was aware
that Charla: Dickens‘ novels had brought about numoroua re-
forms, but he did not write to bring about reform. In 233

gaggotara of the Poor, Marble attacked the installment aya~

tom which resulted in prolonged hardships for many pqule

 

'lflew York Horalq, November 11, 1900, p. 7.

zfiew York Times, April 25, 1902, p. 9.

332w York Times, January 26, 1902, p. ll.

(52)

who were atruggling to escape poverty. However, Marblo'n
indignntion was limited: “I don't take my own plays serious-
ly. They are written to satisfy a certain class of theatrc'

1 ho

goers. I an content if they acccmglish tnis purpose,“
admittt’id.

Theodora Kramer's melodramatic portrait, The Road to

 

Ruin, described police ties with vice in much the same man-
ner of Lincoln Steffena' later exyosé:

It is teeming with gamblers galore and strewn with

ladies whom the programme calls “of the tenderloin‘ when

they are only wicked and ”desperate women“ when they arc

vary wicked. Whenever a policeman meets a lady “of the

tondarloin' he extracts a bill from her, if he meet. “a

desperate woman” the price in a roll of money.2

Leaders of the social protost movement roccived

little encouragcment from the theatre of this era, but they
rcmainad Optimistic. The theatre had played a vital role on
on intellectual level in societies of the past, prochSIivcl
were confident it would assume a similar position in tuturo

American society. Bellen rotter expressod the pregresnivc

viewpoint in The Arena:

 

We have a stage that Openly honors idle luxury and
the emptiness of the title and aristocracy: where aria-
tocracy means not what the word expresses; “the beat and
noblest," but merely the richest, anfl often the worst.
We have a staga where the workers have no place, where
the thinkers have no place, where notlc icoals have very

l"Scott. Earblc on Playwriting,‘ N.Y.D.Mt, fiarch 14,
1898, p. 2.

New York Tires, Ketch 25, 1?03, p. 9.

 

(53)

littlo part, but which is chiefly a faithful reflection
of the honor. the more sordid and artificial elements of
modern life. Before the stage of toéay lien one of the
grandest Opportunitiel over offered to humanity: that
it once more resume its ancient office, become again tho
educator of the peogle, the best friend of tn. proletar-
iat, remembering always that all hoya for art that does
not root on the elevation of the masses is a house built
on land--il basically unsound.1

Some critics did believo that the American theatre
was improving. Brunder Matthews noted that the Amarican
thantro still offered many French and German plays, but dur-
ing this era they were offered as translations. No longer
were Americans adapting foreign plays to American situa-

2 Despite this 'progresa' the theatre was infrequont~

tionl.
1y used as n medium of social criticism during this era.
Certainly there was no suggestion from the plays of this era
that two dramatists would in the naxt three years achievo

brilliant successes by utilizing the ideas of the muckrakerl

of tho Itago.

 

1"the Drama of the Twentieth Century,“ Arena, XXIII
(rebruary, 1900), p. 158.

Z'Tho Quastion of the American Theatre,‘ North
American, CLXXIV, pp. 305-408.

CHAPTER III
THE RISE OF THE MUCKRAKIHG MILODRAflA: 1904-1906

During this era the American theatre reflected rc-
newcd punlic interest in social reform. On Broadway the
protest novement was best reflected in Charles Klein's The

lion and the fiouse and George Broednurst's The Man of the

 

 

522E. While neither play contrinutcd any original ideas to
tno protest movement, both achieved considerable success be-
cause audioncun assumed these nolodramas were based on the
findings of Ida Tarball and Lincoln Steffens. Their popu-
larity illustrated the impact of the progressive movement on
the American theatre.

Older forms of protest were also employed curing
this era. Managers anxious to capitalize on tho oublic's
demand for reform improvised with adaptations of muckraking
novels and crude molodramau. Sons like $33_§£§ proved a
financial success, but none received critical success.

Louis Anspschar and Owen Davis wrote popular melodramas
which reflected tho reform movnmunt on the lowor class
stage, and numerous amateur productions dealt with social
and economic problems.

Off-Broaéway by 1904 the Progressive Stage Society

(54)

(55)

was producing socialist plays. This group, led by Julius
Happ, sought to win votes for the Socialist party in their
dramas about the problems of the working class. Although
Bopp's group attracted the support of numerous intellectuals
on the Lower East Side, they tacod continual financial dils
ticulties. This group's efforts mark the first attempt to

establish a theatre that would contribute to and not merely

 

535135; the Progressive movement.

In the eighteen-nineties audiences had applauded
satire directed at capitalists in the plays of Bronson
noward and Augustus Thomas. During this era, audiences be-
gan to look for something stronger in their protsst drums--
even outright propaganda. In 1894, Gerhart Eauptmann's 232
weavers had been banned in Newark: by the end of this decade
plays by Shaw and Ibsen, as well as nauptmann had been tre-
queatly been performed in American theatres, and an American
play had been banned in one German city. The years 1904-06
were a transition period. The transition can be seen in the

change in tone from The Pit in 1904 to The Lion and the

 

Mouse and The Man of the flour in 1906. The success of The

 

Pit depended upon a sensational scone rather than the power
of Rorris‘ attack on the speculators. The success of The

Lioniand the Mouse and the Han oi the “our depended upon the

fiww

 

 

public's assumption that both were taxed on the findings of
the nuckrakers .

(56)

The chief target of the protest plays during this
era was the power of big business to limit competition, dom-
inate labor. and influence all levels of government. Thea-
tregoers could choose among widely divergent forms of thea-
tre. The socialist-realism.of the Progressive Stage Society,
the journalistic mnckraking nelodramas of Broadway, and the
hackneyed.nelodranas of Third Avenue all echoed the public's
demand for reform.

The nuckraking melodrama, which evolved during this
period. was a combination of the European “problem play' and
the'knericsn determination to conclude a play with a “happy
andinq.‘ By the end of the decade the 'happy ending‘ barri-
er was broken, but during this era only the off-Broadway
Drcqressive stage Society dared to challenge the public's
Optimism. while most Americans believed that all was not
'right' in American society, they were convinced that wo-
nen's suffrage. a single tax. socialism, or Theodore Rooae-
volt would solve America's problem. While the theatre re-
flected the protest in American thought, it also echoed the
public’s belief that I'tns promise of American life' would be
fulfilled.

The two leading exponents of the muckraking melo-
drana were Charlea Klein and George Broadhurst. These
journalistedramatiats read New York newspapers and recorded

the battle for progreesiva reform in their plays. Both

(57)

Klein and Broadhurst*vere established dramatists. and both
had written plays about reform issues in the past. Klein's
Thegpistrict Attorney in 1895 had dealt with police corrup-
tion like that which the Lerow Committee had uncovered in
new York City. Broadhurst's ghe Speculator had dealt with
speculation on the Chicago grain market. During the
Spanish-Anarican War and the interval which followed Klein
had written historical and patriotic nelodranas. and Broad-
hurst had written a series of popular farces. When public
interest in reforn.waa awakened by journalists like Lincoln
Bteffans and Ida tarball, Klein and Broadhurst again turned
to refcns issues in their plays. While neither alein nor
Iroadhurst could be favorably compared as a social critic to
than or Galswcrthy, both were acclaimed as “theatrical ruck-
rakars“ by less sophisticated American audiences.

n... was born in London. where his family had inni-
grated from Russia. His father was an eminent musician: his
brother was music critic on the London Eiggg, Klein studied
law for a short time, but this had little influence on his
plays. He came to the United States as an actor, and during

the eighteen-nineties he turned to playwrightinq.1

Although
acne of his early nelodramas were successful, none had a run

comparable to that of The Lion and the Mouse.

 

 

1Ada Patterson, “Some Theories of Playwritinq by a
Playnaker,“ Theatre, VI (June. 1906). p. 158.

(53)

the Lion and the House began a run of two years in

 

November. 1905. G. I. Dillingham. publishers of a novel
based on the melodrama. estimated that twolnillion peOple
would see the play before the end of the 1905-06 season.1
Klein's royalties from road companies, stock productions.
and the Broadway run totaled sons 0500.000.2
In The Lion and the house Klein brought into con-

flict a young lady, who had written a nuckrahing novel. and
a powerful, business titan. The young lady was Shirley
Rossnore: her father was a famous judge, when the 'interests'
were trying to remove fro-.office. The commercial titan was
John B. Ryder: his power surpassed that of United States
Senators. Benjamin 0. Flower described him in the 55332:

The present day Croesus. the masterful mind. keen.

penetrating, brilliant, and resourceful on the in~

tellectual plane, but.ncrally blind. the character of

John Ryder has no equal in American literature.3

The plot illustrated the influence of a great trust

over the national government. When Judge Rossnore bought
some stock, John Ryder was able to arrange that the uncor-
ruptable judge was sent more stocks than he had purchased.
A congressional investigation followed, and John Ryder con-

trolled enough votes to insure the impeachment of the judge.

 

lrheatre, v1 (September. 1906). p. xvii.
2

3Benjamin 0. flower. 'Theatre for a Higher Civilisa-
tion,‘ Arena. XXXVII. p. 502.

N.Y.D.H.. Harch 9. 1895. p. 13.

(59)

Shirley Rossnore was able to enter the home of John
Ryder because the titan was interested in her novel which
had been published under a pseudonyn. Ryder persuaded her
to write his authorised bingraphy, but only because she
heped to find evidence to help her father among the business
leader's papers. Klein concluded the drama in typical melo-
dramatic fashion. When shirley failed to find anything to
help her father among Ryder's papers. she made a strong eno-
tional appeal. With the help of Hrs. Ryder, Shirley per-
suaded Ryder to save the judge. The commercial titan
emerged with his power unchecked, but he had been ”ration-
ally“ persuaded to use that power to save an honest nan.

Audiences and critics assumed that the play dealt
with the influence of the Standard Oil Corporation on the
national government._ A few critics noted that John Ryder
was dressed to look like 3. fl. Rogers. but.most believed
that Klein had put John D. Rockefeller and Ida Tarbell on
the stage. hark Sullivan. for example, described the play

.1

as 'a melodramatic portrayal of John D. Rockefeller. The

gay York_fiorld thought that Shirley Rossmore's arguments

seemed to come straight from hiss Tarbell‘s articles.a

 

1Mark O. sullivan. Pro-war America, Vol. 111: Our

Times (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1930). p. 461.

2New York World, November 21. 1905.

 

(50)

lnvariably critics compared the stage battle between re-
former and corporate power to the real battle that was tak-
ing place outside the theatre.

As a result of these comparisons the play'a reviews
suffered. Corporation leaders who exercised influence on
the national government were activated only by material con-
siderations. Viewed in this light Klein's melodramatic con-
clusion seemed impossible and as Charles Darnton remarked,
.l

'alnost farcical.

Klein insisted The Lion and the house was not in-

 

spired by Ida Tarbell's History_of standard Oil. It was, he
claimed, the result of a trip he had made to Washington on
behalf of the American dramatists' copyright bill. While
there, he had noticed that most or the Senate’s work was
done in committees, which were intluenced by big business.
Klein maintained that John Ryder represented any commercial

2

sagnate: he was not necessarily John D. Rockefeller. Host

reformers, however, were convinced that Klein had captured

the spirit of Miss Tarbell's articles, even it he had not

3

been inspired by them. Even socialist playwright Julius

 

1Charles Darnton, New York Eyening World, woven-
ber 21, 1905.

2has Patterson, 'Theories,‘ Theatre, V1, p. 158.

3B. 0. Flower, “Theatre for a Higher Civilization,‘
Arena, XXXVII, p. 502.

(61)

Ropp commended Klein's effort.1

Contrasted with the melodranas of the previous era
The Lion and the Mousg_vas an advance. Theatre historian
Barrett Clark thought that John Ryder was a nodern villain:
'Ilein's villain was not the old time suave stage villain,
but a more or less respected rich.men, the kind who until
the days of Lincoln Stations and Ida u. Tarbell was pointed

to es an ideal of successful manhood.‘2

Klein’s description
of the Congressional investigating committee hearing was
another improvement over previous melodranas. In their
testimony before the Committee, members 0! the trust did not
condemn the judge with treacherous lies as would have
occurred in earlier melodremes, they merely refused to
testify. By implying their own guilt they subtly condemned
the judge. The New York Times recognized the limitations on
the American dramatist and concluded that Klein had treated
'his subject courageously and in such a way that an under-
lying ethical purpose is most evident.‘3
Klein probably did not feel limited by the theatre
conventions or his ere. He disliked the pessimistic

approach taken by reelists, like Horne, in America. Shaw,

 

luew York Telegraph, September 23. 1901.

2Barrett Clerk end George Freedley, h fiieto of
HodernflDreme (New York: Appleton~Century 60., I917;, p. 10.

3

 

gee York T1393, November 21, 1905, p. 9.

(62)

Ibsen, and other European intellectuals were. he thought.
too much dominated by the ideas of hietrsche and Darwin.
while it was true that hypocrisy was everywhere, Klein pre-
ferred to believe that.aan was still an ethical creature.
he did admire Pinero, who, like Klein, had considerable
acting experience. This could sharpen one's dramatic in-
stinct which Klein thought was more important than intel-
lectual abilities in raking a successful dramatist.1

In ghe Daughters of Hen, produced in 1905. Klein
further explained his political ideas. The plutocrats, he
thought. contributed little to American society because they
were ruled by greed. The socialists, Klein thought, had
some constructive ideas for retora. tor this reason they
were gaining in strength. but Klein feared the movement
would be taken over by leaders who thought in terms of vio-
lent solutions to all social problems. Re preferred a mod-
erate course.

The Daughters of hen was a radical departure tree
Klein's usual.nelodramas. The characters in the play were
symbolic figures who represented various kinds of capital-
ists and labor leaders. The old entrepreneur spirit of an
older generation of capitalism was illustrated by Richard

nilbank. Bow retired. he was ambitious but not cruel.

 

~17

1Charles Klein, 'Religion, PhilosOphy, and the
Drama,“ Arena, XXXVII, pp. 492-93.

u‘)

(63)

natthew Crosby and James Thedtord were typical modern
commercial executives. They were only interested in making
money and avoiding bad publicity. Reqonald Crosby and his
wife Bella, a former movie star, exemplified the affluent,
ostentatious rich. They thoroughly enjoyed conspicuous con-
sumption. Matthew Crosby and James Thedford forced Regonald
of! the board or directors of the Milbank Company, because
of newspaper criticism.ot a breakfast given by Regonald and
his wife at which “he floated his great yacht in a miniature
lake of champagne.‘ Spectacles of this kind had been accept-
able during the eighteen-nineties, but in the twentieth cen-
tury business executives had learned adverse publicity could
quickly be turned into votes by Populiets or Socialists
candidates.

James durroes was a potentially dangerous leader
within the ranks of labor. he had enrolled anarchists.
Naffia senbers. and nihilists in the organisation, which he
hoped to use to obtain political power by violent means.

His lieutenants were Louis Stolbeck and Oscar Leckett.
Stolbeck was a big, burly, Bohemian type of German-American
Socialist: Lackett was the editor of a Socialist newspaper
which advocated violence. be had once printed the instruc-
tione for the manufacture of nitroglycerine in the news-
paper. (Klein may have been aware of a handbook printed by

Johann Most. Host had worked for a short time in a Jersey

(64)

City. New Jersey, explosive plant and then published the
manual in Preiheit, an Anarchist.weekly, which orplained the

 

manufacture and handling of home made bombs.)1 John stednan
could have been used as a model Progressive in Richard

Botstadter's ghe Age of Reform. fie wan a Weeterner. a

 

graduate of a state university (Wisconsin). and a victim of
'the status revolution.“ Stedman's father was a minister:
his grandfather was a state governor. He wiahed to marry
crace Crosby. When her family questioned his ability to
provide tor Grace, Stedman commented: "socially. . . .
Your father, Mr. Hilbank, sold hides and made tallowc~my

'2 his concern for

grandfather wae Governor of his state.
labor's grievances was genuine; yet, he retained the con-
servative's disdain for violence or radical political and
social change. Hie reforming seal wen directed at both
sides. As a typical middle close reformer he believed that
it the radicals on both sides could be balanced, the coder-
ates would redirect American democracy along the beat poe-

sible lines.

Instead of a.nelodramatic plot The Daughtern of Men

 

was a series of arguments which related to a bitter strike.

 

IBarbara w. Tuchman, The Proud Tower (New York:
”833111313; 1966): P0 809

ZCharleu Klein, The Daughters of Men (New York:
Small trench; 1917); p.15.

 

 

(65)

At the conclusion the strike was not settled, but Klein left
the audience with nape tor the future.

Despite the fact that Klein's plays suffered from a
lack of realism and perhaps a lack of sincerity, they did
represent a significant advance toward a theatre of more
effective social criticism. He did not analyze the complex
questions he raised. Klein was a journalist: his nuckraking
melodrama: accurately reported the issues of his day. For
this reason his plays were more significant to the historian
of the period than some of the better drama: of the day.

George Broadhurat was also born in England. His
mother hoped he would study for the clergy, but at sixteen
he joined his brother in the United States. His knowledge
of speculators was gained first hand as a clerk on the

1 Later he served as an advance

Chicago Board of Trade.
agent tor theatre companies touring the Midwest. Before go-
ing to San Francisco, where he managed the Bush Theatre,
Broadburst edited a newspaper in Grand Forks, North Dakota.
While ho was managing the Bush Theatre, Broadhurst met

Bronson Howard, who encouraged him to tinish his first play.

Hith the completion and success of The Speculator,

 

 

1Otheman Stevens, 'From Clerk to Playwright,“ Egg
fingeles Examiner, March 6, 1909: New York Timeg, February 1,
I952: New York‘ficview, Rovcmbcr 4, 1911, p. l; Cleveland
Loader, March §, 1913. “

 

 

 

 

(66)

Broadhurst became a full tine dramatist.1

hroadhurst’s The Man of the flour was as melodramatic

 

and as pepular as The Lion and the mouse. Klein's play
dealt with the national government: Broadhurst's play dealt
with local government, but the issue was tho sane-~businoss
influence on government.

Audiences and critics assumed that The Lion and tho
Eggs: was based on Ida Tarbell's articles on the Standard
Oil Corporation; The Man of the flour offered a wider choice.
The issue involved the granting of a streotcar franchise.
It related to separate battles fought by various rotornors
in cities all over America. Audioncos assumed the struggle
on the stage referred to the particular battle which they
had witnessed in their local government. Depending on the
city in which the play was offered, audiences were reminded
of Lincoln Stoitons' articles, or the reform battles fought
by Joseph Polk, aason Pingroo, Samuel Jonas, Tom Johnson, or
Judge Dunno.

Under the old systen.private companies wore grantod
a franchise to provide public services, such as water, gas,
or streetcar lines, for periods of fifty years or longs: by
local governments. The private companies sometimes paid

nothing to a city to obtain the franchise and could set

 

1Clipping marked Milwaukoo, Wisconsin, dated May 29,
1907: golunbus Journal, August 2, 1912.

(67}

their Own rates. Since profits were high under those
mon0901iea, many individuals were willing to pay to gain
these tranchisea. Charles T. Yerkes and others used bribery
to obtain and hold long term control of streetcar lines in
Chicago and other major cities. Once in control, an indi-
vidual could charge extravagant ratee and accumulate £abu~
loua wealth. Yerkes became the subject of two of rheodora

Dreiser's novels: Eta Financier (1912) and The Titan

 

 

(1914).
A valuable atreotcar franchise was at stake in The

53“ of the Hour. A battling young mayor fought to maintain

 

enough votes on the City Council to uphold his veto of a
corrupt franchise bill. The combined forces of a prominant
political boss and a railway magnate were allied against the
reform mayor.

The methods and policies of the political boss were
taken from fervor Tammany Hall boss Richard Croker. The
boss explained his methods to the railway magnate: "I don't
trust nobody. I write no letters, I sign no receipts, I
keep no accounts, I have no witneeces. It's my word and the
other tellcw's. I keep'mine and I see that he keeps his.

.n1

The bone argued that the mayor must sign the bill

 

1George Brondhurat, The Man of the Hour (New York:
Samuel French, 1916), p. 39.

 

(53)

out of gratitude to the men who made him. It eight lead to

charges of graft: but.
every man is a grafter. A lawyer will take a fee for
showing his client how he can break the law and evade
the punishment~~gra£tl Churches and Colleges accept
money they know has been obtained by fraud and oppres-
sion--gra£tl Rawspapers and magazines publish adver-
tisements they know to he takes and worse~~grafti A
railroad president accepts stock in a firm which ships
over his line-~gratti Senators become millionaires on
a salary of seventy-five hundred dollars a year—~9rafti
And so it goes, high and low, rich and poor-~they all
graft, in fact the can who doesn‘t graft hasn't the
chance or else he's a fool.

Alderman Phelan. a retired police commissioner and
the mayor's strongest supporter on the City Council. pro-
vided an interesting comparison to the political boss.
Phelan was elected because of his genuine concern for the
poor. He gave them turkeys at Christmas and picnics in sun-
ner. As many as 2,500, chiefly women and children. attended
a single picnic.

Critics blasted Broadhurst's conclusion and with
good reason. The bosses were defeated and in a reasonable
fashion, as it might have happened outside the theatre.
Broadhurst, however. perhaps to satisfy the galleries,
labored to find a way to put them into prison. The railway
nagnats's secretary was dramatically revealed to be the son
of a can ruined by the great financier. fie supplied the ev~

idence to convict the grafters.

 

1Broadhurst, Man of the Hour, p. 69.

 

(69)

The boss was also the target of criticism. “The
up to date boss was not the blustaring individual shown on
the stage. he belonged to an earlier era.” was a typical
comment eade by the goledo Times ag;.1

Like most audiences, the critics generally associ-

ated The Man or the hour with some local reforn.hattle. In

 

New York the critics were certain that the young mayor was
George B. HcClsllen, Jr. The issue was the Reason bill.
which the young mayor had signed.2
The Reason bill was a permit for the Consolidated
Gas Conpany to move a plant from Riverside Drive in Han-
hattan to Astoria in Queens. ,Mayor George McClellan signed
the bill, because he belieued that the plant made one of
new York's most attractive sections almost uninhabitable.
William.Randolph nearst and Joseph Pulitzer, who raroly
agreed on anything. both opposed the bill in their newse
papers. nevertheless, Governor Odell's representative,
Thomas 7. Ryan, had promised the flayor that the bill would
be signed by the Governor. After the Mayor had approved the
bill. Odell changed his mind and vetoed the measure. Later

one of Bose Murphy's lieutenants explained to the uayor that

 

:29lcdo Times Boo, January 19, 1908.

2Karl Decker, New York Mornin Toleoraoh, December
17. 190‘: New York herald, December 5, T906: N.Y.D.H.. De-
cember 15."1906. p. 2: New York Dramatic News, January 15.
1912. m*

 

(70)

the Tammany Boss had wanted the bill signed because Harry
Rogers of Standard Oil promised to carry Murphy's stock if
the bill was signed. The shocked Mayor asked: ”In other
words, do I understand that Murphy delivered me behind my
back?‘ The Mayor use reminded that Charley Murphy never
took an interest.in a bill unless he 'got something out of
1e.-1

George Washington Plunkitt explained the Remsen bill
was an example of honest gratt. The gas house was a nui-
sance: no voters in his district worked there. Its employ~
ees were all 'Dagoca' from New Jersey, and he owned preperty
in the neighborhood. The value of hie real estate would in-
crease by one hundred percent, if the gee plant were ro~
2

”was

The idea for The Man of the Hour resulted from the

 

reading of numerous newsyapcr articles about invastigations
of graft and corporate influences on government, and a
particular scandal which Broedhurut had witnessed first hand

in Pennsylvania. while visiting Harrisburg, Broadhurst saw

 

1Harold C. Syrett, The Gentleman and the Tiger: The
Autobiograghy of George B. McClellan, Jr. (Fulledolpnia:
Lippincott, 1956), pp:4f11-13: State ofvflew York, Public
Powers of Ecnjanin h. 06311, Jr.; Covarnor For 1903 (nibeny:
ones 3. Lyon Co., 1907), pp. 103-09.

2Hilliam L. Riordan, Plunkitt of Tammany Hall (New
York: E. P. Button, 1963). pp} 61-63. ' *“

 

 

 

(71)

a new state building. It was a magnificent building, but
open spaces on both sides of the door seemed odd. Broad-
hurst inquired and found that two bronze tablets which
liated architectai contractors, and others responsible for
the building belonged in theae spaces. The tablets wire
lying in the basement. becauae anyone found connected with
the building faced an indictment on charges of graft. Sev-
eral years later Broadhuret learned some of the can listed
on the tableta were in prison, but he did not know if the
tablets had been set in place.1

while The Man of the Hour waa no dramatic landmark,

 

it was another significant example of the influence of the
muckrakers on the American theatre. The public was eager to
see on the etage the same kind of reformer that it had sup~
ported in municipal elections. The author's royalties
totaled over $200,000. President Roosevelt. an infrequent
theatregoer during his term of office, attended a perfornr

ance in washington.2

3

Senator La Pollette publicly commended
the play. One Republican candidate for Congress hapcd to

capitalire on the play's popularity. He rented the Academy

 

1George Broadhurat, “now I Write a Play,“ Des Moines
Begiater, October 20, 1912.

2

 

 

New York American, January 21, 1908.

 

3Clipping dated February 27, 1907, u.Y.P.L.: New
York Times, February 23, 1907. p. 9.

 

(72)

of Music in Philadelphia and offered free tickets to pros-

1 The reforn.linded

pective voters to Broadhurst's play.
candidate was defeated despite this dramatic effort.
Managers were hard pressed to find plays about re-
form issues. They were anxious to capitalise on the public
interest in graft and corruption, but no play written during
this decade reflected the Progressive movement as effective-

ly as ghe Lion and the House or The Man of the_hour. Fre-

 

quently managers were forced to rely on plays which were
better auited to the theatre of the eighteen-nineties or on
low level melodrama. Sometimes they depended more on the
title than the play to attract protest minded audiences.

Plays like Fritz of Tammany Hall, A Square Deal, and

 

{he District Leader mirrored the protest of their ago only

 

because they involved political corruption and election
issues. trite of Tangany hall probably reminded older

theatregoers of Carlee Hoyt's plays. A Square Deal and The

 

Qigtrigt Leader dealt with rural politics in a manner not
unlike that used by George Ade, but neither contained the

realistic humor of The County Chairman.

 

Jay Hunt's ghe Master Workman was typical of a class

 

of plays which aimed at lower class audiences. It made no
attempt to portray in a realistic manner the struggle he~

tween capital and later. It was simply a display of union

 

1New York Telegraph, November 5, 1906.

 

(73)

power for the working classes to applaud. The foreman of a
mill was falsely accused of murder by the plant's general
manager and was sent to Sing Sing. but union power enabled
him to get out on bail. despite the fact that he had been
charged with murder and helped him to find the villain.1
While the plots of most melodranas in the lower

class theatres were as hackneyed as that of The Master‘Work~

 

man, occasionally a.nore realistic play was offered. Louis

Anspacher's ghgmgmbarrassment of niche; and Owen Davis' the

 

Power of Money, while not intended for intellectual audi-

 

ences, were more realistic presentations of the need for re-
form than.were usually seen on the lower class stage.
Neither play, however. compared favorably to the dramas
which Anspacher and Davis were to write during a later ere.
Anspacher did not preach reform: he illustrated the

problems of life in a settlement house. The New York Times

 

thought that his portrayal of a political boss was particu-

larly well drawn.2

Davis illustrated how a great trust
might steal the secret of a manufacturing technique fron.a
small company. While he did substitute violence for the
more subtle techniques usually employed by the great trusts,

the 'heart' interest, which even Klein and aroadhurst had

 

IEsYeDey'ie' septerjlier 28' 1906' I). 30

‘new York Times, Nay 15, 1906, p. 9.

 

(74)

rotainod, van ablcbt from Davia' melodrama. Violence uaa,
of oouroo, sometimes employed by the great truata. floaty
Dcmarcst Lloyd round a fine of fifty dollara was paid by
curtain individuala “for conspiracy to blow up an oil to-
tinory' in Buffalo, New York.1 However, the violence in 223

Power of Hanoi was met. direct. The hero was beaton and

 

nearly killed by men employed by the trust.

Titles taken from or similar to muckraking works
wort devices which were sometime» used to attract audiences.
No dranatiat could hope to convey the power or the plot of
The Pit or The Jungle on the stage. Yet, because of their
popular appeal, both woro dramatized during this era. The

aanaational findings at IE9 Junglg were no ill suited to tho

 

tbaatrc that not evon Upton Sinclair's appearanca on atage
could Iava the play.2 Sinclair wrote several other plays,
but no New York tboatro would produce them. Broadway audi-
oncca demanded more than gimmicks, sucxx as machines a1.d
cowl, in the protest plays of this era.

IEE_££E proved a financial success, dosPito Augustus

 

lfionry ficmarost Lloyd, Wealth Agoinst Commonwealth,
ed. Thomas C. Cochran (Lnglewood Cliffs, a. J.: Prontico~
Hall, 1903). p. 78. See alas-o, Ida as. Tarbell, The iiistoq
of Standard Oil (2 vols.) how York: McClure, Phillips an'
(0., 1934), II, Chapter 12.

 

 

 

5:-

cu York Tiwc3 February 7,1964, r. 9: how York
Tim es, October 4, 1306, p. 9; New York Teleoram, November 2,
I’ll? 6] NG‘!’ York TiT‘LflSS __' Get-abet 7' 130%, Do Jo

 

 

V1;

 

(75)

rbonas' warning that 'You can't dramatize descriptions oi

office buildings at night.'1

Tho play‘s success deponded
note on one sensational 'pit’ scone, and to [rank Borris'
reputation than to any of Horris' ideas as found in the
novel.

Probably the most obvious attampt by a theatre nan-

aqer to exploit interest in social and acononic problems was

 

g Case of Prenzisd Finance. The play involved a case at
nistaken identity and an invastmant o! “titty“ which was in-

2 this taro.

terpreted as fifty thousand by a stock brokar.
clearly had nothing in common with Thomas Lawson's nuck~
raking study, 'rrensied Finance,“ but public recognition of
the title night bring an audience eager to see the capital-
ist lampooned. In this case the emphasis on luck as the way
financiers obtained their wealth may have satisfied the pro-
test ninded audience, but this device quickly wore thin.
Audiences soon dsnanded that their dramas protest more vig~
orcusly against the rule by plutocracy.

Amateur productions offered broader Opportunity for
dramatic saperinantation. Dcapita innovations with tech-

niques ths amateurs also relied heavily on the theme of

 

._.,_ ‘—

1Channing Pollock, Harvest of fly Years (New York:
Hobbs-Horrill, Co., 1943), pp. 1§7~36. yew York Timon,
Hatch lo, 190‘, p. 9: Theatre, IV (march, 1904), pp. 57-58.

ZTheaggg V (Hay, 1905), pp. 109~101 N.Y.D.HL,
April 15, I905, p. 16: New York Timon, April 2, i905, iv,
P. 5e

 

 

 

(76)

concentrated financial power in American society.

Ann wynne's The Broken Barsinvoked the symbolism of
the medieval morality play to describe the battle between
capital and labor. The production was staged by the Ameri-
can Acadeny of Dramatic Arts. The principal characters were
rather Religion, nulti-nilliona, poverty, and sin. Only
Father Religion could save the modern world from destruction
by poverty and his horde. At the play's conclusion multi-
millions and poverty were nade to shake hands.1

While the medieval morality technique appealed to a
limited audience, a later production by the same organisa-

tion led to a Broadway run for Cora Maynard's The Measure of

 

flag. The play illustrated how a young inventor could quick-
ly become entangled in the corrupt world of tinance once he
sought tinancial hackers to market his idea. The play dealt
with an experience of Miss Nayard‘s father. Although
Augustus Thomas thought it was 'the greatest play ever writ-
ten by a wonan,‘ the critics agreed that Miss Kaynard's
knowledge of the business world was limited.2

William De Mille‘s realistic one-act play, The Land

 

lhew York Times, Hovomber 10, 1906, p. 9: New York
Times, November 17: p. 91 §L¥.D.M., NovemLer 24, 1563, p. 13.

2Clipping dated September 24, 1905, in the Grey
Locke Collection, N.Y.P.L.a New York Times, February 2,
1906, p. 11; Eiiladnlghia Telegraph, OCfEEer 5, 1906: Boston
Transcript, Octoner 4;fl1906.

 

 

 

(77)

of the tree, was another amateur production of this era.

 

The plot was taken from a newspaper story about the plight
ct an Italian immigrant for when “the Promise of American
Lite” proved to he a nightmare. Luigi worked tor three
years to save enough money to bring his wife and two chil-
dren to the United States. He earned only nine dollars a
week as a common laborer. Finally, the great day arrived,
and the family reached New York. Luigi net them.at an inni~
gration office, where his problems began. An immigration
officer noticed that Luigi's wife was not well and that
Luigi's salary was small. Since he could not support his
family and his wife was not able to work, the family was
ordered to return to Naples. Now, Luigi wanted to return
with then, but he had only seven dollars in his pocket,
which was less than half the fare.1

The eocialist-realist playe of the Progressive Stage
society were far more radical than anything done by "muck-
raking melodramatists‘ on Broadway or by any other amateur
group in New York. This organization, which produced Euro-
pean and American aocialiatic drama, aimed not at simple
protect, but at revolutionary change in the economic system
of the United States.

While social revolution was the ultimate objective,

 

W ..V

luau York Times, April 3, 1906, iv, p. 2.

(78)

the society also sought revolution in the theatre. The
capitalist theatre could not. the society maintained, repre-
sent the aspirations of the masses, because its sole aim
was profit. This meant that the capitalist theatre could
serve to amuse the leisure class, but it could not produce
art. One leader of the group explained that true art cans
only from the paupls. A quality American theatre, he ar-
quad, could not result tron upper class philanthropy “like
Rockefeller’s oilsoaked university or Carnegie's blood-
stained library. . . ."'1
The Society's leaders heped to win the support of
Hes York‘s Lower East Side population. Immigrants from
Eastern Europe had settled in this district where they dom-

2 They brought with than a tradi-

ineted the garment unions.
tion of going to the theatre and a tradition of voting for
socialists. The Pregressive Stage Society could appeal to
both these traditions, and its dues were kept within the
aeans of the working class.

To join the Progressive Stage Society one paid an
initiation fee of twenty~tive cents. Dues. which were titty

cents, were paid before each performance. Membership in the

 

1Courtney Lemon, 'Commercialism and the Drama.‘
grogreasive Stage Societx Bulletin.

2David Shannon. The Socialist Party in America (New
York: u‘mllm' 1958’, p. I}.

 

(79)

organisation entitled one to a seat. selected by a general

1 By January. 1905. just a few

drawing. at each performance.
months after the Society was organised. the group claimed
1.200 members. They were drawn more from Socialist intele
lectual groups than the working class.

The guiding spirit of the organisation was Julius
Hopp. hopp was a German immigrant. and he had been in
America only a few years when he organised the society. Al-

though he could count on aid from several prominent social-

ists. and he had discussed the project with Courtney Leann.

 

editor 0! The Worker: horace Traubls. editor or the Con-

2 lost of the

servetor: and Elsie Barker. a socialist poet:
organisation's work was done by Hopp.

It would have been difficult to find a leader sore
dedicated than hopp. He cared little for himself. and he
had no interest in material possessions. His hone was in

3 A friend once estimated that

the heart or the East side.
hopp never had.nore than (our dollars in his pocket at any

one time. He was known to have borrowed collars and even

 

1grogreesive Stage Society Bulletin: Brooklyn Daily
1., Jun.” F. 1905’ D. 10s Thefitrep V (January. 0
9. ii. ‘*'"“""

 

2Whitman Bennett. 'A Dramatic Enthusiast, the Truth
about Julius Hopp and his Venture.“ Boston Transcript,
August 25. l906. “F ‘ " W

3

 

Bennett. Boston Transcript. August 25. 1906.

(80)

Courtney Lemon's rasor.1

nopp's dedication to the cause of
socialisn.was a source of humor for several New York news~

pepere, but the new York Star reminded them that Edison and
2

 

the wright Brothers had once been laughed at as dreaners.

A story printed in the Cleveland Lender illustrated

 

Hopp'e dedication. It explained that the usually confident
and energetic nopp appeared quite dejected when he met a
friend one morning. He told the friend that he badly needed
funds so that he might be free for a fortnight to complete
a project, which was vital for the cause of art and social-
ian. Th0 friend was sympathetic. he inquired how much Hoop
would need. Bopp thought for some tine, finally. he re-
plied: "I guess about $5 would see me through."3

Hepp believed that his age was a period of transi-
tion from.commercialisn to socialism. This change. he
thought, would bring about an end to poverty, and economic
security would replace the wide divisions which presently
existed between plutocrate and workers under the capitalist-
ic system. The social revolution would be brought about by
the working class. Although Hopp recognised that the work-

ers constituted a democratic majority and could come to

1C1cveland header, May 5. 1910.

 

zfiew York Star, January 19, 1909.
3

 

Cleveland Lender, May 5. 1910.

 

(81)

power through elections, he was not Opposed to revolution.1

The dramatist could, Hepp believed, provide leader-
ship fcr the revolution. Because the theatre involved
direct contact with the audience, a drama could be more
effective than a novel in obtaining active response from the
proletariat. If the modern dramatist dealt with modern
problems and recent events, Hepp thought, the theatre could
promote freedom, universal happiness, and peace.2

freedom, universal happiness, and peace according to
hepp's theory would not come about until a revolution had
occurred. The social dramatist, hopp argued, should be
directly involved in the revolution he advocated on the
stage. Marin Gorki had already accomplished this. HOpp
noted that Gorki‘s audience had cheered his revolutionary
play in the theatre, then, joined Gorki behind the barri-
cadee. Gorki was the product of the intellectual and social
rebellion in his own country, and he in turn influenced this

rebellion.3

In addition to Gorki: Tolstoy, Ibsen, haupt-
mean, Haeterlink, and Shaw were also writing eignificant
protest drama in Eurcpe, but Hepp thought the time was right

for America to develop its own social drama. Admirable work

 

1Julius Hoop, “The Social Drama and its Purpose,“
Eclectic Hagazine, CXLVI (1905), p. 6.

 

 

ZHOpp, Eclectic Magazine, CXLVI, p. 7.

3H09p, Eclectic Magazine, CKLVI, p. 7.

 

(82)

had already been done by novelists David Graham.Phillips and
Jack London.1 nopp thought that the Progressive Stage .
Society would.help to stimulate the writing of socialistic
plays because American playwrighte could be sure they would
get a hearing from thia radical group. Enthusiastically he
explained what might happen as a result:

Just think what it could be tor America, it a powerful
playwright should ariae here and by excoriating the in-
justice of the trusts, the corruptione of our political
system, and the wickedness of society, cause a reform
movement that would clear the air and the soul of people,
so we could revert to the pure upright standards on
which the good and true must stand. Suppose Philadel-
phia was ehown on the stage for the corrupt and con-
tented pcsthole that it is, suppose the “frenzied finan-
ciers' were lampooned out of existence, suppose that
Newport and its erilee were held up to ridicule and
eatire that the ”400' would return to the simple life.
would these not be gains for the people? Then, too,
suppose the proletariat could find a stage that would
talk to him about problems that he faces every day,

about problems that were not dead and buried with Ham-
let's tether, would not that be a gain? All these thinge
and more the society stands for and means to do.2

The Progressive Stage Society's initial production

was greeted by a capacity house on Hovember 27, 1904.3

One
American socialist play was on the program. Socialist poet
Elsie Barker, encouraged by Hopp, wrote The Scab for the

occasion. In addition, the Society produced Tola Dorian's

 

18099, Eclecticgagazinc, CXLVI, p. 11.

 

2”Teaching Socialism by the Drama ae Tried in New
York, regular,“ Brooklyn Daily Eagle, January 3, 1905, p. 10.

 

agroohlyn Daily Eagle, January 8, 1905. p. 10.

(83)

Soldiers and Elnora.

 

Miss Barker's play amphasisod class loyalty during a
striko. Tho disloyal member of tho working claas. tho
strikobroakor or scab banana a familiar tiguro in Anorica

during this ora. In Thoodoro Droisor's gistar Carrio,

 

Hurstwood's last attempt to find work was as a strikobroakor
during a Brooklyn strootoar striko. Draiaor amphasisod tho
individual's doclino. and tho capitalist's ability to profit
from it: Miss Barkor onphasisod tho used for class solidar-
ity. Tho scab was portrayod as a traitor to his class. bo-
causo ho put personal comfort botoro class loyalty. Tho
horo romainod loyal to tho working class dospito tho throat
that his family might starvo. and praasuro from a capitalist
landlord and a tinanco company.

Tho Scab was sat in a typical workingman's tononont
homo during a bittor striko. Living with tho workman voro
his wife. thoir daughtor. and his brother-in-law. Liko all
strikes it was a difficult tims for tho laborer and his
tanily. Tho rant was not paid. installments on thoir moaqor
furnituro voro due, and tho young daughter could not undor-
stand why thoro was no food in tho house. Tho wito's
brothor was gono all day: ho roturnod with an armful of
food, and explained that he had found a dollar in tho
street. As the hungry family sat down to supper. tho work—
ingnan noticod a bobbin in his brother-in-law's pocket. Bo

(84)

immediately roalised that the food had been obtained by
“scabbing.' Tho honost worker took the food from tho tabla,
ovsn the bread that his daughter was about to eat, and tossed
it out tho window. The scab was driven from the home.

"Wo want honost food in this houso," declared the class
conscious worker, "or we shall have none."1 Starvation
was better than acceptance of help from a scab, even when

tho strikehroaker was a member of ono‘s own family.

The drama ended with a victory for tho strikers, but
it was not a typical American “happy ending.” rho.nothor,
who had been outdoors helping her daughter with her lessons
during tho strike, had to return to tho squalor of tho nill.
Learning that her mother would have to return to work, tho
daughter remarked, "Tnon. I don't see why you aro glad the
strike is over."2

Tolan Dorian's Hinore and Soldiers was oven more

 

pessimistic than The Scab. European influences wore more
obvious. Miss Dorian was a Russian exile living in the
United States. The play depicted the conflict between labor
class solidarity on one hand, and patriotism and military
obedience on the other. Forced to chooee between helping

strikers dynamite a mine and following military orders to

 

lhrooklyn Daily Eagle, January 3, 1905. p. l0.

 

znrccklyn finily Eagle, January 10, 1905. p. lo.

 

(65)

guard the mine entrance, a young soldier committed suicide.1

Attor two performancee the Progressive Stags Socioty
was nearly bankrupt. Strife between individuals regularly
interrupted meetings. Bapp proposed that members dues be
changed to tivo dollars per year, and that theatre seats be
sold at regular prices. This, he hoped would provide suttio
cient funds to keep the organization going, but his proposal
drove the anarchiste' wing out of the group. Happ was
catering to the rich, they charged. In addition, EuroPean
intellectual drama tailed to draw well. Ibsen and Bjorson
were over the heads of the working classes, and Happ'l third
rate actors butchered their parts so badly that educated
Americans refused to attend the productions. The Progres-
sive Stage Society endeavored for a while to exist on cone
tributione collected during their productions. but this Sal-
vaticn Army method proved ineufficiont.2 Hopp turned to the
unions for aid and after some controversy the Theatre of
Labor was eetabliehed. Under this system the Progressive
Stage Society was subsidized by union funde.3

Among the Theatre of Labor productions was floor

Pcoglo, a one-act drama by Hopp. In addition to its

 

1Brooklyn Daily Eagle, January 10. 1905, p. 10.

 

1 . -
‘WHitman Bennett, doeton Transcript, August 25,

 

 

1906.

3h.Y.D.M., March 24. 1906, p. 9; R.Y.D.H., April 1‘.
19063 Po 0

(86)

realistic portrayal of life in the slums, the play antici-
pated numerous novels and plays which dealt with the coca
nomic basis of prostitution. Before World War I this be-
came a major theme in the American theatre.

The Theatre of Labor lasted only a short time.
Hopp's uncompromising Socialism led him to take a critical
view of the New York unions in his next play. As a result
the unions withdrew their support.1 Hence, by the and of
this era the radical theatre in flew York again faced a
financial crisis. However, the radical theatre like the
Broadway stage had made its voice of protest heard during

this era.

 

1new York sun, January 22, 1901.

CHAPTER IV
SOCIALISM COfiEB T0 BROADWAY! 1907-191!)

The peak years of the Progressive era's protest
theatre occurred between 1907-1910. During this era aeveral
play: which contributed to the protest movement reached the
Broadway stage. Joseph Medill Patterson exposed the influ-
ence of big business on the newspapers, Eugene Walter probed
the theatre induetry, and William aurlbut attacked the tene-
ments of Trinity Church. There were writers who had raked
in the muck and dramatized their eXpoaé. Like Hopp, who
continued to promote socialism during this era, they 332:
triggggg to the {retest novement.

Charles Klein and George Broadhurat continued to
reflect the reform movement in their plays. Klein's plays
providcd ideas for more vigorous attache against the capi-
talietic system by reviewer: in the muckraking prose; Broad»
hurat moved in the direction of socialism. Edward Shaldcn'a
plays also reflected the reform spirit. His attack on

reciat valuee in America which agpcarcd in The Nigger

 

aroused considerable controversy during this era.
Socialism was advocated in numerous plays that dealt

with lower class conditions by dramatists who were convinced

(87)

(83)

that reform under capitalism was impossible. In fact. pro-
test against the capitalistic system was so frequent during
this period that one conservative dramatist, Cleveland
Hoffett, wrote a defense of the existing system. lMoffett's
play provoked considerable debate. By 1910, however, the
protest movement in the theatre was on the decline. The
public lost interest in refers. and this was reflected in
the theatre. After 1910, few plays dealt with socialise.
Charles Kenyon's Kindling alone merits recognition.
Radicals in politics were not quite radicals in
dramatic technique. Protest plays of this era remained
melodramatic: however, the typical American “happy ending'
was abandoned by several writers. When the public seemed
overly 'shocked' by these innovations, a New York manager
night force revisions in the radical drama. or he might
send the play on the road. In the West, pessnaistic and
radical dramas were more successful than in New York.
American writers who took a pessimistic approach
toward reform were influenced more by direct contact with
the problems of the lower classes than by EurOpean social
drama. Prior to l912, with the exception of Julius Happ,
European drama had very little influence on American writ-
are. Charles Klein was. of course, familiar with Ibsen and
shew, but he found then too pessimistic for American tastes.

Host writers to the left of Klein had gone out and raked in

(89)

the much. They had seen the tenements, dope rings, and red
light districts which were, they assumed, manifestations of
a capitalistic economy. I

Once they had made this assumption limited reform
seemed futile. Some-clung to a desperate hape for reform,
but all cast doubt on the typical Progressive solution--
legislation. If society was to offer Opportunity for all,
most radical American dramatists believed that a fundamental
change in society was necessary. Some believed that man
could be persuaded to adapt a more altruistic attitude to~
ward his fellow man, and others argued that religion offered
the only solution to serious social problems in America:
however, the most radical playwrights maintained that only
socialism could solve the deep-seated social problems which
afflicted American society.

The idea of a fundamental change in the economic
order was not new to Julius hepp. he had been advocating
socialism in his off-Broadway dramas for several years.
hopp continued, deepito continual financial difficulties,
his struggle to interpret the aspirations of the masses.

Because flopp's drama, the Friends of Labor, had portrayed

 

the leaders of the Central Federated Union as incompetent
tools of the capitalists, the union had withdrawn their sup-
port from the Theatre of Labor; nevertheless, HOpp was able

to produce the play in January, 1907.

(90)

The drama depicted a meeting in which the grievances
of streetcar workers were to be arbitrated. However, the
president of the traction company, who was also the boss of
the Democratic party, won the support of the foolish union
president. The Democrats, led by the boss, decided to
campaign as pro~labor candidates and as supporters of muni-
cipal ownership of public utilities. Only Lawrence. a
Socialist, saw through the scheme and protested, but he was
quickly shouted down.1

Later a second supposedly pro~labor group was or.
ganiaed. This group intended to throw their support to the
Republicans at the last minute. A sham battle between the
two groups was conducted to win the votes of the workers.

In the last act the workers were shown after the
election. hgsin they were on strike, because their de-
mands had been rejected. This time strikehreakers were
brought in. A battle between workers and scabs was de-
picted. The atrikehreakers with the aid of the militia
easily won. Lawrence. the Socialist, convinced his brother
to desert from the militia, but when the socialist stepped
between warring factions in an effort to end the fighting,

he was shot and killed.2

 

1

2The Worker, Hay 2S, 1907, p. 2: New York Sun,
January 22}‘I§U7: The Worker, June 1. 1906. p. 3.

New York Sun, January 22, 1907.

 

 

 

J

 

(91)

In an effort to obtain funds for additional produc~
tions of The Friends of Labor, 80pp read the drama before
several groups at the Rand School of Social science. One
audience consisted of just two men. They were representa-
tives of the Industrial Workers of the World, and Hopp hoped
to gain their financial support. Finally in Hay, Eopp was
able to produce the drama for a week in the Kalick Theatre
in the Bowery.1

An agreement was signed with Bill Kahn manager of
the Kalick. Five percent of the receipts from tickets sold

in advance at the office of The Worker were to he donated
2

 

to the flaywood-Mcyer-Petibone defense fund. Kahn later ex-

tended the deal until the Opening performance and agreed to

3 Follow-

give fivs percent of the entire gross to the fund.
ing the New York production the play was booked at the

Blaney Theatre in Newark, Few Jersey. Ten percent of the
Newark proceeds went to the Haywood fund.‘

Despite the 'worthy' cause, response to ghe Friends

 

of Labor was disappointing. Courtney Lemon, who reviewed
the drama for The Worker, thought the author‘s use of mobs,

mass effects, and social groups compared favorably to

 

1The worker, September 22, 1906, p. 1: New York Sun,
Jun. 9' 150,; 3.319 Elicrkerr, June 9' 1907' Po 3.

2

 

 

The Worker, April 20, 1907, p. 6.

 

335p Worker, May 18, 1909, p. l.

 

‘gpe Worker, May 11, 1907. p. 1.

q,

 

Gerhart Hauptnann's in The Weavers, which had once been pro-

 

scribed in Rewark. The Opening night's attendance at the
Kalick theatre was impressive; a packed house which included
Upton Sinclair and Edward Markham attended the performance,
but this level of support was not sustained. The size of
the audience, Lemon commented, was a reproach to the Social-
ists of the city of New York. After three years of hard
work, hopp's results were being ignored by his comrades.1
The Haywood, Meyer, and Petihone case which pro-
voked demonstrations in new York, Boston, and Chicago, and
which Hepp had supported with his meager funds, was de-

picted in a drama by Socialist writer John Spargo. Spargo's

novel The Bitter Cry of the Children was widely known.

 

Julius hepp immediately acquired the rights to produce the
drama, entitled Ept Guiltx, but he never produced the play.
Spargo's drama consisted of arguments which were suitable in
a pamphlet but made very poor material for the stage. One
Rev York critic read the play and promised to eat his hat,
if the entire three acts took longer than fifteen minutes to

ommplete on stage.2 Not Guiltyjs influence was reatricted

 

to readers of the Ariel Press publication of the tract.

nopp's involvement in the haywood case illustrated

1The Worker, May 25, 1907; New York Sun, May 22,

 

 

1907.

zfiew York Telegragh, January 16, 1907.

 

(93)

his eagerness to fulfill his own conception of 'the social
drunatiet,‘ which involved participation in the revolution-
ary events he advocated on the stage. he sought a theatre
where he could become involved in the election of 1900. He
heped to establish a theatre where he could present Social-
ist ideas within the.prics range of the masses. After a
long search, he located a small theatre on Third Street in
the Lower East Side, where the famous Russian actress Mas.
Nsainove had made her first American appearance. Bopp
offered both Yiddish and English plays; admission was ten
cents.1

Hopp's first production at the Third Avenue theatre
was The_?ioneers, which he had'written. The drana had.been

 

tried out earlier at the Rand School of Social Science.
Critics believed the play was a biography of J. G. Phelps
Stokes. ‘Walter Arnstronq was his father's private secretary.
Walter's father was the president or the Tunnel Construction
Company, which had recently built a tunnel‘with cheap labor
and defective materials. The structure soon collapsed, and
many were killed. The Coupany's chief engineer, Richard

nason, was in love with Walter's sister and her annoy.

lnew York Times, March 19, 1908, p. 1: new York
Times, January 55, 1909, p. 5: Clipping dated September 21,
I555: in the Grey Locke Collection, N.Y.P.L.: new York Times,
April 5, 1908, p. 11: New York Times, September 51, I555;
E':.Dtu._. OCtObOI 3' 13-6379. ‘0

 

 

 

(94)

However. Helen wee more interested in social welfare. She
read an article in The Truth. a Socialist nevepaper. which
blamed the company for the dieaeter. When ehe confronted
her father with the atory, he anavereda "cOnpetent engin-
eere will be employed." Hired teetinony night convince a
jury, but it did not eatiefy Helen or her brother. Helen
pereuaded.xaeon to admit that the tunnel waa built with
materials little better than paper cache. Walter published
a letter which clearly established hie father'e guilt. It
revealed that the echene, it eucceeetul. would have made a
profit of eight nillion dollars for the Tunnel Construction
Company. At the play'e conclusion both Helen and her
brother joined the Socialist party and began new careere ae
eettlement workers.1

Hepp'e next play had a measure of commercial euoceee.
ghe‘oolle wae written for the Socialist Sunday school of the
Eighth Assembly Diatrict of New York. An early production
one given for the East Side children who were depicted in
the play. The drama contrasted the daughter of a rich doll
nanufacturer with the poverty stricken daughter of a doll
factory employee. when the employee sought aid on behalf of
her daughter. the rich manufacturer accused her of atealinq

one of the dolls. This prompted a long lecture on eocialien.

h

lggw Yorgwsun, October 22, 1908: New York Telegraph,
September 10, 1907.

 

 

(95)

The Dolle wae purchaaed by the owner or a vaudeville houee.1

 

ht the Pioneer Theatre on Third Street. Hopp had
planned to produce American socialiet drama: however, he-
cauee he waa limited to his own plays, he sometimes reaorted
to European plays. During the eummer of 1909, for example.
he obtained the righte to two plays by Johannee Wiegand. a
popular German dramatiet. One play dealt with an American
truet magnate who aought to control the world and went in-
eane.2

Prolonged illneee and perhaps discouragement virtu-
ally ended Hcpp’e career ae a dramatist in 1909. After 292
lelg_he completed only one play, an anti-war drama in

1915.3

hopp.did. however. remain involved in the New York
theatre. A

The Wage Earnere Theatre League offered low coat
quality drama to the naeeee. With Winthrop Amen, who had
organised the new Theatre to bring uncommercial quality
drama to haw York. decided to hold a aeriee of 'peOple'e
nighte,‘ he immediately turned to Hopp for help in organia-

‘

ing the project. napp, who had aimed hie own productiona

 

lNew York Times, flarch 28, 1908, p. 9: New York
Telegraph, 3une 3, 1908.

2Clipping titled 'More High Brow Drama from the
Fatherland,“ dated July 13, 1909, N.Y.P.L.

3New York World. June 2, l9l5; New York Sun,
April 22, l9l9, p. I.

4

 

 

 

Berton Tranacript, July 9, 1911; Lynde Denig,

(96)

at the same economic group. proved an ideal choice. Tickets
were distributed to peeple who ordinarily could not afford
to attend first class productions.

After the New Theatre closed, Hopp continued to
Operate the Wage Earners Theatre League and later the Educa-
tional Theatre League and the Modern Stage Society. through
the regular Broadway theatres. Lee Shubert began the prac—
tice of selling tickets at reduced rates near the end of
Broadway runs through the Wage Earner: Theatre League; other
managers quickly adapted the practice.1 The system was pop»
ular with the producers and with the public. During another
proteet era. the nineteen-thirties, Hepp revived a similar
project.2

Although Charles Klein had been a leading writer of
nuckraking melodramas during the previous era, he had never
really “protested“ against existing conditions. During this
era of more vigorous protest. Klein's plays continued to £2;_
glass the spirit of the timed.

In The Next of Kin, Klein illustrated how easily a

 

lawyer could cheat a young orphan out of her rightful in-

heritance. While Klein's play was not an attack on the

 

'Theatre Tickets at Cut Rates,‘ Theatre, XXI (April. 1915),
p. 186.

1
2

Denig, Theatre, XXI, p. 186.

“new York Sunday Mirror, hovembcr 12, 1933.

(97)

whole legal profession, it furnished nampton's reviewer with

 

an opportunity to do just that. In its review ot the nelo~

drama Hampton's questioned the ethics of the entire American

 

Bar Association. It the association ever cleaned house.

gampton's contended. they would hardly have enough members

 

left to have an 'aeeociation.‘ That would require at least

three members; Hampton'e thought they might find that many.

 

but the lawyers could certainly hold their meetings on e
streetcorner.1

The Third Degree dealt with police brutality and the
influence of the yellow press against an accused.man. While
the police were more often attacked for their failure to
enforce the law than for excessive enforcement during this
era. numerous articles in the liberal press endorsed Klein's
play. B. O. flower associated the third degree with the
power of reactionary materialism. -Louis Poet's The Public

 

found coneiderable evidence to support Klein's thesis. A
new police building in Kev York was equipped with 'roast and
freeze' rooms. They contained here walla. pipee for quick
changes of temperature. and electric lights for quick

2

changes in the lighting of the room. In another issue,

ghe Public published a remarkable interview with Captain

 

 

1"Pleye and Players.‘ Hagpton'e Magazine, XXIV
(March, 1910). p. 405.

2

 

She Public, XIII (February l, 1910). pp. 99-100.

 

(93)

McDonnell, Chief of Detectives, of the Detroit police force.
After attending a performance of Klein's play he insisted
there was no third degree in Detroit. He then elaborated:

I an a police officer, not a lawyer. We've got to
make laws of our own. If we suspect a man we see that
he doesn't get a lawyer near him until we get through
to him. We question him, and corner him up until he
confesses. There was that young fellow who murdered
the old woman and who was acquitted by the jury though
he confessed. We used no brutality. He said he wanted
to confess, after some facts were shown to him. If a
man committed.nurder, we are going to get that nan to
confess if we can. They break down. But brutality,
nan, none of that.1

The captain went on to compare the Canadian system
to Detroit's. In Canada, the police were obliged to warn a
suspect that anything he said might be used against him. In
Detroit. this was never done. "Why," said the Captain,
"they'd never talk if we were to tell them that."2

George Broadhurst's muchrahing melodrama, The nan of
the hour, hed.mirrored the reform impulse in 1906. Although
he still hoped for progressive reform, he admitted in 1909

3 In The Dollar Hark

that he was "leaning toward eocialism.’
produced in 1909 Broadhurst supported Senator Robert La
rollette's contention that financiers had brought on the

panic of 1907 in order to discredit the reform movement.

 

1
2
3

ghe Public, XII (July 2, 1909), p. 625.
ghe Public, XII (July 2, 1909), p. 625.

Otheman Btevene, Loo Angelou Examiner, March 6,

 

1909.

(99)

Broadhurst was deeply concerned with the unequal
distribution of wealth in American society. He used two
headlines from a Bow York newspaper to illustrate his posi-
tion. The first stated: “Russell Sege's Will Prohated--ae
Leaves sixty-four Million Dollars." In the next column the
headline noted: “Sleep With Unclaimed Dead—«Two Hundred
East Eiders Find Refuge in the Morgue.“ 'Do not,” asked
Broadhurst, 'these two incidents show that something is
wrong?‘1

Broadhurst's Eye Dollar Mark had only a brief run on
Broadway. The play's producer William Brady was convinced
that the public was tired of protest plays; however, in the
West the public remained militant. Eeepite failure in New
York the play's value was estimated in excess of 050,000 be-

cause of its popularity on the road. Theggollar hark had a

 

remarkable run of ten weeks in Loe hngeles. One critic sug-
gested the Socialists and other agitators could afford the-
atre tickets in Lon Angeles, but in New York ticket prices
had been too high for these groups.2

Although Charles Klein and George Broadhurst

 

10thenen Stevens, Los Angeles Examiner, March 6,

 

1909.

2Rennold Wolf, New York Telegraph, n.c.1 Constance
Skinner, “The Coast Defenders,“ Green Book Albug, 111 (April,
1910), p. 856: Perry Beaumont, “East No Longer Likes Graft
Playe,' Philadelphia Times, October 14, 1909.

 

 

-

”..-,

-—

(100)

continued to reflect and perhaps to some extent contribute
to the protest movement. after 1907 the leaders of the
theatre of protest were two more militant socialists,
Joseph Patterson and Eugene Walter.

In 1906. while Charles Klein and George Broadhurst
were getting very rich on political melodrames, Joseph
Hedill Patterson as Commissioner of Public Works was tight-
ing the department store owners and the political bosses of
Chicago. Patteraon, whose family owned the conservative
Chicago Tribune, had earlier served a term in the Illinois
State Legislature. this had proved to he a rather unpleas-
and experience. Patterson was young and inpatient, he had
been elected on a municipal ownership platform. and the
Illinois Legislature seldom passed reform bills, especially
the kind Patterson sought. he rebelled against the Legis-
lature's delay by leading a demonstration in which books,
inkstands. and blotter: were hurled at the speaker of the
house.1 After one term Patterson chose not to seek re-
election. but he had not yet given up on reform politics.
He campaigned for Judge Dunne, the Democratic candidate for

mayor in Chicago, because the Judge's platform included

 

1New York Times, May 26. 1946: New York Herald Trib-
un, guy if, 1915, The Public, vxn (Apms, 1905;; p. 3‘57
Chapman, Tell It to Sweenex4¥ the Informal historx of
the flew York Daily heyn’1carden City, N. Y.a DoubIeday 6
COe' 19“). p0 3‘0

 

 

(101)

municipal ownership of public utilities which Patterson, a
Republican. believed was the main issue. After his elec-
tion. Dunne appointed Patterson Commissioner of Public
Works. The new Commissioner quickly found that urban poli-
tics was much like state politics in Illinois. Although he
was able to force department store owners to pay a half
million dollars in fines for extending their basements under
Chicago’s streets, he was unable to get his reform hills
through the boss controlled city council. After a year in
office. Patterson suddenly resigned saying:

The whole body of our laws as at present formed are

ridiculous and obsolete. . e . They are designed al-

ways to uphold capital at the expense of the commun-

ity. . . . I realised soon after I took office that

to fight privileges under the present laws would be a

jest.
Patterson announced that he was now a Socialist. This
announcement caused a nationwide stir. Shocked fiayor Dunne
commented that Patterson's views on capitalism need not have
interfered with his holding public office in Chicago.2

Despite Patterson's lofty family position and his

Yale education, he had a genuine interest in the common man.

He frequented Chicago's North Side Bars dressed like the

1Wayne Andrews, The Battle for Chicago (New York:
Harcourt. 1946). p. 225) new ‘Iork Ti.'aoe, May 26. 1946) “the
Resignation of Joseph H. Patterson,“ National Committee of
the Socialist Party, Chicago. February 28. 1906.

2

 

 

Andrews. Chicago, 9. 225.

(102)

workingmen he met there. Chicago's First Ward on the North
Side was a Midwestern nnrhary Coast. It contained the most
disorderly houses and had the heaviest vice toll. The North
side's political bosses were notorious 'Hinhy Dick“ Kenna
and John F. "Bath floune John“ Coughlin. Kenna ran the
Workingman's Palace, billed the greatest tramp saloon in
the country. Mugs at the Palace were so large that patrons
used two hands to lift them. If one let the mug touch the
bar, any loafer was permitted to snatch it if he could. To
prove himself every now and then, Patterson would pick a
fight with a tough loafer.1

Patterson knew the problems of the lower classes,
and.he had tried reform.within capitalism: he turned to
socialism as the only chance for true reform. Nevertheless.
he remained pessimistic about reform, and this was reflected
in his protest plays.

Articles such as ”The Confession of a Drone" which
was published in The Indoocndent and circulated widely as a
Socialist pamphlet, and a novel had already established
Patterson as a socialist writer before his first play

reached Broadway in 1908. The Fourth Estate belonged to an

 

 

1Jack Alexander, ”vex Populi,’ New Yorker, August 6,
1938, p. 16: G. n. Turner, 'The City of Chicago:1r McClure's,
XXVIII (April, 1907), p. 383; Andrews, Chicano, p. 22;
Charles Edward Russell, ’Chaos and Bomb Throw ng in Chicago,”
hampton's, XXIV (hatch, 1910), p. 311.

 

 

 

 

(103)

era of nelodrama, but it wee a radical departure from The

Lion and the nouee.

 

The major theme of The Fourth Estate wee the influ-

 

ence of busineae on the preee. A secondary theme involved
corruption in the federal courts. The plot illustrated the
difficultiee faced by a young reporter who had uncovered
evidence of corruption which involved a federal judge. he
found hie newspaper lacked the courage to print the etory.
Patterson’s drama demonstrated that newepapere heei-
tated to print expose of corruption because bueineee inter-
eete frequently withdrew advertieinq from the muckrakinq

preea. In the first act of The First Estate a ”newspaper

 

lobbyist“ visited the editor's office of The Advance. he

 

warned that if the newspaper printed a second article which
implied a certain federal judge had been bribed by corrupt
bueineee interests, advertising would be withdrawn fro. the
newspaper. he reminded the editor that he represented
thirty thousand dollars in advertieinq, and he demanded that
the editor fire the young muckrakinq reporter who had writ-
ten the first article.

The reporter was saved by the arrival of the paper'-
new owner. The owner had acquired the newspaper with new
wealth found in the West, but he had not always been e0 fur-
tunate. Once he had been sent to jail by the judge involved

in the article to break a strike. He was willing to eacrifice

(104)

advertising to see the Judge exposed. The rich, however.
noon forgot the problems of the lower classes. The owner'a
family waa eager to gain admission into society. The
owner's son at Harvard, his daughter at Bryn Mavr. and his
wife in the community all found family ownership of a ”muck-
raking“ newspaper a barrier to social success. As a re-
ault they put pressure on the owner. and he in turn demanded
that the reporter obtain more evidence that the judge wee
guilty.

The last act shocked the New York audience. The re-
porter convinced the judge that he would print the truth
about the cane unless he wee paid $10,000 in cash at tho
newspaper office. As the judge handed over the honey a
flash photograph wee taken. Even this evidence failed to
convince the owner. who by now had gone over to the capital-
ieta side. he ordered the editor to drop the story. In
despair the young muckraker comittcd suicide.

In The Fourth Eetate, Patterson had probed into the
influence of business on the newspapers, and he had charged
the federal judiciary with corrupt practices. he concluded
the play with a suicide that left no hepe for reform.
Critice thought the ending was locical, but producer George
Tyler feared ”the public would not stand for it.'1 The

 

1James O'Donnell Bennett. Chicago Record-Herald,
”0'?“er ‘ a 1909 e

 

(105)

ending was revised to permit a compromise. The judge agreed
to resign. and hie daughter married the reporter. This left
no need to publish the eXpoe‘. Despite the change The

{gurth Estate was far more successful on the road than in

 

new York. Its long run in Chicago prompted Walter Prichard
Eaton. a critic and professor at New York University, to
comment that Chicago was ahead of new York in its apprecia-
tion of good drama.1
Patterson's conclusion that big businese controlled
the content on many newspapers was readily accepted by the
public and the critics. ”There are not many owners who
prove the faith that is in than by hewing to a line that
leaves the half-page advertisements of a Boston stock-jobber
out of the papers and the fact is just as well known inside
the office as out of then.‘ commented James O'Donnell Bennett

2

in the ghicego Record~flera1d. The American Magazine'egreed

 

that Patterson had dealt with "conditions actually faced by
most newspaper preprietore. . . ."3 Oswald Villard, pub-
lisher of the Ego York Evening Poet. illustrated the influ-

ence of business on the newapapers in a lecture entitled.

 

1James O'Donnell Bennett. ghicago Record-Herald,
NOVBNDCI ‘0 19°9e ‘

2James O'Donnell Bennett. ghicago Record-Herald,
“ovumbCX ‘3 1909e

 

3”Plays that Make People Think,“ American Magazine,
LXI! (January. lSlO). p. 413.

 

(106)

"Thu Moral Responsibility of the Press.” He described a
Western town where a ataft of reporters were given tho

power to support a retorm.movcmcnt by the paper‘s proprietor.
When the reformers seemed certain of victory, certain buai-
near interacts persuaded the proprietor to withdraw the
paper's aupport from tho reform cause. The horses, as a
result. wore ro-alactad. somatima afterward Villard again
viaitad tha town. no found that the reportcra continued to
‘ 2.2222:

ton'a review proved to be the moat ironical commentary on

work on tho newspaper. but they had become cynical.

Patterson'a drama. It stated that tho '30 called 'troo

2

proaa' of this country" was ahnyth. Within a tow year:

“the interoata' were to put Hampton's, the moat radical
muokrakinq magazine, out of business.3
gampton'a also agreed with Pattornon'n charge that
the judiciary was corrupt: “Ho all know that tho big sin in
tho United States ia the corrupt judiciary. . . .'- Thaodora
Roosevelt had also atatod this View of tho judiciary, noted

the muckraking journal.‘ The Outlook diaaqrood: ”Tho

 

 

luau York Times, February 20. 1911. p. 7.
2

3Louis Pillar. Crusadora for American Liberalian
(New York: Collier, 1961). pp. 557355.

4

Bamyton’a Naqggino, XXIII (Dacambar. 1909). p. 816.

 

Hampton'l Magatino, XXIV (February, 1910).

(107)

roputation of the Federal judiciary . . . is so high that it
ought to withstand the proaontation on the stage of the

possibls vsnality of a single judge as portrayed in 333

.1

Fourth Estate. :39 Public thought moat critics had missed

 

 

the point of the play. Stage techniques required a more
dramatic portrayal of influences which in practice were more
subtle. Bribes to judges wore not noceasary, nor were re-
porters paid to keep quiet; nevertheless, plutocratic in-
terests did intluonco both newspapers and courts. This was

the important message 02 The Fourth Estate.2

 

Neither Patterson's dramatization of his novel, 5
gittle Brother of the Rich, nor his last major play, Rebel-

lion, attained popularity comparable to The Fourth Estate.

 

As a novel A_Littla Brother of the Rich_was a bitter srraign~

 

root of modern sociaty: however, on the stage it was just

3

anothar satira or the rich. In gobgllion, Patterson ques—

 

tionad tho Roman Catholic Church's stand on divorce. Tha
haroina was tied to a drunken, worthless husband. Although

Rcésllion_waa cndoraod by the Drama League, it was only a

 

 

1Outlook, xcxx: (October 30, 1910), pp. 486-85.

27h. Public, x111 (April 8, 1910), p. 3.

 

agow York Times, December 28, 1909, p. 9: Charles
Darnton, how York Evoning Post, December 30, 1909: George
Joan Nathan, “Tho Drawn of Fore and Aft,“ Tho Smart Set,
xxx (March, 1910), p. 146.

 

 

 

 

(108)

moderate success.1

Patterson's last two dramatic efforts were one act
plays for vaudeville audiences. Both dealt with tenement
conditions, and both expressed the same pessimistic atti-

tude toward rctoru.which had characterized The Fourth Estate.

 

ngproducts was written originally for William
Morris' vaudeville circuit, but it was later performed by
the hull House Players in Chicago. During a trip to zurOPe
this group performed ay-Products in Dublin Castle.2

 

In By-Productg, Patterson depicted a dark cellar
tenement home, where a consumptive girl and her mother
toiled against the omdnous forces of a society they could
not understand, because their values were from a bygone era.
Her sister was an eeployee or a department store, where she
attracted the attentions or a young man from a quite differ-
ent economic class. Unlike her dying sister and her mother,
this working girl was determined to escape the meager exist-
ence or life in the slums. She bargained with the rich.man
to get her sister into Chicago’s boat hospital. Her shocked
mother reminded her of their 'honost' home. To this the

__

1James O'Donnell Bennett, Chicago Pacers, December 8,
1911: Burns Mantle, Chicago Tribune, October 8, 1911:
Roswell Field, Chicago Examiner, chtembcr 30, 1911.

2Percy Hammond, “News of tho Theatre,” Epicano
Tribune, April 14, 1910.

 

 

 

(109)

girl replied. “Hose! Do you call this a hone? ,lll it
looks like CO‘I. is a place to get out o! as soon as I can
and stay away from as long as I can!‘ Her mother then in-
voked the threat or a traditional hall. This had little
attect on a girl whose concept of hell and dasnation were in
terms of this life. "All the girls in the store say so.
We get our hell right here," she replied.1

2223 was set in a drug store located on the ground
floor of a large tenement house. haggard victims of drug
addiction were shown procuring their daily envelopes of co-
caine and heroine. Bone of thee opened their envelopes he-
tore they left the store. Eagerly they sniffed the dope.

Two young reformers, Hr. Brown and.uiss Jonas were
anxious to end the dooa trade. They threatened to have the
police close the drugstore; however, in the conversation
which followed latterson demonstrated that the closing or a
single drugstore would not even begin to solve the proble-
of dope addiction.‘

Hr. Brown was revealed to be the son or a drug renu-
tacturar; he was heir to millions, and.nuch of the fortune
came from profits on the sale of cocaine and heroine. In

fact, his father's company supplied the dape to the druggist

 

IChicaro Fggggg, April 19, 1910: Amy Leslie, “By-
Products a hit, Chicago hows, April 1, 19101 New York
ZEEEEJ November 10, 1913} p. 9. ' "'

 

 

(110)

involved. Hie: Jones was revealed to be the daughter of a
tenenont owner: aha wan heir to millionl, and much of the
fortune cam. from the profits of slum ownership. In fact,
her mother owned the vary tenement in which the druqatore
was located. The druggist believed that the conditions in
the building led many to the drug habit.1
Pattcraon was taken on a tour through the 'coXe' and

'hopc' cectionc of Chicago by Dr. J. J..Hahonoy before tho

nketch was written.2

Despite the fact that it was per-
formed in vaudeville houses between dancing girls and coro-
bate. ravicwcrn remembered the deep impression the play and.
on those who saw it. Years later Henry Lieb expanded the
play into a three act drama, but critics preferred the older
version.3
Eugene Halter was born in Cleveland. He worked in
the lumbering camps of Northern Michigan and searched for
gold in Alaska. During the Spanishahmerican War he enlisted
in the First Ohio Cavalry. His military career was dictine
guiahcd chiefly by his dislike of horses and a stay in a

Florida typhoid hospital. Bite: the war he firittad from one

1“Tho Secrets of Cocaine Traffic Revealed on the
Btagc.‘ Toledo Timon, February 18. 1912.

2Clipying in the Grey Locke Collection, dated De~
camber 31. 1909, N.Y.P.L.

3 a

New York Herald-Tribune, January 4, 1926: Brooklxn
Citizen, janunry d, 1926.

 

 

(111)

newspaper to another aoroee the country.1

Halter campaigned in Ohio for Eugene Debs long be—
fore eooielien.beoame taehionehle. Later he van a reporter
on the Detroit N333, while Governor Pinqree wae battling for
reforn.in Hiohiqan. While he was a reporter on the new York
Egg, he had etudied the Bowery in the same manner need by
O. Benry. Once he was arrested while on an investigating
tour of e “red light' dietrict. Re preferred the lower
clearer to the wealthy. who. Walter believed, had etolen
control of the timber and water power resources and rail-
roads. Even after he had attained euooeoe on Broadway.
Halter preferred lite on hie Montana ranch to New York high
2

IOCiBtY e

Halter'e tiret enooeeetul play val gho Undertog. It

 

wee never performed on Broadway, but it wee popular on the

road and as e etooh play.3

Z29 Undertag_wee quite einiler
to The nan_ot the hour both in theme and in melodramatic
style. he in The Hen of the Hour the drama concluded with a

melodramatic twiet.

 

1Clipping in the Grey Locke Collection, dated
larch 2. 19l3. R.Y.P.L.: New York Telegraph, November 2.
1909) the flattens, “Eugene Walter: Pater of the 'wolloP'
Play.“ Chicago Herald, November 8. 1914: Kansas City Star,
April 12} 19157'Groen Book Album, January, 1511.

2

3Lynda Deniq. 'Viaeitudos of a Playwright: No. 1.--
Eng”. “.1t0ra. Theatre. XXI ‘HCYp 1915); Po 235e

 

 

 

 

The Hattons, Chicago Herald, November 8. 1914.

 

(112}

Walter's next play, Paid in Full began very much
like a sociological study of New York. The leading char-
acter sounded like a typical militant socialist in the first
act, but he degenerated rapidly into a thief, and the play
became a study of adultery. Critics, who were aware that
most New York managers had rejected the play, believed that
waiter had been forced to make revisions in the original
play, which probably had followed the line of socialiatic
thought taken in the first not.1

In The Easiest Way, Walter depicted conditions which

 

some thought the theatre ahould ignore. It was denounced by
Archbishop Parley of New York, and it was banned in Harris»
burg, Pennsylvania, and Cancel, Gormany.2 however, anar-
chist Emma Goldman, who usually limited herself to European
drama, liked the play and based a pOpular lecture on it.3
The play'c “heroine” was Lora Murdock, a second rate
actress who obtained good parts in New York productions, bo~

cause she was also the mistress of an influential stock

broker. On a summer tour aha not John fiadiaon an itinerant

 

1ycw York Times, February 26, 1908, p. 7: Walter
Prichard Eaton, Tho American Stage of To-Da (Boston: Small,
Haynard I Co., 1908), 9.131: New Yor' T moo, March 1, 1908,
'1: 9e 1e

2

3goston Transcript, January 24, 19131 N.Y.D.H., Jan-
uary 14, 1912, p. 317““nn Interview with Emma Goldman," New
York Times, February 14, 1909, vi, p. 8.

 

 

 

New York Timon, February 14, 1909, v, p. 8.

 

 

 

'\

(113)

reporter, who, like Halter, had worked on newspapers through-
out the West. He was capable of brilliant work, but he
preferred the life or a good natured vagabond. Lure pron»
lead to reform, and John decided to work seriously and save
money so that they could carry in a year.

The second act took place in a cheap theatrical
boarding house. David Belasco produced a memorable scene,
remarkable in every detail. Mordecai Gorelik compared it,
albeit untavorably, to Antoine's French productions.
Brooton had used his influence with the managers so that
Lure «as not able to find a job. She had already sold most
of her clothes, and her rent was overdue. Her landlady and
her friend urged her to return to Brocton. Atter consider-
able tnougnt she followed their advice, but she did not
notify Madison of her decision despite a promise to Brocton
that she would do so.

In the last act, :adison returned to find Lure and
Brocton obviously living together. He left, and Brocton
surprised to find that Lura had deceived him too, also de-
cided to leavs.

while the plot and subject matter of The Easiest Way

 

shocked many, moat reviewers liked the drama. Channing
Pollock thought it was “the best play ever written by an

american.' Theatre historian Arthur Robson Quinn thought

(11‘)

the play was more nelodraeatic than realistic,1 which in a
dramatic sense it was. However, as a study of the economic

basis of prostitution The Easiest way belonged to the pro-

 

test drama of the early twentieth century.

It Olga Nethereole, a star of the period, had not
urged William,J. Eurlbut to write a drama for her, he
probably would never have become a part of the American
protest theatre. unlike Patterson or Walter, Burlbut was
not a Socialist, and he had little interest in reform. In

his only previous play, The Fighting Rage, a capitalist had

 

been the hero.-

While Hurlbut was best known as the grandson of an
Indiana general, who had known Lincoln, Miss Netharsole was
known to be a Socialist, who hoped to une the theatre as an
effective eeans of protest against existing social condi-
tions. She had seen Pennsylvania coal mines where ten year
old boys picked slate ten hours a day, Southern cotton mills
where girls developed consumption from cotton dust, and
prisons where the victims of an immoral capitalist system
were kept. Whenever possible she lectured on Socialism or
women's rights. She took hurlbut on a tour of Trinity's

tenements, where tubercular germs were Spread in garment

 

1Charming Pollock, “Some Performances and a Play,’
The Smart Set, XXVI! (March, 1909), p. 145. A. h. Quinn,
Iherican Theatre: Civil War to Present, II, p. 106.

 

(115)

sweatshops and pickling bottles. As a result of this tour

1 a protest against

Burlbut wrote The‘writingyon the‘flall,
the conditions in New York's worst tenements.

New York's worst tenements were owned by Trinity
Church. They were located on the Lower West Side on a grant
of land given to the Church by the King of England in 1103.
Host of the tenements were built by peeple who had obtained
leases fro: the church. By refusing to renew these leases,
Trinity acquired the buildings. The church nade no effort
to inprove living conditions in these tenements, which were
poorly ventilated and very crowded. As a result the tens-
ments owned by trinity had the highest tuberculosis and
death rate in new York City.2

The church apposed all reform efforts, which light
have improved conditions for slun dwellers. During the
eighteen-nineties the church fought and nearly defeated the

passage of a New York state law which required teneeent

 

 

 

1Fort Worth Record, December 5. 1909: Indianagglis
Star, March 57, I5IO, Philadel hie North American. ebru-
ary 4, 1909; Rochester flies, Eofiruary 5. I§5§.

2

Ray stannard Baker, ”The Case Against Trinity,”
anerican Ha erine, LXVIII, May. 1909, pp. 2-16: Charles
Edward Russo . The Tonemonts of Trinity Church,‘ Eve -
body’s Na asine XIX (July, 1908), p. 47: Report as to
Sihitary gonaition of the Tenements of Trihit Church, and
other Documents (New Tori: E?enIng Fast 305 Printing 83535,
I353), pp. 55-30.

 

 

 

 

 

(116)

owners to provide water on the second floor of their build-
ings. Jacob Riis stated that Trinity had nearly destroyed
his many years of work to improve slum conditions.1
Boring the era of muckraking Trinity's tenements
were the target of numerous writers including hay Stnnnard
Baker, Samuel Hookins Adams, and Charles Edward Russell.
Russell wrote several articles which described specific con-
ditions and locations owned by Trinity. His general in-
pressions were published in Everybody's:
It seemed to me after a while that I had no need
for a list of Trinity's holdings; I could pick them
out unaided, could tell them as far as I could see
them, tell them by induhitsble signs. Whenever I saw
a house that looked as if it were about to fall down,
one that looked in every way rotten and weary and
dirty and disreputable, I found that it was owned by
Trinity or stood upon its ground.2
William nurlbut's contribution to the protest the-
atre was a melodrama, complete with subplots and unrelated

incidents, of the sort that Charles Klein might have written.

 

Yet, Ens Writing on the Well did reflect the pessimism found

in plays like The fourth Estate and The Easiest Way. It

 

 

illustrated tenement conditions as they had been described
by Charles deard Russell and other muchrakers.

In Ene Writing on the Wall, Eerbera Lawrence the

 

 

1John P. Peters, “The Tale of Trinity,“ Independent,
LXVI (February, 1909), pp. 355-63.

2

 

Baker, Egeryhody's Hagazine, p. ll.

 

(11?)

wire or a tenement owner was persuaded by an old triend, a
reformer, to inspect the conditions or her husband's hold-
ings. She found a ten by twelve foot room in which a
wonan and her four children lived. During the day seven
night workers paid the woman five cents for space to sleep
on the floor. It was an inside room, without light or air.
In this unhealthy atmosphere the woman made liners for baby
carriages.

When Mrs. Lawrence suggested improvements tor the
tenements, her husband had one argument; the tenements owned
by Trinity church, where they had been married, were in far
worse condition than his. Lawrence did, however, promise to
replace the fire escape on one old building.

Later Lawrence changed his mind and decided to paint
the old fire escape, because this was less expensive than
installing a new fire escape. The painters provided the
public with an interesting spectacle. They erected scat»
folding on which to work: because, they were afraid to stand
on the old tire escape. Lawrence arranged to have the tire
inspector paid off, and the problem was settled. However,
in the last act a fire broke out in the building. Many were
killed when the fire escape collapsed. Mrs. Lawrence's
young son and her friend the reform politician were among
those who died in the fire.

Despite the dramatic weaknesses of the melodrama and

(118)

fliee Nethereole'e eoeewhet old teehioned hietrionice, g§=_
Writing on the Well wee e populer expoeé. not long etter
the pley wee produced Trinity Corporation decided to pull
down eeventy of ite tenemente. Olge Hethereole oleined the
drene wee roeponeible for the reform.1 While other tectore
perhepe deeerved cone or the credit for influencing Trin-
ity decieion. the drene certainly contributed to the pree~
cure on the church to reform. The pley eleo led to e bill,
introduced by Congreeenen KcGevin of Illinois. vhich pro-
poeed en inveetigetion ot the eetety of tire eecnpee in the
Dietriot of Columbie.2
Fron.e drmnetic etendpoint Bdwerd Sheldon‘e Selve-
tion Nell wne probably the beet etudy of life in the elune.
Sheldon wee juet out o! Herverd where he hed studied in

Proteeeor Beker'e oleee.3

Profeeeor Baker begen offering
xnglieh O7 in 1903. The cleee taught technical especte of
writing pleye end geve perepective dramatist en opportunity
to try out their ideee.

Since Sheldon ned no perticuler interest in economic

or eociel theoriee, gglvetion Hell belonged to the protest

 

theetre only to the extent that it reelieticelly portrayed

 

11ndienagolie Stag, April 6, 1910: St. Louis Star,
M113“ ’1' Iglfie

2
3

 

 

New York Horning Telegraph, January 16, 1909.

Quinn, giyil War to the Present, II. p. 86.

 

d

(119)

lite in new York's slums. The setting for the drama was the
Cherry Hill section of flew York. murders were common there.
and thieves rolled sailors whom they called “gold tish.’
Old Mother Oleson'e place was next to the original Salvation
Arny headquarters in this district. A sliding panel separ-
ated a cigar store from a notorious dive.1
Harrison Grey Flake carefully regroduced the atmos-
phere of this section of flew York on the stage. Some view-
ere thought that he had outdone Balance, who was famous for
scenic realism. For the barroom scene, rieke had purchased
the entire contents ot Bic Hccoven'e bar which had been lo‘
cated in the Cherry Hill section. In the original produc-
tion he had even used reel beer on the stage, but when the
W.C.T.U. objected, Flake changed to Weiss beer which looked

reel but contained no alcohol.2

The scene moat praised by
reviewers showed a street scene in a tenement neighborhOOd.
Slum dwellers leaned out of winders, and ‘raga dangled from

'3 Probably no other bit of scenic

rickety tire escapee.
realism so effectively conveyed an impression of the wretch~

edneee of life in the slums during this era.

 

1Press Release. Dramatic Scragbook, no. 207, Robin-
son Locke Collection, pp. 49-50: new York Times, November 15.
190., V1; p, 5e

2Provigence Journal, November 13, 1908: Indianapolis
Star, January 3, 1909; Cleveland Lender, March 7. 1309.

3Charles Darnton, New York Evening World, November 18,
1908: Louis De Foe, gnu York World, n.d.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(120)

One critic coupared the drama to Gorki's The Eight

 

Refuge end another thought Sheldon's motto was I'qive me

'1 Although the setting was real-

raaliem or give as death.
istic, the drama itself was not. Sheldon's play was a ro-
nantic portrayal of the regeneration of a young scrubwonan.
Religion enabled her to rise above her position as a scrub-
wonan in the low saloons of her district and to avoid the
temptations which made prostitutes of others like Nell. It
saved hell and eventually her lover, who had already spent
time in prison for his part in a barroom killing.

sheldon'e next play was the first American drama
produced at the New Theatre, which had been established in
1903. uinthrop Amos manager of the New Theatre heped to
attract a sOphieticated audience, which ordinarily did not
attend the theatre, to his intellectual and 'quality'

2 It was assumed that these serious dramas could not

dramas.
succeed in a commercial theatre. Prior to Sheldon‘s Egg
n1 er, the new Theatre had relied exclusively on EurOQean
drana.

Civil rights did not have the some attraction as

slum problems during the Progressive Era. A few articles

 

 

1William Bullock, ‘Sheldon's Salvation Nell,’ flew
York Press, n.d. *

2Thomas H. Dickinson, ghe Case of American Drama
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1915}, pp. - .

 

 

(121)

did appear in HoClurs's and the other nuckraking nagasines,
and there was something of a public outcry when President
Wilson approved segregation in the post office, but for the
nest part the problems of the Negro were ignored during this
era. Willian.De Mille's Strongheart (1905) began as an
attempt to dranatire the Regro's social isolation, but be
compromised and made the hero an Indian.1 however, Profes-
sor Baker encouraged drama about the Negro, and both Edward
Sheldon and Eugene O'Heill responded.2
The idea of a white Southerner who found that he had
Negro blood was not original in Sheldon's ghe Nigger, It

had been used by Dion Boucicault in The Octroon during the

 

eighteen-seventies. Later this theme was used by Sinclair
Lewis in Kingeblogd Royal. Some critics found The Nigger
revolting, especially a scene in which the Governor, who was
now aware that he had aegro blood, made love to his aristo-
cratic girl friend. A few minutes earlier she had 'loved'
his: now she thought he was a monster. The ironic scene was
a powerful commentary on racists values in America.

The Rigger was enthusiastically received in New York,

 

and a successful tour followed. The realism of the play was

 

1Monti-one Moses, "The Theatre,” Cambridge History of

American Literature, ed. William P. Trent, John Erikine,
Eirl van Boron Thaw York: Macmillan Co., 1931), II, p. 266.

2Oscar Cargill, Intellectual America: Ideas on the
Karch (How York: Macmillan, 1941?. P. 333.

 

 

 

(122)

illustratod by on articlo which appoarod in tho 8t. Josegh

flow Proos (Missouri). A wouan in Now Orleans was struck ond

 

killod by an sutonobilo. Bho was said to bo 'colorod' in
ono of tho novapapor accounts of tho accident. Hor family
sued tho newspaper, but in tho investigation which followed
o rcmoto mambo: on ono oido of tho family was found to ho a
Kogro. As o rosult of tho invostigation the doad woman's
sistor was doclsrod to bo no longer married because nixod
narrisgos wore illogsl in Louisiana.and s brotnor was
forcod to transfor to a Negro college. A general invostiqa-
tion was instituted “to separato the sheep from tho goats in
Sow Orloans society.“1
Prior to this ors conservatives had little rosson
to consider tho thoatro a threat to the existing social and
ooononic order. anilo tho capitalist had frequently boon

attacked in plays sinco gnu Henrietta, no successful Brood-

 

vay ploy had contained a serious argument for socialism un-
til this poriod. Comic relief had detracted from tho sori-
ous ospocts of oarliar protest plays, oven of muckrsking

solodrsmas liko Tho Lion and the Moons and The Man of tho

 

Hour, but botwosn 1907-1910 playwrights like Joseph Pattsr-
son and Eugene Walter avoided comic relief in their protost
plays. When the playwright of this era deviated from his

 

18t._qoaoph (Moi) News Press, March 3, 1911.

 

 

(123)

main theme, it was froquontly to attack noro vohonontly the
capitalist system. Managers in tho past, whilo capitalisinq
on tho publio's interest in roforn, could osoludo radical
plays from tho thoatro. During this ora they modified sons
of the noro radical plays, but tho thoatro was so full of
dress in which tho "socialists“ were the horoos. it was in-
ovitablo that a dramatic spokesman for the consorvativo po-
sition would arise. Somewhat surprising, howovor, was tho
fact that tho consorvativo spokesman was a nuckrakor hinsolf.
Cleveland Hoffett's ”The Shameful Misuse of Wealth“
was callod ono of tho few mistakes of tho nuckraking era by

1

Louis rillor, in Crusaders for American Liberalims. In Tho

Battle. a drama derived from his novel A King in Rags,

 

Hoffott turned from preaching against the excesses of tho
woalthy to preaching against the lasiness of the poor.
Despito his consorvativo play, however, xoffett continued to

writs for Egggton's

 

Hoffett maintained that by hard work and loss can-
plaininq slum dwollors could alloviato thoir own plight. He
also tried to prove that the profit motive was stronger than
socialistio ideals. The hero was John J. Haggleton. Bo was
a wealthy capitalist whose wife had run away taking their

son with her. Before she died. she arranged to have her son

1Louis Pillar, Crusaders for American Liberalism

(New York: Collier, 1931). p. 118.

(124)

brought up as a socialist. roars lator haggloton ontorod
the East Side slums under an assumed name to find his son
and persuade tho young man that socialism would not really
help tho poor. Haggloton provided tho funds for his son and
a few friends to epon a bakery. Almost immediatoly tho
bakory ownors hogan to Operate like a small trust. Thoy
bought flour in quantity tron Wisconsin at lower prices than
their competitors, and gradually forced all other bakorios
on tho East side to oithor join their small trust or go out
of business.

Reaction to The Battle was favorable. Whilo many
disagrood with Moffott's viewpoint, and most sgrood with Amy
Loslio that tho Socialists had not boon given an opportunity

1

to present their views in the drama. all agreed that tho

play's thosis was unique and controversial. John D. Rocka-
foller. Jr. attended ono performance and sont his Bible
class to another.- According to Malcolm McDonald. a Clove-

land critic. Rockefeller actually contributod to tho argu~

2

sent used by the capitalist. Runorous clubs usad tho play

3

as a subject for discussion costings. - Lioblor and Company.

producers of the play, epenod tho Savoy Theatre for a Sunday

 

1
2

3New York Times, January 20. l909. p. 9; New York
Times, toSruaryfiIJ, 1909, p. 11.

Chicago News, September 28, 1903.

 

Cleveland Plain Dealer. August 29, 1909.

(125)

night debate. Socialists were invited to reply to hoffott's
arguments. Response was immediate: Hicholas Murry Ely.
Edward Markham. w. J. Ghent. f. H. Giddings, J. G. Phelps
Etokes, Professor Ely. and Gaylord Wilshire all promised to
attend. The theatre was filled for the debate, and 1.500
were turned away.1

Although Socialists were not converted to conserve-
tism by Hoffott's play, their influence in the theatre do-
clined after 1910. Political protest was not absent from
the stage after that date. but the emphasis in plays about
corrupt practices clearly shifted away from reform.

xdward Sheldon's The Bone has frequently been cited
as a play which illustrated the impact of Progressive on the
theatre. Although Sheldon did write the play after reading
an article on Buffalo's political been, Fingy Connors,2 192
3222 was not a protest drama. It was a realistic portrayal
of a fascinating Irish-American who fought his way up the
social ladder and married the daughter of the town's re-

spected family.

In Fine Feathers. Eugene Walter touched on corrup-

 

tion in the construction business, but reform was not the

main issue. Welter dealt in almost naturalistic fashion

 

1New York Times, January 3. 1909. p. 11.

2A. H. Quinn. American Theatre: Civil war to the
tresent. II. p. 89.

 

(126)

with the force of materialism on an individual. The 'horo.’
a chemical inspector. was influenced by his extravagant wife
to accept a bribe of $10,000 to approve low grade cement
which was used in the building of a dam. The money was soon
lost speculating in the stock market. Just.when the hero
and his wife arrived at an understanding of their financial
status and the future appeared brighter. the dam burst and
hundreds were killed. The hero chose suicide over prison or
flight to Europe.

Charles Kenyon's Kindling was the best example of
socialistic protest thought in the American theatre between
1910-1915. The play was based on a New fork newspaper
clipping Kenyon had read about a vernont trial.1

Kenyon had been educated at Stanford University.
After college because of tuberculosis, he had spent three
years as a cowboy. no later tried the egg business and act-
ing without success. At the time he wrote Kindling, Kenyon
was an obscure reporter in California.2

Kindling compared the ethical theories of social
workers with those of Haggis Schults, a New York tenement

dweller. flaggio's husband was a stevedore, who went to

—_—

lflew York Times, October 2, 1917.

2Will Irwin, ’Will ‘the Road' Reverse the Judgment
of Broadway?,' Collior's, February 17. 19l2, Halter Prichard
Eaton, Pin a and’Players (Cincinnati: Stewart a Kidd.
1,16,. Po “riie

 

(127)

meetings and read 'dangerous' social theories. He believed
that tenement dwellers should not bring children into the
world, because they would probably suffer from disease and
would become the tools or the capitalist class.

While Maggie agreed with her husband and the local
settlement workers that children should not grow up in the
slums, she was not content to live without children. She
was determined to escape the slums, even it she had to steal
to obtain money. Eventually she did become a thief; she
stole from her employer to obtain the funds to finance a
trip to Utah. Only after she and her family were settled in
the West did she reveal how she had obtained the money.

Kindling's first run in New York was unsuccessful,

 

but near the end of its run Clayton Hamilton and Walter
Frichard Eaton saw the play. They began a campaign to
bring the play back to New York after its Chicago run.
Hamilton dragged each and every member of the Player's Club
to see the drama. A circular letter addressed to the
writers of New York and Chicago wan signed by thirty promin-
ent.writers including George Middleton, Fredric C. Howe,
Julian Street, Lincoln Steffens, George Jean Rathen, and
Barman Hapqood. They referred to Kindling as "one o! the

greatest American plays in years."1

 

1New York Tiees, January 23, 1912; N.Y.D.M., Janu-
ary el, 1912, p. 31; Cligpinq dated January 27, 19I2,
H.Y.P.L.

(128)

Dsspita thesa successful protest plays attsr 1910,
ths fashion was clearly dying. william Brady quickly gava

up on Goorqa Broadhurst's The Dollar Mark. Joseph Patterson

 

had joined his cousin, Robert McCormick, to win a proxy

battla for control over the Chicago Tribune in 1910. Al~

 

though By~Products was kept alive by the Hull House Playars

 

for several years. Patterson made no additional contribution
to tho protest theatre. Charles Klein told Channing Pollock
that tho public was tired of problem plays, and that he was
now working on a comedy. The muckrakinq period waa coming
to a cloaa both inside and outside the theatre. The histo-
rian ot the nuckrakors, Louis Filler. found that by 1910 tho
leaders of tho movement had turned from oxpoaé to proqrans
for change. They had used sensational material to oduoata
the public: now, they turned “to moro nephisticatod planes

'1 This waa clearly loss dramatic material

of. discussion.
for the theatre. The magazines were also on tho decline.

By 1912 they had like The Agorican shifted their emphasis.

 

or they were like gamgton's about to be driven out of busi-
ness. The American public was losing intorcst in crusades.
In politics and in economics interest turned swiftly to

apathy. Only extrema issues liks woman's suffraga and white

 

1Pillar, Crusaders, p. 224: Jack Alexander. "Tho
Duke of Chicago," Post Biographies of Famous Journalists,
ed. John E. Drowry (Athens, 6a.: University of Georgia
Pr033' 19‘2), Pa 22‘.

 

 

(129)

slavery sustained the interest of the general public between
19l0 and World War I. The socialist like the reformer had

utilised the theatre to build support. but they were unable
to act quickly enough in the political real: to sustain this

interest.

CHAPTER V

WHITE SLAVES, WOHEN'S SUFFRAGE, RED WAR

Muckrahing journalism declined after l9l0, and this
was reflected in the theatre. The battle against white
slavery was depicted in reform plays by Bayard Veiller and
George Scarborough, and reform ideas dominated the early
women's suffrage plays, but progressive reform ideas no
longer dominated the Broadway stage.

Woman's suffrage plays at this era included revolu-
tionary ideas regarding the rights of women. Revolutionary
ideas, European influences, and dramatic innovations were
included in the little theatre movement which emerged during
this era. Floyd Dell, John Read, Ross Pastor Stokes, Philip
Moellar, and Eugene O'Neill rejected reforn as impossible.
Their plays, produced by the Washington Square Players and
the Provincetcwn Players, attacked the conventions of middle
class America and depicted slum conditions which were far
worse than those shown on Broadway. Their revolutionary
ideas shaped the protest spirit of post-war America.

Anti—war plays achieved some success prior to World
War I. This suggested that the theatre had become an ac-

cepted medium of social protest during the Progressive are,

(130)

(131)

and it reflected the efforts of women to exert a greater
influence on their society.

rloyd Dell thought a “New Spirit” had come to
America in 1912. The “New Spirit” meant the election of
Wilson, Edna 8t. Vincent.Hillay's ”Renascence,' and the

poetry of Vachael Lindsay. for the theatre the “new Spirit'

 

scant gindle flakes in New York, the Irish Players in America,
and the Little Theatre movement in grassroots America.1 The
“has Spirit“ was visible in the women's suffrage plays and
the antidwar plays. Those who best exemplified it wanted to
change society, but they were not convinced that ‘uplift'
was possible or even desirable. The white slave plays which
enjoyed a voqu. in 1913 were the last stand of the reform
melodrama.

The issue of socialism no longer aroused great con-
troversy. Between 1907-1910 it had been a popular tapic for
debate on the Broadway Stage, but after 1912 few serious
plays touched on this issue. Radical groups were free to
advocate revolution in their plays without fear of police
suppression. William Haywood and John Reed staged a Social~
ist pageant in Eadison square Garden in the midst of the
Peterson strike. The white slave plays aroused Opposition:

not because they advocated economic reform, but because they

 

1Floyd Dell, Homecoming: An Autobiography (New York:
Farrar, 1933), p. 218.

(132)

dealt.with topics otteneive to Puritanical censors.

Interest in white elavery lagged somewhat behind
other iesuee during the Progressive Era. The United States
was not represented at the international conference on white
slavery in 1904; however, the treaty which emerged tree the
conference was proclaimed by President Taft. Host of the
state legislation on commercial vice came after 1911. and
most of the muckrakinq books and articles on thie subject
appeared between 1910 and 1915.

The white slave literature of 1911~1912 like the
Vice Report of the City of New York, which had been pub-
lished in 1902. emphaaiaed the need for higher wages in de-
partment stores and factories, where large numbers of young
women.were employed. Although reformers did influence the
passage of the Mann Act in 1910, they believed economic
change would bring about reform that no other legislation
could accomplish. Both ghe Social Evil in Chicago, a report
by the Chicago Vice Commiseion published in 1911 and banned
from the United States nail, and a seriee of articles by
James Addams in McClere's during 1911 and 1912. concluded

 

that prostitution was caused by economic factors. Hiee

Adams also noted that term girls and immigrants were most

likely to become victims of the white slave system.1

 

1Carqill, Intellectual America, pp. 591-92.

 

(133)

The idea that the prostitute was a victim of society
sore to be pitied than condenned.was one eajor change in the
thinking of many Americans during the Progressive Era. In
the protest theatre the prostitute had long been portrayed
as a victim of capitalise. In Julius Bopp's Poor People, an
unemployed factory worker turned to the life of a woman of
the streets because her father'was sick and the family
needed money. In Eugene welter‘s The Easiest way, Lure nur-
dock remained the mistress of a stock broker so that she
could find work as an actress. in Joseph Patterson's gy:_
Products, a department store clerk found that prostitution
offered the only chance to escape the slums.

The two.nost controversial white slave plays of 1913

were The Lure and The right. Both were endorsed by reform,

 

ere; yet. they were closed by New York police, and were
allowed to reOpen only after they had undergone considerable
revision. The Lure opened first and ran for four weeks be-
fore the police took any action.

The Lure was written by George Boarborough. He had
written one earlier play, but it had not been produced.
scarborough had worked as a court stenographer and as a re-
porter in Texas, where his father was a lawyer. For several
years he had investigated the white slave traffic in the
Midwest as a secret service agent. After a particularly

offensive case, a colleague urged him to write a play about

(134)

the incident. The result was The Lure.1

Scarborough took the play to Lee Schubert who
thought the plot seemed inpossible. Only after Shubert had
consulted with reform leaders in New York and Stanley H.
Finch. who was head of the branch of the Department of Jus-
tice in charge of suppression of the white slave traffic in
Washington. did he decide to produce the play. The Lure was
approved and endorsed by finch and numerous other reformers.2

the Lure described a situation familiar to cost so-
cial reformers. A girl needed.noney to pay for an operation
her'nother'nust have. At this tine of financial crisis. she
was discharged from the department store where she sold
stockings. ht the stocking counter she was exposed to many
well dressed.wonen. One of them had offered her a chance to
earn extra money at night. When the crisis occurred the
girl accepted the offer and found herself in a well known
house of ill fans.

The Lure was advertised as 'the Play that Reformed

the World.“ Despite some criticism it was generally ac-

cepted by the public as a play which was intended to “uplift“

 

1New York Times, March 8, 1914. vii. p. 53 Cleveland
Plain Dealer. Octcbcrwi9, 1918: “The Author of The Lure,I
Theatre. XXIII (October. 1913): Pp. 124-25.

2New York Times, September 17. 1913. p. 9: Cleve-
land Leader, hovumberfc, 1913: 'Dramatising Vice.“
r1z:*blgi, xnvx: (October 4, 1913). p. 577.

 

 

 

 

(135)

society. Its suggestion that women's suffrage would bring
about reforn legislation and an end to white slavery was
greeted enthusiastically by cost audiences. Not until a
second white slave play appeared on Broadway four weeks
later did the police institute action to halt production of
Scarborough's play.1
Bayard Veiller's The right involved a woman refers
candidate for nayor. and a United states senator who had a
financial interest in a house of prostitution. Its plot de-
scribed the nethods by which those engaged in the white
slave trade trapped innocent young girls. following the
production of The right, police sent representatives to wit-
ness both Veiller's play and The Lure. Boon afterward
Prosecutor achdoc announced the city would seek court action
against the producers of both plays. Among the strongest
supporters of this decision was the gew York Times. Before
a legal decision was reached The Lure and The right were re-
vised and approved by the police.2
Veiller'naintained the police suppression was the
result of his earlier play, Eithin the Law, which had added
little to the prestige of haw Iorh's police. It had de~
scribed the corruption Veiller had seen when rheodore Roose-

velt was trying to reforn New York's 'finest.‘ Veiller had

 

ww—i.

1&0“ York $11388. Baptmer 21' 1913; V, De ‘e

2New York Times, September 12. 1913. p. ll.

(136)

been a police reporter on the New York Mail and Expresg at
the same time that Jacob Riis and Lincoln Steffens held
similar positions on the Evening Sun and £55313, respect-
ively.1
In Within the Law, veiller had charged that the
police treated members of the upper class much better than
seobers of the lower class, when similar crimes were in-
volved. veiller believed the police had objected to this
argument. but they were unable to take any action because

Eithin the Law had been endorsed by such notables as his old

 

triend Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow wilson. The police.
Veiller thought. were unimpressed by the fact that Within
the Law had received.world wide acclaim, that it had brought
about.wage increases tor wousn employees at sir New York de-
partment stores, and that it had brought about investiga-
tions into working conditions for'wonen in twelve states.
They were. he believed. simply anxious to get even, and Egg
gig§§.o££ered an Opportunity for such revenge.2

veiller could cite considerable evidence to support
his claim. In addition to The Lure, which had run for tour

 

weeks unmolested by the police, Brieux's Eggpged Goods,

which dealt with the social disease. was running in New York.

 

1Bayard Veiller, The Fun I've Bed (New York: Reynal
5 Hitchcock, l941): p. 176. “’

2New York Times, September 21. 1913, v, p. 4.

 

(13?)

sponsored by the fledical Review of Reviews, at the same time
without police interference. During the previous season ggx_
gighg.had sustained a long run, despite the fact that the
play dealt with street walkers and prostitutes. The police
had.nerely forced the play's producers to delete all refer-
ences to the fact that the police might share in the profits
of these 'ladies.'1 In an interview with Police Commissione
er waldo, who had not seen The right, Veiller was told:

o-2

"You've got to throw the whole filthy thing sway. Hu-

morous reform groups supported Veiller's play, but they car-

ried little weight with the police. wenen's clubs and

3

suffragettes supported both The Lore and The Fight. Fred-

eric C. Howe, director of Peeple's Institute, wrote a letter
of approval to Veiller. Part of the letter, which was later '
published, stated:
From a moral and political viewpoint, it seems to me
The Fight is a three-hours' sermon as well as a remark-
able searchlight on the social basis of present day

ethics, and I believe that public Opinion should arise
in approval of such plays as The Fight.‘

 

Both plays were rewritten and allowed to continue.

Veiller claimed credit for some reform. Production of The

 

1New York Times, September 21, 1913, v, p. 4.
2

’24" York Times, October 13, 1913. p. 9, new York
Times, October 13, I515, p. ll: New York Times, OctoEer 23,
a}: Po 11s

4

Haw York Times, September 21, 1913, v, p. 4.

Eleveland Leader, November 16, 1913.

(1333

Eight, he argued, in the fludeon Theatre had forced the police
to close two houses of ill fame in that neighborhood; one of
then wee only two doore from the theatre.1
Numerous other melodramas appeared during this are
about white slavery, but none attracted the wide spread con-

troversy which surrounded The Lure and The Fight. The most

 

significant novel on this subject, David Graham Phillips'

Susan Lenora Her Fall and Rise, was not published until

 

1915 and did not reach the stage until 1920. Several earli-
er novels by David Graham Phillipe were dramatized, but with

little success. Critics attributed the failure of The Worth

 

of a Woman, which was produced in 1908, to Phillipe' frank
2

 

approach to the topic of sex.

The frank approach to sex proved increasingly popu~
lar after 1910. It was visible in the plays about women's
rights, which were influenced more by the concept of the
'new women“ than the older spirit of “uplift.” Later the
o£f~Broadwey stage attacked all Puriteniem as vestiges of
the pest.

Prior to 1910, women's suffrage plays did reflect

the attitudes of the reformers. In Votes For Women,

 

 

1

2&9 York Timefl' February 16' 1908' V1. 9e 1’ Isfiac
Harcosson, David Graham Phillips and Hie Times (New York:
Dodd, Head 5 Co., 1932). p. 243.

hoeton Herald, Rovember 16, 1913.

 

 

 

 

(139)

Elizabeth Robine argued that there would be no more ruined
women, it they were givon the right to vote. hiae Robina

later wrote Hy Little Slater, which acme critice thought van
1

 

the Uncle Tom'a Cabin of the white aleve movement.
Bliaaheth Robine' career illustreted the clone tiea
between Britain and America in the auffraqe movement. flier

nobina was born in Louiaville, Kentucky. but her Votes for

 

Eggg§_vae tirat produced in England, where ahe maintained a
aummer home in lBOI. The play was firat read to a flew York
audience on January 10; 1909. The reading was planned to
celebrate the releaae o! are. Pnnkhurst from an English
prison. but the Britiah government refused to cOOPerate:
they released the suffrage leader nine days eheed of ached-
ule.2
While moat critics thought that Elizabeth Robins had
overtimplified the social problems which nhe predicted the
vote would eclve, no aimilar charge could be leveled at the
wouen'a euttrege pleya efter 1912. These plays retlected
the 'Hew Spirit' which floyd Dell had described. They advo-

cated the vote for women not because it would reform society

 

———- f ———

lfiov York Times, Narch 16. 1909: new York Telegregh,
March 1. 1913.

2New York Timcg, January 10, 1909. p. 13: W. J.
Roberta. wilfieboth Robina: the Novelist. Actress and Suf-
fragiat at Home,“ Book News Monthlx, October, 1910,

PP. 238“0e

 

 

 

 

(140)

but becauae it was a part of a revolution which would grant
a ”New lreedoe' to women. Thie involved not moral uplift,
but a breakdown of the traditional moral and Puritanical
reatrictione on the freedom or women

he unnarried girl of twenty-tour was declared to be
in danger oi becoming an old.naid by an old-fashion father

1

in Before the Dawn. In Charlotte Perkins Gilnan's Three

 

Egggg a young kindergarten teacher argued for the right to
continue teaching after marriage. The drama also defended a
woman's right to enoke in public. Mre. Gilnan'a play was
part of a “Pageant ct Protest“ in which Mina rola La Follette.
the daughter of the wiaconain Senator. played a leading role.
Additional “treedon' for women was also the iesue in
George Broadhuret‘a Bought and Paid For and in William
Burlbut's zhe Strange_§qnen. Broadhurnt'a play dealt with
the wife of a rich seltqnade nan.’ Formerly she had been a
mere telephone operator, but she rebelled against her rich
husband. because he frequently became brutal after drinking

too much-2

Hurlbut's play which had a difficult time with
the censore in Chicago. described a beautiful and intellec-
tual divorcée'e efforts to advocate free love in a small,

conservative Iowa town. Eventually ahe yielded to custom,

 

1New York Times, April 1. 1910. p. 11: New York
Times, NarcE 19,*1911. p. 13.

2

 

 

New York Timeg, September 27. 1911, p. 13.

 

(141)

but not until after she had exposed the hypocrisy of small
town religion.1
Leaders of the Little Theatre Movement sought addi-
tional freedom not only for women but for the entire Ameri-
can theatre. It meant the freedom to experiment*with new
ideas about the theatre like those demonstrated by the Irish
plays on the tour of America in 1912. or new techniques of
artistic rather than realistic setting as Gordon Craig was

advocating and.Haa Reinhardt.was using at the Deutscher

 

Theatre. Above all the little theatre covenant sought free-
dom fron.the ccnmercialisn.of Eroadway.

While many of the leaders of the Little Theatre were
political as well as dramatic rebels. and some of then‘were
reformers. their protest plays have a more European spirit
than the radical nelodranas of the past. Ironic helpless-
ness instead of uplift dominated the protest plays of these
radicals, who heped for reform but were convinced that it
was impossible. nevertheless, their plays depicted with
stark realise the tragedy of life in the sluns.

Only in the first successful little theatre group,
the hull house Players in Chicago, was social purpose more
important than artistic aims. This organization was estabo

lished to provide recreation for the working peeple in the

 

1Row York Times, November 18, 1913, p. 11.

 

(1‘2)

couaunity. One leading performer made cigars during the day.
Rehearsals were held two nights a week. The Bull House
Players emphasized social themes in their productions.1
frequently they produced social dramas by Shaw, Galaworthy,
and other European dramatists, but they did produce Charles

Kenyon's Eindligg and Joseph Patterson's By~Prcductn. Later

 

the fienry Street Playhouse woe to follow a similar pattern
in utilising talent in the community to dramatize social
theme on New York's Lower East Side.

Thomas H. Dickinson was keenly aware that a battle
was taking place with the little theatre movement between
social reformers and artists. He believed that both groups
sought the cane end~~a theatre which represented the peo-

2 Dickinson'e Wisconsin Dramatic Society, founded in

ple.
1910. marked the beginning of a period of widespread local
theatre activity all over the United States. His organiza-
tion. although located in nadiaon, drew from the resources
or the entire state.3 The Society's most notable original

production was Zone Gale's The neighbors. This realistic

 

1Eleie F. well, “null House Players,‘ Theatre, XIII
(Bepteaber. 1913). Pp. xix-rxii: Thomas Dickinson, The In~
surgent Theatre (New York: B. W. Buehech, 1917): P. 31.

2

3Dickinson, gheurgcnt Theatre: P. 71: Killian 5.
Leonard, “The Wieconcin Dramatic Society: An Appreciation,”
Drama, 11 (hey, 1912), p. 222.

Dickinson, insurgent Theatre, p. 98.

 

 

(143)

portrait of tho drab 112. on a Hidwostsrn tarm.vas similar
to thoao found in Hamlin Garland's short storios of tho
middle border. .

How York's Littla Thaatrs movement could bo da-

scribod in terms of tho famous masthead of The Hassosn

 

'Rovolutionary and not Reform. . . .' The founders of tho

Washington Square Players, however, had previously producsd
plays through tho Socialist Press Club. Tho socialist Pross
Club was a raforn organisation.uhioh sought to bring social-

1 who club's

ist intallactuals and the press cloaor together.
prasidont.was nuckraksr Charles Edward Russell.
In tho spring of 191‘. Edward Goodman, who was lator
tho dirsctor of the Washington Equars Players, stagod four
one act plays tor the socialist Press Club. Ono of thsn*was
EH? savigg_o£ Martin Grsor, which was Ross Pastor Stokoa'

first attanpt at writing drama. Both ghaAgaving of Martin

 

Greer and Philip Hoollor's Charitx, which was on tho sans
bill, wars realistic studios of poverty, but neither author
advocated or expected reform.

Tho Saving of Hartin Greer was a grim and ironic

 

drama about an old nanwwho could no longer find work. Bs~
oauso ho was two months behind on the rent his landlady and

bar daughter decided the old man must leave. After he was

 

1Lottsr tron tho Socialist Press Club, Thomas
Seltzer, Soo.. to Edward Goodman, Edward Goodman Colloc~
tion, H.Y.P.L.

(144)

informed of this decision, the old man locked the kitchen
door and turned on the gas. The landlady and her daughter
managed to break down tho door. and a young doctor provided
a drink of whisky to revive tho old can. After drinking
the whisky, the old man exclaimed. "saved" and fell back
into bed.1

Rose Pastor Stokes was well qualified to describe
poverty. Born in Russia. she was working in London at the
ago of three. At eleven. she rolled cigars in a Cleveland
sweatshop. In 1905 she not and later'narriad Phelps Grahaa
stokes a philanthroPist who had joined the Socialist Party.
During World War I, he returned to what Rosecalled the
’ioporialist class”: she joined the communist party.2

Philip Hoellar's Charitx described a level of pover-
ty seldom seen on tho American stage oven in protest plays.
An invalid. starving mother watched the erection of a build~
ing from a tenement window. Once she had known the rich man
who had donated the building, but that was in better days.
Now, she had only a plain daughter to support her. and the
3

daughter was a failure, even at prostitution.

It was Moeller who helped Ralph Roeder and Josephine

 

1
2

N2" York rims, ”arm 29' 191‘, LV' 9. 6o

 

Baily Worker. June 20. 1939.

 

,Clipping in the Philip Hoeller Collection, N.Y.P.L.

(145)

Mayor to persuade Edward Goodman to abandon a trip to EurOpe
and work on a echoes which led to the formation of the Wash-
ington Square Players. Plays for the group were discussed
at the Liberal Club and downstairs at "Polly's.'I fiext door
was the washington Square Bookehoy, where they first tried
out their ideas in impromptu fashion.1

During the 1914 season the Washington Square Players
began producing one act plays at the handbox Theatre. Among
the American authors whose plays were produced by the group
were Edward Goodman, rloyd Bell, Susan Glaspell, Rosa Pastor
stokes, Philip Moellor, and John Read.

Hoellor's Ewe Blind Beggars and One Less hlind_de~

 

picted two beggars who came upon a dollar while sorting rags
in their collar. Both were incapacitated in a fight over
the dollar. While they were still unable to move, a third
beggar entered the collar with a girl. he found the dollar,
and believing it was a scrap of paper, lit it so they could
see.2

John Reed's first experience in the theatre had been

as stage nanager for the Paterson Pageant. Madison Square

Garden was hardly a little theatre, but it was here that

ML L-

1Zoe heckley, “Dentists, Lawyers, Clerks, by day,
They're Actors and good ones at hight,‘ Philip Mueller
€011.0tton' HoyoPoLo

2'The Washington Square Players,“ Theatre, XXI
(May, 1915’s P. 259s

(146)

William haywood had arranged to dramatize the Peterson, New
Jersey, silk sill strike of 19l3. The pageant, which in~
volved a cast or 1,200 strikers, depicted the major inci-
dents of the strike: the beginning or the strike, the battle
between strikers and police, the sending away of the chil-
dren, and the union meetings at Turn Hall were all staged.1

Reed‘s noondovn was written primarily for The Masses,

 

 

but it was also produced at the Bandhox Theatre by the Wash-
ington Square Players. Two shopgirls were shown in a tene-
nent room. One was cynical: the other clung to a romantic
view of lite.2 In the end, however, both chose what Eugene
Halter had called “The Easiest Way.‘

New York's most famous little theatre was started

when the Washington Square Players rejected Suppressed De-

 

giggg. the play's authors George Cook and Susan Glaspell
became convinced that New York needed.a more radical and
experimental theatre. For several years they had been
spending the summer at Provincetown, Massachusetts, with a
group which included some ot the participants of the wash-
ington Square Theatre. During the summer of 1915 at the

Wharf Theatre in Provincetown, the group began to

 

1Daniel Aaron, Writers_on the Left: Episodes in
Emoticon Literarx Communism (New York: Harcourt, Brace 5
World, 1961). pp. 16~f7T’

zfiaw York Times, March 27, 1915.

 

(147)

oxporinont.1 rho organization included John Rood, Butch
Hapgood. and Iloyd ball: but tho rovolntionary dramatist who
act this group apart was tugono O'Noill. O'Noill rojoctod
tho star system and tho wall nado play. no had littlo in-
tarost in reform. but his plays which emphasized lowor class
typos and Negroes brought to tho American thaatrs a protest
against middle class commercialism on a new plans of dra—
matic insight.2
World War I brought the “new" revolutionary. but not
reform drama to Broadway. In comparison to tho Amorican
tnaatro's reaction to the Spanish-American war tho theatro's
raaction to world War I was revolutionary. Whilo in part
this can bo attributed to tho lack of public unanimity for
the latter war. it was also due to the “new Spirit' of a
ganoration impatient because of tho failuro of rotorm and
not at all convinced that war would benefit the people.
This generation had also soon the American theatre bocomo an
ootabliahed medium of protest. Then too. tho antivwar plays
worn written by women, who were determined to arpross frooly
their opinions.

Alnoat as soon as the War broke out in EuroPo,

 

1Arthur Golb and Barbara Golb. O’Neill (How York:
Dell. 1964), pp. 301-34.

2Thomas H. Dickinson, glgngighto of the New Ameriw
E?“ Theator (How York: Macmillan Co.. lQZS), pp. 61:36.

 

(148)

interact in tho theatre declined in America. A number of
anti-war plays did attract public attention. Poacc Socia~
tion from various parts of America cont representatives to

Northampton, Massachunotts, to witness In the Vsnguaré. The

 

drama demonstrated how quickly war (over disappears oncc a

battle has taken place.1 In fiar Brides, which was first

 

publiahod in gnntury Magazine, Marion Craig Wontworth argued

 

that loveless marriages were froqucntly made in order to
provide non for future wars. Thus, she maintained, the
patriotic war bride was oxyoctcd to provide “food for the
enemy's cannons.“2
The most popular anti-war play was Beulah Maria

Dix's Moloch. Miss Dix was a graduate of Radcliffe College.

Earlier she had written Across the Border, an anti-war drama,

 

and Lay Down Your Arms, which ?ho Indgpendent callod "tho
.3

 

 

groatost of all peace novels.
Moloch recon with girls throwing roses as soldiers
marched to the front. The horror of war was nhcwn in the
next scene: former friends worn tortured and neighbors were
killed. However, the supremo irony was left {or the play's

conclusion after the war had ended. It was announced that

 

luau York Timon, October 5. 1914: New York Timon,
October lI{“1916.

2

 

 

Century Magazine, LXXXIX (February, 1915), pp. 527-

 

4‘.

3Theatre, XXII (Hovombor, 1915), pp. 230-31.

(149)

another war had already been declared. Thie time the enemy
was their recent ally.1

George Tyler nae reluctant to produce the drama, he-
caure o! ite anti—war argumente. he wrote to Theodore
Rooeevclt about the play, but the former Precidont'e reply
wae delayed. Tylcr’e partncre had already completed plane
to produce the drama, when Roosevelt's criticien wae rec

ceivod. Roosevelt'e woret {care about the drama did not

materialize. Critice noted the play'e argument for “prepar-
edneee' ae well an ite anti-war tho-c.3
The anti-war playe and the little theatre playe of
1914-1915 reflected the change in outlook brought about by
what Floyd Dell had called the 'How Spirit,' and what
Henry hay later called ”the end of American innocence.‘ It
marked the end of the protest play an it had existed during
the Progrceeive Era. The Optimism at this age wae loot:
juet ae the melodrama with a ha??? ending was loet to the

thcatre.

 

lNew York Times, September 21, 19151 New York Evening

 

 

World, soptembcr 5i, I515: New York Amorican,‘8¢ptcoher 11.

2Letter from Theodore Rooaavclt to Tyler, October 1,
1915: Letter from Tyler to Mre. Roosevelt, October 1‘, 1933,
in tho George Tyler Collection, Princeton University.

show York Evening:gournal, September 21, 1915: New
York Jourfinl of Commerce, Suptunber 21, 1915: Halter Pr!-
char Eaton, Indianapolis hows, October 2, 1915.

 

 

 

 

(150)

The treneition to the modern theatre which began
with the pleye of Bronson Howerd wee completed with the
drama: of Eugene O'Heill. During this period the American
theatre developed into e medium of protest against existing
political. eooiel, and economic conditions. The protest
began ee eetire during the eighteen-nineties, deveIOped into
outright progegende after the turn of the century. end after
1910 rejected completely middle class values. The modern
drenetiet. whom a. L. Henoken end George Jean Nathan ep-
pleuded, continued to proteet egeinet the existing order:

however, he now also rejected the concept of 'progrese.‘

BIBLIOGRAPHY
CERERAL SOURCES

Aaron, Daniel. Men of Good Hoge: A Story o£#§merican Pro-

reasives. new York: Oifcrd Univeraity Press,
51.

. Writer! on the Left: Episodes in American Liter-

ary“CommunIen. New York: Barcourt.’§rece 5*be137‘
1961.

Beer. Thomas. The Mauve Decade: American Life at the End
§£§thc nineteenth Eentugy. new YorE: A. A. Xnofif.
9 6.

Brooks. Thomas. foil and Trouble: A History of American
Labor. New York: Dell. 1533. ‘

Brooke. Van chk. The Confident Years. 1385»l915. New
York: I. PTWDutton a 33:7"I§3§. “m'

 

 

Cerqill. Oscar. Intellectual America: Ideas on¢the Harch.
How York: Macmillaniilgil.

Chamberlain, John. Farewell to Reform. New York: Live-
right. 1932.”w

Croly, Herbert. The Promise at American Life. New York:
”Emil“. ngge

Curti. Herle Eugene. The Growth of American Thought. New
York: Harper 5 Brothers. 1543.

Dell. Floyd. U ton Sinclair: A Stud in Social Protest.
New 20:5: 6. fl. Doran 50.. Igis.

George, Henry. Progress and Poverty. New York: Appleton.
1881. 7*

 

Ginger, Ray. Age of Excess: The United States from 1877 to
1914. wNew York: Mecfiillan, 1963.

. Altgeld's America: The Lincoln Ideal versus

(151)

(152)

snaggiggllsalities. New York: funk. 195'.

. The Be Cross: a liggrafigf o! ggggge Victor
Debs. ew Brunswick: ntqers n vars y Press.

 

 

flicks. Granville. The Great Tradition: an Interpretation
of hericanTi‘t'eraEcre since the Eivif War. New
75:2. usosillan.‘f§3§.

. JOhn need: the flaking of a Revolutionarx. New
tori: Hun-ii an. .

 

Hicks. John. The Populist Revolt;‘;a History of the
Per-ereT alliance and—the Peogle's fiertx. Sinne-
apolis: UniVersity of”flinnesota Frees. 1931.

noretadter. Richard. The as at Before: Iron lgan to
0

 

 

 

 

’eDeRe NOV Yo: I e

. Iocial Darwinis- in Alerican rho ht 1860-1915.
Pni

19:4.

Inches. Jessie wallace. A-erican Socialies: of the Present
D x. New York: John Lane Co.. 1515.

Banter. Robert. Povertx. new York: Macmillan a 60.. 1907.

Lahore. Icy. The g£g¥reseivss and the Blues: Tenement
Rouse Re or. n ew or : ~ . -
Euro: University of FIEtsEurg Press. I562.

Helicon. Charles. Critics and Crusaders. New York:
3. “01‘ ‘ COO. I’:""Z§e

.nana. Arthur. rankee Isforlers in an Urban e. Cambridge.
Mess.: ”EIEVSEZ'finiversity Frees, 15%,.

Morris. Lloyd. Poetscrigte to Yesterda : America, the Last
titty Years. New YorE: fiifiaoc. I917.

flowry. George 2. Theodore Roosevelt and the P ressive
Movement. Madison. His.: UniVersity 0 Wisconsin
Frees. 1946.

fire. Russel B. Midwestern Progressive Politics. East
Lansing: Michigan State University Press. 1959.

 

 

(153)

Parrinqton, Vernon. Main Currents in American Thought,
Vol. I, The Beginnings of CriticeI Renliem in
Americe.—rlow York: aarcourt, Brace 8 Co.,'I927-30.

 

 

Pringle, Henry I. Theodore Roosevelt. New York: Harcourt.
Br.c. ‘ COe; 1931e

 

Rascoe, Burton. Before I Forget. Garden City: Doubleday.
Daren, I 50.. I§371

 

Rogier, C. C. The Era of the Muckrakere. Chapel Hill:
University 01 Earth Carolina Press. 19‘2.

 

Riordan. William L. Plunkitt of Tammany Hall. Rev York:
HcClure, Phillips 5 Co..'1905.

 

Syrett. Harold C. (ed.). The Gentlemen and the Ti or: The
Autobiography of George B. Mccléllenl Jr. §hIIa33I~

Ehia: Lippincott, 1956.

 

Steffens, Lincoln. The Autobiography of Lincoln steffenc.
New York: Barcourt,‘193l. _

 

Tarbell. Ida M. The Bietorv or Standard oil. 2 vols. New
York. MCélur.p Phillip. ‘ COe' I901.

 

Underwood. John Curtis. Literature and Insurgency. Bow
York: Mitchell Kennerley,'I9l£.

 

Villard, Osweld Garrison. righting rears: Menoirs or a
§é§eral Editor. How York: ‘Barcourt. Brace & Co..
9. 7”

 

 

Wald, Lillian. The Houee ongfienrx_8treet. flee York:
H. “01: 2 CO.. 1§I§e

White, Morton. ggcial Thought inwgmerice: The Revolt
against formalism. Boston: Beacon Press, 1§51.

 

(154)

DOCUMENTS, EEWSPAPERS, AND PERIODICALS

Pee plays of this era were published. Hany remain
unavailable: however. typescripts of numerous important
plays of this era may be found in the new York Public Li-
brary's Theatre Collection at Lincoln Center. The Library's
clipping tiles provide an excellent cross section of criti~
cal opinion about almost every play produced during this
period. or particular value after 1900 are the Grey Locke
collection of press clippings and the Robinson Locke Collec~
tion of Dramatic scrapbooks. Both include a wealth of bio-
graphical naterial about the dramatists of this age, re-
views of plays. and general comments on the American theatre.

The Philip Moeller Collection and the Edward Good-
man Papers, also in the New York Public Library’s Theatre
Collection, contain letters, programs, and reviews which re-
late to the Washington Square Players. George Tyler's
papers at Princeton University includes some usetul informa-
wtion. particularly in connection with the New York produc-

tion of Israel Zangwill‘s Children of the Ghetto and an ex-

 

change of letters between Tyler and Theodore Roosevelt re-
qardinq Beulah Maria Dix’s Moloch.

The extent to which social reformers influenced the
American theatre 1890-1915 may be determined by a reading of
the daily theatre pages in the how York Times. While the

audiences of Progressive Era may not have always agreed with

 

   

. . - a
Q 4 ' > C
‘ I
l C
5 1V" ~ .
e 1 '1 .
C ' ,

r

I J

(155)

the Opinions espressed by the fimee' reviewers, the plot
summaries in the reviews are generally accurate, and they
reflect the influence of the social protest movement. Fur-
thermore, besides its reviews of all Broadway productions,
the SiEEE contains comments on the plays in the smaller
theatres and on amateur productions. Occasionally the Eiggg
even reviews a melodrama from one of the lower class thea-
tree.

The New York Dramatic Hirrgg was the best of the

 

weekly trade papers. It was especially useful on the thea-
tre of the eighteen-nineties when other sources were limited.

gheatre negatine, beginning in 1900, contained interviews

 

with dramatists. These provided more insight than Theatre's

reviews. The Green Book Album, first published in 1910,

 

features analytic studies of American drama.
Several magazines published monthly reviews. Al-

though both Channing Pollock's column in The Smart Set and

 

Clayton Hamilton's reviews in The Forug contain somewhat
reactionary ideas, they are readable and informative.
Pollock's successor, the iconoclastic George Jean hathan, on

ghe Smart Set attacked the commercial theatre with a vigor

 

seldom seen during this are: however, his reviews do not re-
flect the Progressive mind, and they have lost something

with the passage of time. Reviews in Hampton's and The

 

American negatine best represent muckraking opinion of the

(156)

theatre. Louis Post's Single Tax journal, Ehe Public, and

 

B. 0. Flower's The Arena also contain numerous articles and

 

reviews of value.

(157)

THEATRE EISTOEIES

The most useful history of the theatre, which
relates to the period, remains Arthur Hobson Quinn's 5
History of the Theatre from the Civil War to the Present
221.(2 vols.: New York: Harper 5 Brothers. 1927). See
also. Quinn's 'Tha Significance of Recent American Drama.“

Scribner's Magazine, LXXII (1922). pp. 97~108. Caspar

 

Nannes' {glitics in the American Drama (Washington:

 

Catholic University Press, 1951) contains a readable chapter
on the nuckrakinq era: however, he is primarily interested
in musical comedy. As a result he ignores some of the best
examples of protest drama. Glen Hughes“ A History of the
American Theatre: 1700-1950 argues convincingly that the
authors of protest plays during the Progressive Era were
insincere and that they were content with hack work.

Barrett Clark argued similarly in g Study of Modern Drama
(New York: Appleton 5 Co., 1925). See also, Montroae

Hoses' The American Dramatist (Boston: Little, Brown &

 

COs, 1927’s

Eartha Fletcher Bellinger'a A Short History of the

 

Drama (New York: a. Holt, 1927) is a useful volume to the
student of the Progressive era stage. Sheldon Cheney‘s The

Theatre: Three Thousand Years of DramaL Acting. and Stage-

 

cratt (New York: Chautauqua Press, 1931) clearly oozines

(158)

artistic and EurOpean criticism of the American theatre,
and differentiates between realism and naturalism as they
apply to the theatre. See also, Cheney's “American Play-

writes and the Drama of sincerity,“ The forum, LI (April,

 

191‘). Ppe ‘98‘512.

hordecai Gorelik's useful New Theatres for Old (New

 

York: Samuel trench. 1940) compares the realistic toreiqn
protest theatre to the melodramatic American stage. Edmund
u. Gagey, Revolution in the American Drama (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1947) begina with a chapter on
the American theatre 1912-1917, but his account aéde little

to older histories of this era.

(159)

Chapter I
Social Protest and Satire in the Eighteen-Nineties

English playwright Alfred Hennequin‘s ”Characteris-
tics of the American Drana,‘ 55353, I (May, 1090), pp. 700-
09, is a critical and useful study or the American drama
of this era. Dion Boucicault, “The Future of American
Drama,” 55335, I (November, 1890), pp. 641-52, predicted the
rise of the social protest play.

Bronson Howard's She flenrietta is in Allan Gates

 

aslline’s finerican Playg_(uev York: American Book Co.,

 

1935). Several of Howard's other plays are in Barrett
Clark's (ed.) America's Lost Plays (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1901). For biographical information on
Howard, see, in Memorium, Bronson Howard (New York: Harion
Press, 1910), which contains addresses given at a memorial
meeting held at the Lyceum Theatre, by the American Drama-
tist Club, October 18, 1908. This volume includes “A Brief
Biography,‘ by Barry P. Newton: ”An hppreciation,‘I by
Brandor Matthews: and a letter from Theodore Roosevelt. See
also, Dorothy A. Barrett, ”A Critical Study of Bronson
Howard" (unpublished fiaster's dissertation, Theatre Dept.,
Nichigsn state University, 1952).

Augustus Thomaa describes his career and comments

on his society in The Print of My Remembrance (New York:

 

Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922). Arthur and Barbara Golb

(160)

compared O'Neill's ideas of the drama with the well made
play of Thomas in O’Neill (new York: Dell, 1964).

Douglas Hunt's 'The Life and Work of Charles Hoyt,‘
gulletin o! Birmingnam-Southern College, XXXIX (January,
1946), and his introduction to five Plays by Charles Hoyt,
Barrett Clark (ed.) America's Lost Plays (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1941) evaluated Hoyt's career as
e dramatist and described his cynical estimation of his
audiences.

The most recent and the most complete study of
Horne is Herbert J. Edwards and Julie A. Horne, James A.
52533 (Orono, Maine: University of Maine Press, 1962).

A volume or Herne's plays is included in Barrett Clark

(cd.), Agerica's Lost Plays. Bee also, ghorejAcrcg_ggg

 

Ether Plays, hrs. James Horne (ed.), (New York: Samuel

 

trench, 1920), with an introduction by Julie A. Berna.
Herne's ideas about the drama are in 'Art for Trutb's Bake
in the Drana,‘ 55352 XVII (1897). PP. 361-70. see also,
Herne's letters to George Tyler, George Tyler Collection,
Princeton University.

The production of Harqaret Fleming was described in
Hamlin Garland, A Son of the Middle Border (New York:
Macmillan, 1910) and in Jean Holloway, Hamlin garland,
(Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961). William Dean

Howells reviews the play in “Editor's 8tudy,‘ Harper's,

(161)

LXXXIII (August. 1891). pp. ‘78-79. A contrary View of

Born. and Margaret Fleming in in Thomas Bear. The Mauvo

 

Decade: American Life at the and of the Ninctoanth Conturl
(New York: A. A. Knopf, 1926). Lars Ahncbrink, The Begin-
ning of Naturalism in American Fiction (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1961), treat. tho influences of Ibsen and
natura1ism on Berna. 8.. also. Dorothy 8. Buck and Arthur

H. Nether-0t, 'Ibaon and Horno'a Hovenont,’ American Liter-

 

ature, XVI (January, 1946), pp. 311-33.

(162)

Chapter It
Post War Romanticism and Social Protoot: Tho American
Thoatro at the Turn of tho Century

Brando: natthowa, “Tho Question of the Theatre.“
North American, CLXXIV (1902). notoa tho changoa in tho
American theatre away from European influences in the past
docado. The rotormora' critioiano of tho stage, and their
aspirations are stated in Halon Potter. “The Drama ot.tho
Twentieth Contury,’ 55235, xxlll (robruary. 1900). PP. 157-
66. Herman Hapqood'o gho American Stage 1898-1900 (Rev
fork: nacmillan. 1901). onphaeires foreign influonooo on{
tho otago.

Clyéc Fitch'o.influenoo on tho atago at tho turn of

tho century is doaoribod in Lloyd Morris. Poateorigta to

 

Yesterday: American Life and Thought 1896-1946 (new York:
Barpor a Row. 1965). ritoh was described in an interview
with W. L. Pholpa by Wesley 8. Griswold in the Hartford
Courant, Soptonbor 16.-1934. and more critically by van
lyok Brooks, The Confident Yoara: 1885-1915 (Nov York:

3. I. button a Co.. 1952). Fitch'a difficulties with

thoatro Ianagoro booauoo of tho opening ocono ot ghe glinpgg

 

aro diaouaaod in niohard Cordell'a introduction to the play
in goproaontativo Modern Play: (Now York: 2. nelson a Son.
1929). Boo aloo, Hontrooo J. flares and Virginia Garcon.
Clyde Fitch and His Letters (Boston: Little. Brown 3 Co..

1924). Howell- roviow of The Climber: is in “The Recent

 

(163)

Dramatic Season,“ North American, CLXXII (1901), pp. 463-

 

80.
Many of George Ade's plays have been published:
EEE Sultan of Bulu (New York: R. 8. Russell, 1903) and

The County Chairman, Burns mantle and Garrison P. Sherwood

 

(ed.), Best Plays of 1899-1909 (Philadelphia: Blakiaton
Co.. 1944) relate to this chapter. Ade comments on the

writing of The Sultan ogwsulu in an article in a program for

 

a revival of ghe County Chairman: “Recalling the Early
Tremors of a Tineroue Playwright,“ The Players, The County
Chairman. Ade'e views on the theatre are in “George Ade
Talks of His Stage Ideals,“ Theatre, 1v (November, 1904),
pp. 287-88. George Jean Nathan interprets Ade as a realis-

tic playwright in Another Book on the Theatre (New York:

 

B. H. Buebsch, 1915).

. James a. Borne's efforts on behalt of the Single Tax
are noted by Henry George, Jr.: “James A. Horne,“ Single
Tax Review, I, pp. 1-3. See also, Benjamin 0. Flower,
“James A. Borne: Actor, Dranatiat, and hen,“ £5222! rxzv
(September, 1891). Horne is compared to Clifford Odets by

Philip Morton: “James A. Borne,“ gheatro Arte, XLI(Decen-

 

bar, 1940), pp. 891~901. Bag harbor is reviewed by William

 

Dean Howells in “The Recent Dramatic Season,“ North American,

 

CLXXII (March, 1901): PP. ‘63“80.

(164)

Chapter III
The Rise of the Huckraking Melodrama: 1904-1906

The host general work on this period is Walter

Prichard Eaton's The American Stage To-Day_(Boston: Small,

 

Maynard s Co.). William Mailley's “The Season's Social
Drama,“ £5235, XXXVII, pp. 35-36, is also useful.

Charles Klein's ideas are stated in “Religion,
Politics, and the Drama,“ 5525;, IXXVII (Hay, 1907),
pp. 492-97, “Charles Klein Tells his Dramatic Purpose and
Convictions,“ New York Times, December 2, 1906, iv, p. 2,
“what the Playwright is Up Against,“ and in an interview

in the yew York World_Magazine, January 1, 1911, p. 8.

 

See also, Klein's plays: The Lion and the House (New York:

 

Samuel French, 1917) and The Daughters of Men, Philip

 

Klein, ed. (rev.: New York: Samuel French, 1917). Favor-
able reviews of Klein's plays include: Benjamin 0. Flower,
“The Theatre as a Potential Factor for Higher Civilisation,
and a Typical Play Illustrating its Power,“ 55293, XXXVII

(Hay, 1907), pp. 498-509, and George Bronson-Reward,

 

“What's Wrong With our Playwrights,“ Green Book high“. For
more critical Opinions of Klein's plays see, Montrceo

Hoses, “The Regeneration of the Theatre,“ Themfcrum, XLV,

 

pp. 504-88, and Walter Prichard Eaton, At the New Theatre

 

and Others_(Doeton: Small, Maynard a Co., 1910).

The Grey Locke Collection, New York Public Library,

(165)

contains the only useful material on George Broadhurst.

His plays, however, are available: The Man of the Hour

 

(rev. ed.: New York: Samuel French, 1916).
The aims of the Progressive Stage Society are

stated in the Progressive stage Society Bulletin. Julius

 

Hopp states his belief in revolutionary socialism, and his
convictions about social drama in “The Social Drama, and

its Purpose,“ Eclectic magazine, CXLVI (1905), p. 4. Only
two of Hepp's plays were published and no available record
shows that either was ever produced: 32552 (Boston: Poet-

Lore Co., 1904) and The Brotherhood of H32 in Eclectic

 

Magazine.

Zena Gale’s “The Dramatic Season,“ The Critic, XLIV
(May, 1904), pp. 412-28, is a clear explanation of The Pit's
pepularity. Channinq Pollock defended his drenatisation of
the novel in an interesting but unconvincing manner in
Earveat of My Yearg (New York: Bohbe-Herrill Co., 1943).
The New York Public Library's clipping tile contains ex-
tensive reviews or The Jungle. Sinclair's problena getting
capitalist theatre managers to produce his plays are de-

scribed in the introduction to his Plays of Protest (New

 

York: Mitchell Kennerley, 1912).

(166)

Chapter IV
Socialism Comes to Broadway: 1901-1910

The American drama of social thought is described

in Sheldon Cheney, Ehe flew Movement in thefiyheatre (New

 

York: Mitchell Kennerley, 1914): William Archer, “The New

Drama and the New Timetre,‘l McClure's, xxxxv (hovember,

 

1909). pp. 3~163 Thomas Dickinson, 139 Case of hmericgg

 

Drama (Boston: noughton nifflin Co., 1915): and in Elsie
May's preceptive article. 'Contemporary Drama as a Reflec~

tion of Modern Life," §ewanee Review, XIX (April, 1911),

 

pp. 161-71. Artistic EurOpean influences on the American
theatre are suggested in Sheldon Cheney, The Art Theatre
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1925). The objectives of the

New Theatre are discussed in Walter Prichard Eaton, At the

 

 

New Theatre and Other; and in Thomas Dickinson, The Case of

American Drama. Jane Addams notes the trequent use of

 

sociological purposes in the dramas of this era in 'The
Theatrical Huck-Raker Answered,‘ ggrrent Literature, XLVI,
pp. 699-71. For the impact of socialism on the popular
stage, see Charles Collins, 'Socialiem on the Stage,' 95533

Book Albgp, 11 (August, 1909), pp. 283-87.

 

Charles Klein's contention in ghe Third Degree (New

 

York: Samuel French, 1908) that members of the lower class
were not treated as well as members of the upper class when

charged with similar crimes is substantiated in two articles

(167)

in The Public: see. ghe Public, XIII (February 4, 1910),
pp. 99-100: and ghe Public, XII (July 2, 1909), pp. 625-27.

 

B. o. Plover praised the melodrama in ‘The Third Degree:
A Modern Play Illustrating the Educational Value of the
Drana,‘ £5225, 2L1 (February, 1309). pp. 139-52.

material on Joseph Hedill Patterson is voluminous,
but little pertains directly to Patterson's career as a
socialist and still less to Patterson as a playwright. h
typescript of the 'happy ending' revision of The Fourth
Estate (New York: 1909) is in the New York Public Library's

Theatre Collection, as are copies of A Little Brother of

 

the Rich and gahellion. Patterson's socialist writings

 

include 'cOnfessions o! a Drone,” independent, LXI (August

 

30,'1906). pp. 493-95. and “The Socialist Hechine,‘ Satur~
day_§vgning Post. September 29, 1906. p. 5. For Patterson's
support of Judge Dunne in the Chicago mayoralty campaign

of 1905, see The Public, April. 1905. pp. 825-26. On his

 

decision to become a socialist, see "The Resignation of
Joseph Patterson.‘ (Chicago: Rational Committee of the
Socialist Party, 1906). Wayne Andrews, The nettle for
Chicago (New York: narcourt. Brace a Co., 1946) and John
Chapman. Tell it_to Sweeney: the Informal history of the
New York Daily News (Garden City: Doubleday 5 Co., 1961)

 

contain brief biographical sketches of Patterson: however,

neither offers much insight into Patterson's status within

(168)

the Socialist Party. Recent works on Patterson's family:
Alice hlbright Hogs. Cissy Patterson (New York: Randal

house. 1966): Paul P. Bealy. Cissy: A Biograghyyof Eleanor

 

H. 'Cissy' Patterson (Garden City: Doubleday e Co., 1966):
and Prank C. Waldrop, HcCormick of Chicago: An Unconven:

tional Portrait of a Controversial Pigure (Englewood Cliffs,

 

D. J.: Prentice-Hall. 1966) have contributed little new
information of Joseph Patterson. Burton Rascoe, Before I
forget (New York: Literary Guild of America, 1931) main-
tains that Joseph Patterson was never completely converted

to socialism, and Simon Hichael Bessie, Jazz Journalism

 

(New York: a. P. button. 1938) agrees with this view. For
further biographical information on Patterson, see Jack
Alexander, 'The Duke of Chicago,' John E. Drewry (ed.), 2223
giographies o1 Famous Journalists (Athens, Georgia: Uni-
versity of Georgia Press, 1942). and his 'Vox Populi.‘ 352.
Egg Yorker, 3 parts. August 6. 1938enugust 20, 1938. See

also, John Tebbel's An American Dynasty_(carden City:

 

Doubleday 5 Co., 1947). Political and social conditions in
Chicago in the first decade on the twentieth century are
described in G. W. Turner. “The City of Chicago.“ HcClure's,
XXVIII (April. 1907). pp. 575-92, Charles Edward Russell.

'Chaos-and Bomb Throwing in Chicago,“ Bengton'n xXIv (March,

 

1910): PP. 317~19. and Ray Ginger, hltgeld's Anerica.

Typescripts of Eugene Halter's The Undertow (1902).

 

(169)

The wolf (1908). The Easieat Wax (n.d.) are in the New

 

York Public Library. Paid in Full ia available only in
noveliaed torn by John W. Harding (Xe! York: G. W. willing-

nan Co., 1908). In How I Write a Play: A Practical wand-

 

book for Students (New York: Eugene Walter Corp.. 1925),

 

Halter explains his philosophy of playwriting. rrancia
Lamont Peirce, ”Eugene Naltera An American Dramatic Real~
lat.“ Egggg, VI (February, 1916), is a useful commentary

on Walter's work. Lynda Donig, 'Vieeitudee of a Playwright.“
Tnaatre, xx: (May, 1915). pp. 235-37, describes waltor'a
writing technique. ‘waltor Pricnard Eaton, “Our New Gon~

eration of Dramatinta,‘I American magazine. LXXI (November.

 

1910). pp. 120-29, notes recent oontributiona to the Ameri-
can drama by Eugene Halter and Joseph Patterson.

Hillian.J. Hurlbut'e gnu Writing on tho_flall in
available only in a novaliaed veraion by Edward.uaranall
(New York: G. n. Dillinghan, 1909). A typeacript of 332
righting HoEe (1908) is in the New tork Public Library.

The Robinaon Locke Collection oontaina aeveral volume. on
Olga.netheraoley these contain invaluable information on gas
griting¥on the wall.

There is a wealth of material on the tenement. of
Trinity Church. The moat useful includes: Ray Stannard

Baker, 'The Caae Again-t Trinity,“ American magazine, LXVIII

 

(May, 1909). pp. 2-16: Charlee Edward Russell, 'The Tonenenta

(170)

of Trinity Church,’ Everybody'a Hagarine, xxx (July. 1908).
pp. 3-16: Report as to the Saniterx Condition of the Tene-
gents of Trinitg ChurchL and other Documents (New York:
Evening Post Job Printing House. 1895): John P. Peters,

'The Tale of Trinity.” The Independent, LXVI (February.

 

1909). pp. 355-63: and Samuel Hopkins Adams, “Tuberculosis:
The Race Suicide,” McClure's, XXIV (January, 1905). pp. 234*
49.

 

A typeacript of The Battle in in the New York Public

 

Library. The debate which surrounded the play is recorded
in the daily newspaper of the era, especially the New York
Zing:-

John Spargo's first attempt at writing drama was

publiehed as a pamphlet. sot Guilt:_(westvood, Mass.t Ariel

 

Press, n.d.). HOpp'a efforts to aid the socialist defense

 

in the Haywood Trial are described in The Worker and the Egg
York Times. Lynda Denig, “Theatre Tickets at Cut Rates,‘
Theatre. xxx (April, 1915) notes napp's role in the Wage
Earners' Theatre and the Theatre Center for Schools. Thomas
Dickinson compares Hopp's desire to make the theatre avail-
able to the nasaes to his determination to popularize social-

ism in The Insurgent Theatre (New York: B. W. unabsch.

 

1911)) Julia Price. The Off-Broadway Theatre adds nothing

 

to Dickinson's account.

Eric Wollencott Barnes, The Man Who Lived Twice (New

 

..A a

(171)

York: Charles Scribner'a Sons, 1956) is a rather unsatis-
factory biography of Edward Sheldon. Anne Morrow Lindberg's
introductory chapter is more useful. Barrett Clark, Inv

Siesta Portraits (New York: Bildreth Press, 1951) contains

 

a chapter on Sheldon. Some of sheldon‘s experiences at
servard are related in Van Wyck Brooks, ggonea and For:
traits (new York: 3. P. button a Co., 1954). Albert Cohn,

“galvation_§ell: An Overlooked Milestone in American

 

Theatre,‘ Educational_Theatre Journal, 13 (1957), is an

 

interesting interpretation of Sheldon's first play, but he
equates realise with realistic set design, and there is no
correlation between realistic setting and realistic drama.

Walter Prichard Baton records the audience reaction to The

 

nigger at the haw Theatre in gt the New TheetreJand Others
(Cincinnati: Stowart : Kidd Co., 1910).
Hand McDougall, “The White House and the Play House,’

green Booh_§1hum, 111 (April, lSlO), pp. 823-31, deals with

 

President Theodore Roosevelt's attendance at a performance

of Israel zanqwill‘s The Meltinngot. Roosevelt's revision

 

of the play was publicised in the programs and press re-
leases of the play. Owen Davis, I'd Like to Do It Again

 

(New York: tartar a Rinehart, 1931) is a colorful account

of his career as an author of nelodranas.

(172)

Chapter V
White Slaves, Women's suffrage, and War

Changes in American thought prior to World war I
are illustrated in brilliant fashion in Henry May, The End

of American Innocence (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1959). See

 

also, Floyd Dell, homecoming: An Autobiographx_(fiew York:

 

tartar, 1933). Edmund Gagey, Revolution in the American
35322 (New York, 1947) begins with a chapter on the theatre
1912-17, which note: some of the changes taking place in
the American theatre during this decade. Walter Prichard

Eaton, {lays and Players (Cincinnati: Stewart & Kidd,

 

1916) discusses the off-Broadway stage.

Oscar Cargill, intellectual America: Ideas on the
§g£g§_(8ew York: Macmillan, 1941) contains the most com-
plete discussion of the movement to end white slavery and
its literature. See also, The Social Bvi1_in Chicago: a
Etna! of Existing_Conditione with Recommendations by the

 

gica Commission of Chicago (Chicago: Gunthorpe-Warren

 

Printing Co., 1911), Jane Addams, A New Conscience and an

 

Ancient Evil (New York: Macmillan Co., 1912), and Brand

 

Hhitlock, ”The White Slave,‘ The Forum, LI, pp. 193-216.

 

Bayard veiller‘s autobiography, The Fun I've Had (New York:

 

Reynal a Hitchcock, 1961), describes his difficulties with
the police. See also, an interview with Veiller in the New

Zgrk Times, September 21, 1913, part v, p. 4. A typescript

(173)

of The Fight is in the New York Public Library. Endorse-
ments of both The Lure and The Fight are on press releases
and programs of the plays. “A Vicious Use of franknese,'
Independent, Lxxv (September 11, 1913), pp. 604-05, sun-

marises the arguments against The Lure and The right. Isaac

 

Marcoseon, Bavid Grahan_?hilips and his Times (New York:
Dodd, Head a Co., 1932) remains the nest useful work on
Philips. Harcosson describes Philips growing interest in
the theatre.

Henry Hey, The End of American Innocence, and Floyd
Dell, Intellectual Vagabondage: An Apology for the Intelli-
gentsia (New York: George H. Doran Co., 1926) develop the
concept of the ”new women.“ Katerial on the women's suf~
fraqe movement as it affected the theatre can be found in
the £93 York Times.

The most useful study of the little theatre movement
is Thomas Dickinson, The Insurgent Theatre. Dickinson's own
efforts in Wisconsin are described in William Ellery Leonard,
”The Wisconsin Dramatic 80ciety,‘ Qgggg, 11 (May, 1912),
pp. 222-37. Sons Gale's The neighbors is published in
Thomas Dickinson (ed.), Wisconsin Plays (New York: 3. w.
Huebsch, 1914). The use of the theatre as a part of the
social reform.program of Hull House is explained in "null
House P1ayers,‘ Theatre, September, 1913, pp. xix-nail, and

“The Chicago Theatre Society,“ Drama, II (hay, 1912),

(174)

pp. 238-59.

For the Patterson pageant see: William Haywood,
Bill Haywood's Book (New York: International Publishing
Co., 1929), Granville Ricks, John Read: the Making of a
Revolutionary (New York: Macmillan, 1936), Daniel Aaron,
firitere on the Left: Episodes in American Literary Commun:
$55 (New York: narcourt, Brace, a World, 1961), and Susan
Glaspell, The Road to the Temple (London: Ernest Berm
Limited, 1926).

A brief description of the aims of the Washington
Square Players is in Thomas Dickinson's introduction to
flashingtcn Square Plays (Garden City: Doubleday, Page 5
Co., 1916). The Edward Goodman Papers and the more useful
Philip Moeller Collection provide more insight into the New
York little theatre movement than any work now available.
See also, Walter Prichard Eaton, Plays and Plaxarg and
Arthur and Barbara Gelb's O'Neill (New York: Dell, 1960),
which also deals with the Provincetown Players. Other works
of value on the Provincetown Players are Helen Deutsch

and Stella Hanue, The Provincetown (New York: Farrar 5

 

Rinehart, 1931) and Susan Glaspell, The Road to the Temple.

 

Illll ‘III
‘I‘

 

"IWEW‘MW‘MNAME“