(Born Philadelphia, Pa., February 17, 1862)
The performance of "The New York Idea" at the Lyric Theatre, New York, on November 19, 1906, was one of the rare, distinguished events in the American Theatre. It revealed the fact that at last an American playwright had written a drama comparable with the very best European models, scintillating with clear, cold brilliancy, whose dialogue carried with it an exceptional literary style. It was a play that showed a vitality which will serve to keep it alive for many generations, which will make it welcome, however often it is revived; for there is a universal import to its satire which raises it above the local, social condition it purports to portray. And though there is nothing of an ideal character about its situations, though it seems to be all head, with a minimum of apparent heart, it none the less is universal in the sense that Restoration comedy is universal. It presents a type of vulgarity, of sporting spirit, that is common in every generation, whether in the time of Congreve and Wycherley, whether in the period of Sheridan or Oscar Wilde. Its wit is not dependent on local colour, though ostensibly it is written about New York. On its first presentment, it challenged good writing on the part of the critics. High Comedy always does that—tickles the brain and stimulates it, drives it at a pace not usually to be had in the theatre. Is it comedy or is it farce, the critics queried? Is Mr. Mitchell sincere, and does he flay the evil he so photographically portrays? Does he treat the sacred subject of matrimony too flippantly? And should the play, in order to be effective, have a moral tag, or should it be, what on the surface it appears to be, a series of realistic scenes about people whom one cannot admire and does not want to know intimately? Some of the writers found the picture not to their liking—that is the effect good satire sometimes has when it strikes home. Yet when Grace George revived "The New York Idea" in a spirit so different from Mrs. Fiske's, nine years after, on September 28, 1915, at the Playhouse, New York, the Times was bound to make the following confession: "A vast array of American authors have turned out plays innumerable, but not one of them has quite matched in sparkling gayety and wit this work of Langdon Mitchell's. And the passing years have left its satire still pointed. They have not dimmed its polish nor so much as scratched its smart veneer."
The play was written expressly for Mrs. Fiske. Its hard, sharp interplay of humour was knowingly cut to suit her hard, sharp method of acting. Her interpretation was a triumph of head over heart. Grace George tried to read into Cynthia Karslake an element of romance which is suggested in the text, but which was somewhat over-sentimentalized by her soft portrayal. There is some element of relationship between "The New York Idea" and Henry Arthur Jones' "Mary Goes First;" there is the same free air of sporting life, so graphically set forth in "Lord and Lady Algy." But the American play is greater than these because of its impersonal strain.
In a letter to the present Editor, Mr. Mitchell has broken silence regarding the writing of "The New York Idea." Never before has he tried to analyze its evolution. He says:
The play was written for Mrs. Fiske. The choice of subject was mine. I demanded complete freedom in the treatment, and my most wise manager, Mr. Harrison Grey Fiske, accorded this. The play was produced and played as written, with the exception of one or two short scenes, which were not acceptable to Mrs. Fiske; that is, she felt, or would have felt, somewhat strained or unnatural in these scenes. Accordingly, I cut them out, or rather rewrote them. The temperament of the race-horse has to be considered—much more, that of the 'star'.
When I was writing the play, I had really no idea of satirizing divorce or a law or anything specially temperamental or local. What I wanted to satirize was a certain extreme frivolity in the American spirit and in our American life—frivolity in the deep sense—not just a girl's frivolity, but that profound, sterile, amazing frivolity which one observes and meets in our churches, in political life, in literature, in music; in short, in every department of American thought, feeling and action. The old-fashioned, high-bred family in "The New York Idea" are solemnly frivolous, and the fast, light-minded, highly intelligent hero and heroine are frivolous in their own delightful way—frivolity, of course, to be used for tragedy or comedy. Our frivolity is, I feel, on the edge of the tragic. Indeed, I think it entirely tragic, and there are lines, comedy lines, in "The New York Idea," that indicate this aspect of the thing.
Of course, there is more than merely satire or frivolity in the play: there is the Englishman who appears to Americans to be stupid on account of his manner, but who is frightfully intelligent; and there are also the energy and life and vigor of the two men characters. There is, too, throughout the play, the conscious humour of these two characters, and of the third woman, Vida. The clergyman is really more frivolous often and far less conscious of his frivolity—enough, that I rather thought one of the strongest things about the play was the consciousness of their own humour, of the three important characters.
The characters were selected from that especial class, or set, in our Society, whose ancestors and traditions go back to colonial times. They are not merely society characters, for, of course, people in society may lack all traditions. I mention this merely because my selection of characters from such a set of people gives the play a certain mellowness and a certain air which it otherwise would not have. If Jack and Cynthia were both completely self-made, or the son and daughter of powerful, self-made people, their tone could not be the same.
The piece was played in England as a farce; and it was given without the permission of the author or American manager. It was given for a considerable number of performances in Berlin, after the Great War began. In the German translation it was called "Jonathan's Daughter."[A] Our relations with Germany at the time were strained on account of 'certain happenings', but, notwithstanding, the play was extraordinarily well received.
When "The New York Idea" was first published by the Walter Baker Co., of Boston, it carried as an introduction a notice of the play written by William Archer, and originally published in the London Tribune of May 27, 1907. This critique follows the present foreword, as its use in the early edition represents Mr. Mitchell's choice.
The writing of "The New York Idea" was not Mr. Mitchell's first dramatic work for Mrs. Fiske. At the New York Fifth Avenue Theatre, on September 12, 1899, she appeared in "Becky Sharp," his successful version of Thackeray's "Vanity Fair," which held the stage for some time, and was later revived with considerable renewal of its former interest. Two years after, rival versions were presented in London, one by David Balsillie (Theatre Royal, Croydon, June 24, 1901) and the other by Robert Hichens and Cosmo Gordon Lennox (Prince of Wales's Theatre, August 27, 1901)—the latter play used during the existence of the New Theatre (New York). Most of Mr. Mitchell's attempts in play-writing have been in dramatization, first of his father's "The Adventures of François," and later of Thackeray's "Pendennis," Atlantic City, October 11, 1916. He was born February 17, 1862, at Philadelphia, the son of Silas Weir Mitchell, and received his education largely abroad. He studied law at Harvard and Columbia, and was admitted to the bar in 1882. He was married, in 1892, to Marion Lea, of London, whose name was connected with the early introduction of Ibsen to the English public; she was in the initial cast of "The New York Idea," and to her the play is dedicated.
Mr. William Archer's Notice of
"The New York Idea."
… This play, too, I was unable to see, but I have read it with extraordinary interest. It is a social satire so largely conceived and so vigorously executed that it might take an honourable place in any dramatic literature. We have nothing quite like it on the latter-day English stage. In tone and treatment it reminds one of Mr. Carton; but it is far broader in conception and richer in detail than "Lord and Lady Algy" or "Lady Huntworth's Experiment." In France, it might perhaps be compared to "La Famille Benoiton" or "Le Monde ou l'on s'ennuie," or better, perhaps, to a more recent, but now almost forgotten satire of the 'nineties, "Paris Fin-de-Siècle."
I find it very hard to classify "The New York Idea" under any of the established rubrics. It is rather too extravagant to rank as a comedy; it is much too serious in its purport, too searching in its character-delineation and too thoughtful in its wit, to be treated as a mere farce. Its title—not, perhaps, a very happy one—is explained in this saying of one of the characters: "Marry for whim and leave the rest to the divorce court—that's the New York idea of marriage." And again: "The modern American marriage is like a wire fence—the woman's the wire—the posts are the husbands. One—two—three! And if you cast your eye over the future, you can count them, post after post, up hill, down dale, all the way to Dakota."
Like all the plays, from Sardou's "Divorçons" onward, which deal with a too facile system of divorce, this one shows a discontented woman, who has broken up her home for a caprice, suffering agonies of jealousy when her ex-husband proposes to make use of the freedom she has given him, and returning to him at last with the admission that their divorce was at least "premature." In this central conception there is nothing particularly original. It is the wealth of humourous invention displayed in the details both of character and situation that renders the play remarkable.
It is interesting to note, by the way, a return on Mr. Mitchell's part to that convenient assumption of the Restoration and eighteenth century comedy writers that any one in holy orders could solemnize a legal marriage at any time or place, without the slightest formality of banns, witnesses, registration or anything of the sort. One gathers that in New York the entrance to and the exit from the holy estate of matrimony are equally prompt and easy; or that, as one of the characters puts it, "the church is a regular quick-marriage counter."
I presume there is some exaggeration in this, and that a marriage cannot actually be celebrated at midnight, over a champagne-and-lobster supper, by a clergyman who happened to drop in. But there can be no doubt that whatever the social merits or demerits of the system, facility of divorce and remarriage is an immense boon to the dramatist. It places within his reach an inexhaustible store of situations and complications which are barred to the English playwright, to whom divorce always means an ugly and painful scandal. The moralist may insist that this ought always to be the case; and indeed that is the implication which Mr. Mitchell, as a moralist, conveys to us.
He sacrifices the system of divorce for every trivial flaw of temper which prevails in the society he depicts; but he no doubt realizes that his doctrine as a satirist is hostile to his interest as a dramatist. Restrict the facilities of divorce and you at once restrict the possibilities of matrimonial comedy. Marriage becomes no longer a comic, but a tragic institution.
In order to keep his theme entirely on the comic plane, Mr. Mitchell has given no children to either of the two couples whom he puts through such a fantastic quadrille. Law or no law, the separation of its parents is always a tragedy to the child; which is not to say, of course, that their remaining together may not in some cases be the more tragic of the two alternatives. Be this as it may, Mr. Mitchell has eluded the issue.
Nor has he thereby falsified his problem, for his characters belong to that class of society in which, as Mr. Dooley points out, the multiplication of automobiles is preferred to that of progeny. But he has not omitted to hint at the problem of the children, and, as it were, confess his deliberate avoidance of it. He does so in a touch of exquisite irony. John and Cynthia Karslake are a couple devoted, not to automobiles, but to horses. Even their common passion for racing cannot keep them together; but their divorce is so "premature," and leaves John so restless and dissatisfied, that he actually neglects the cares of the stable. His favourite mare, Cynthia K, falls ill, and when his trainer brings him the news he receives it with shocking callousness. Then the trainer meets Cynthia and complains to her of her ex-husband's indifference. "Ah, ma'am," he says, "when husband and wife splits, it's the horses that suffers." I know not where to look for a speech of profounder ironic implication. More superficial, but still a good specimen of Mr. Mitchell's wit, is William Sudley's remark as to John Karslake: "Oh, yes, he comes of a very respectable family, though I remember his father served a term in the Senate."
Altogether "The New York Idea" is, from the intellectual point of view, the most remarkable piece of work I have encountered in America. It is probably too true to the details of American life to have much success in England; but the situation at the end of the third act could not fail to bring down the house even here. It would take too long to describe it in detail. Suffice it to say that just at the point where Cynthia Karslake dismisses her second bridegroom, to return to her first, the choir assembled for the marriage ceremony, mistaking a signal, bursts forth with irresistibly ludicrous effect into "The Voice That Breathed O'er Eden."[B]
[A] At the Kammerspiel Theatre, Berlin, under the direction of Max Reinhardt, October 7, 1916. There are translations in Danish, Swedish and Hungarian.
[B] The Editor takes the occasion to express his thanks to Mr. William Archer for his kind permission to quote this analysis of the play.
| REGINALD DeKOVEN, | Proprietor |
| SAM S. and LEE SHUBERT (Inc.), | Lessees and Managers |
NINTH AND LAST WEEK.
BEGINNING MONDAY EVENING. JANUARY 14, 1907.
Matinee Saturday.
Cast of Characters.
| Philip Phillimore | Charles Harbury |
| Mrs. Phillimore, his mother | Ida Vernon |
| The Reverend Mathew Phillimore, his brother | Dudley Clinton |
| Grace Phillimore, his sister | Emily Stevens |
| Miss Heneage, his aunt | Blanche Weaver |
| William Sudley, his cousin | Dudley Digges |
| Mrs. Vida Phillimore, his divorced wife | Marion Lea |
| Brooks, her footman | Frederick Kerby |
| Benson, her maid | Belle Bohn |
| Sir Wilfrid Cates-Darby | George Arliss |
| John Karslake | John Mason |
| Mrs. Cynthia Karslake, his divorced wife | Mrs. Fiske |
| Nogam, his valet | James Morley |
| Tim Fiddler | Robert V. Ferguson |
| Thomas, the Phillimore's family servant | Richard Clarke |
| ACT I—Drawing-Room in the Phillimore house. Washington Square. | |
| Wednesday afternoon, at five o'clock. | |
| ACT II—Mrs. Vida Phillimore's Boudoir. Fifth Avenue. | |
| Thursday morning at eleven. | |
| ACT III—Same as Act I. | |
| Thursday evening, at ten. | |
| ACT IV—John Karslake's House. Madison Avenue. | |
| Thursday, at midnight. | |
| Scene—New York | Time—The Present. |
The production staged by Mr. and Mrs. Fiske.
[This play, copyrighted in 1907, 1908, and published originally by Walter H. Baker and Co., of Boston, Mass., is fully protected and the right of representation is reserved. Application for the right of performing this play may be made to Alice Kauser, 1402 Broadway, New York, N. Y. The Editor takes this opportunity of thanking Mr. Langdon Mitchell for his great interest in the compilation of this Collection, and for his permission to have "The New York Idea" used in it. The complete revision of the stage directions, especially for this volume, makes it possible to regard the play, here printed, as the only authentic version.]
| Philip Phillimore, a Judge on the bench, age 50. |
| Grace Phillimore, his sister, age 20. |
| Mrs. Phillimore, his mother, age 70. |
| Miss Heneage, his aunt, age 60. |
| Matthew Phillimore, his brother—a bishop, age 45. |
| William Sudley, his cousin, age 50. |
| Mrs. Vida Phillimore, his divorced wife, age 35. |
| Sir Wilfrid Cates-Darby. |
| John Karslake, lawyer, politician and racing-man, age 35. |
| Mrs. Cynthia Karslake, his divorced wife, age 25. |
| Brooks, Mrs. Phillimore's footman. |
| Tim Fiddler, Mr. Karslake's trainer. |
| Nogam, his valet. |
| Thomas, the family servant of the Phillimores, age 45. |
| Benson, Mrs. Vida Phillimore's maid, age 20. |
The following is the Cast for the evening performance at the
Lyric Theatre, New York, Monday, November 19, 1906.
| Philip Phillimore | Charles Harbury. |
| Mrs. Phillimore, his mother | Ida Vernon. |
| The Reverend Matthew Phillimore, his brother | Dudley Clinton. |
| Grace Phillimore, his sister | Emily Stevens. |
| Miss Heneage, his aunt | Blanche Weaver. |
| William Sudley, his cousin | William B. Mack. |
| Mrs. Vida Phillimore, his divorced wife | Marion Lea. |
| Brooks, her footman | George Harcourt. |
| Benson, her maid | Belle Bohn. |
| Sir Wilfrid Cates-Darby | George Arliss. |
| John Karslake | John Mason. |
| Mrs. Cynthia Karslake, his divorced wife | Mrs. Fiske. |
| Nogam, his valet | Dudley Digges. |
| Tim Fiddler | Robert V. Ferguson. |
| Thomas, the Phillimore's family servant | Richard Clarke. |
| Scene—New York. | Time—The Present. |
Revived in New York at The Playhouse, Tuesday Evening,
September 28, 1915, with the following Cast.
| Philip Phillimore | Lumsden Hare. |
| Grace Phillimore | Norah Lamison. |
| Mrs. Phillimore | Eugenie Woodward. |
| Miss Heneage | Josephine Lovett. |
| Matthew Phillimore | Albert Reed. |
| William Sudley | John Cromwell. |
| Mrs. Vida Phillimore | Mary Nash. |
| Sir Wilfrid Cates-Darby | Ernest Lawford. |
| John Karslake | Conway Tearle. |
| Mrs. Cynthia Karslake | Grace George. |
| Brooks | Selwyn Joyce. |
| Tim Fiddler | Tracy Barrow. |
| Nogam | G. Guthrie McClintic. |
| Thomas | Richard Clarke. |
| Benson | Anita Wood. |