 |
|
|
|
|
ROBERT WILLIAMS BUCHANAN (1841-1901) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BUCHANAN’S THEATRICAL VENTURES IN AMERICA
In 1884 Robert Buchanan and Harriett Jay went to America. In Chapter XXIII of her biography of Buchanan, Miss Jay deals with the trip in two paragraphs: “In the year 1884 he made his first and only trip to America. He had a contract to supply a play to Messrs. Shook and Collier, then managers of the Union Square Theatre, New York, but he went without having written it. On his arrival he offered for their acceptance a melodrama which was our joint work, and which has since become popular under the title of “Alone in London.” This, however, they refused, and it was produced by Mr. Buchanan himself at the Chestnut Street Theatre, Philadelphia, where it drew crowded houses. At the conclusion of its first run it was taken up by Colonel Sinn, of Brooklyn, who, besides giving very fine terms, bought all the scenery which had been specially painted for it. Newspaper reports flesh out Harriett Jay’s minimalist account, although I have yet to find the exact dates of the American trip, although it was obviously being discussed as early as April, 1884.
Brooklyn Eagle (13 April, 1884 - p.1) Harriet Jay, the novelist and actress, is going to the United States under the management of Colonel Sinn, of Brooklyn. She will appear in Mr. Robert Buchanan’s historical dramas. ___
Two reports in the Liverpool Mercury (the first following a review of Harriett Jay’s performance as Lemuel, the gipsy boy, in a scene from The Flowers of the Forest at a benefit for Mr. Charles Kelly at the Prince’s Theatre, London on 16th July) suggest Buchanan and Jay embarked sometime in August. Liverpool Mercury (19 July, 1884 - Issue 11395) Mr. Robert Buchanan is writing a play for the Union-square Theatre, New York. His “Lady Clare” was the great success of Wallack’s last season. We understand that Mr. Buchanan intends to go over to America in order to superintend the production of his new piece. This will be, we think, his first visit to the West, though “Saint Abe” and “The White Rose and Red” led readers to suppose that Mr. Buchanan must be as familiar with America as with the islands of Scotland. For some years Mr. Buchanan has had a considerable following in America both as poet and novelist, and it is probable that the forthcoming visit may excite a good deal of interest. ___
Liverpool Mercury (21 August, 1884 - Issue 11423) We announced Mr. Robert Buchanan’s intention to visit America, and have to add that he is now on his way to New York. He goes out to arranged the details of his play, which will be produced at the Union-square Theatre in about two months. Immediately on his departure, Mr. Buchanan assured us that one of his first visits would be to Walt Whitman. It will not be forgotten that Mr. Buchanan vindicated Whitman against unjust aspersions, in an eloquent and powerful letter, which was printed in the Daily News some years ago, and created a profound impression in England, and a good deal of lively comment in America. The letter contained one piece of description which readers of it are not likely to forget. It described a scene among the Highlands of Scotland, where a cloud of ravens pursued a single eagle, old, worn, and enfeebled, the croaking birds falling back when the king of the air turned his great head about to them. This figure as applied to Whitman and the American publishers was hardly likely to please the persons who personated the ravens, and a newspaper war was the consequence. But the American public has opened its arms to more recent productions of the same pen. It is to be hoped Mr. Buchanan’s determination to visit Whitman at the outset will not open afresh the bitter part of the memory of a forgotten episode. ___
Robert Buchanan did not get to meet Walt Whitman (the Daily News letter mentioned above is available here) until March, 1885, when he was arranging the first performance of “Alone in London” in Philadelphia. The first mention of a sighting of Buchanan in America is at the production of Storm-Beaten at the Grand Opera House on 25 August, 1884. The New York Times (26 August, 1884) GRAND OPERA HOUSE. Jay Gould’s box in the Grand Opera House was fringed with red, white, and blue a yard wide last night. Within this gorgeous setting were Commander Schley and his family and a party of friends. Chief Engineers Melville, Nauman, and Lowe, Lieuts. Semly and Sebur, and Dr. Greene were in the box above, while directly opposite were Commander Coffin and his family. Robert Buchanan, the novelist and author of the play of the evening, “Storm Beaten,” fresh from London, looked down upon his work from another box, with friends on every side, while sitting in a row, bolt upright, in the best seats in the house were 20 or more of the sailors of the Greely relief expedition. If an appreciative audience gives pleasure to a writer Mr. Buchanan must have been in ecstasies last night. Ninety-five out of every hundred of the seats in the house were filled with auditors who applauded the hero and execrated the villain in the most approved manner. The play was given by Shook & Collier’s combination, and the cast, taken as a whole, was a good one. The principal male part fell to Mr. Edmund Collier, whose vigorous acting won him much applause. Miss Belle Jackson, formerly of the Madison-Square Theatre, was cast as Priscilla Sefton, and she played the part naturally and with good taste. Mr. Augustus J. Bruno, who became a favorite in New York in plays of “The Brook” type, succeeded in creating much laughter as the shepherd. The scenery was excellent, and the effects were very realistic. ___
Buchanan had had two theatrical successes in New York by the summer of 1884, Storm-Beaten at the Union-Square Theatre and Lady Clare at Wallack’s Theatre, although not everyone was happy with his success. The New York Times (6 January, 1884) NEWS FROM THE THEATRES THE MARKET PRICE OF PLAYS FROM EUROPE. Mrs. William Henderson, the wife of the late Standard Theatre manager, is disturbed over the tendency of theatrical speculators to buy foreign pieces at the expense of native authors. Mrs. Henderson has haerself written several plays, and at least one of them has gained a much more than common success. Her “Almost a Life” has been played both in this country and in England with good results, and Mrs. Henderson, having established the fact that she can write a drawing play, is entitled to some consideration at the hands of managers in general. By her own account, as delivered to THE TIMES’S writer yeaterday, she does not get it. “I think,” said she, with amiable emphasis, “that managers look at these matters in a way that is unjust and injurious to themselves. Take the case of ‘Storm Beaten,’ for instance. Shook & Collier paid $12,000 for it. I had a dramatic version of the book from which it is taken, and if it had been played I should have considered myself amply paid with $3,000. With the greatest respect for Mr. Buchanan as a novelist, I can hardly regard him as a successful dramatic writer. There is a good deal of difference between the professions, though they seem almost identical. Mr. Buchanan’s plays have nearly all been failures. When I heard that Messrs. Shook & Collier had bought his dramatization of ‘God and the Man,’ I immediately suppressed my play on that subject. The writing had all been wasted labor. There was nothing in particular to be said about that, of course. It was a disappointment, and that’s all. But here I find myself in a similar predicament over another work, upon which I have expended a great deal of time and labor. A few years ago a French lady acquaintance called my attention to Ohnet’s ‘Le Maitre des Forges,’ a novel with a striking plot. I was struck with its dramatic possibilities, and proceeded to make a play out of it. Some little time back I offered it to a manager here, and he told me that as M. Ohnet had made a dramatization of his own book, which was already successful in Paris, he—the manager—would buy that version or none. Then I saw another manager, and he told me Mr. Wallack had an English adaptation of the same book which he called ‘Lady Clare.’ Now, there you are. Either of two foreign adaptations of a piece is preferable to the native article. What is to be done? The home dramatist has no chance against this sort of thing. I have made up my mind to one point: hereafter I shall not suppress any of the plays on which I am at work, simply because another version is in the market.” ___
In May 1884, both versions of Lady Clare were on display in Brooklyn. Brooklyn Eagle (4 May, 1884 - p.7) HAVERLY’S THEATER. “Claire and the Forge Master,” an English dramatization of Ohnet’s famous French novel “Le Maitre des Forges,” by Mrs. Ettie Henderson, is to have its first representation in this city at Haverly’s Theater to-morrow night. The presentation of the piece derives interest at this time from the circumstance that it will reintroduce to this public Miss Maude Granger and also that it challenges comparison with a version of the same story offered at another house. The cast of characters is enumerated in the following list: Claire De Monbrison ... Miss Maude Granger “Claire” matinees are appointed for Wednesday and Saturday afternoon. The briskness of the demand for places indicates crowded houses at every performance. _____ PARK THEATER. The “Lady Clare” of Robert Buchanan is to be set forward at the Park Theater, to-morrow night, on which occasion the play will be first seen here as given originally at Wallack’s Theater—cast, scenery and stage appointments being identical with the production of the drama at that house. The distribution of parts in the piece is as follows: John Middleton ... Osmond Tearle It is claimed for Mr. Buchanan’s drama, that while its leading motive is drawn from “Le Maitre des Forges,” it is not a literal adaptation of that work. Upon this point Brooklyn playgoers will be afforded an opportunity for judging for themselves during the present week, at the several evening performances and the Wednesday and Saturday matinee representations of “Lady Clare” at the Park. ___
The play which Buchanan had been contracted to write for Messrs. Shook and Collier of the Union Square Theatre (and which Harriett Jay claims he never wrote) was entitled A Hero in Spite of Himself and was a satire of American life. The play was rejected and was never performed. The only information about the play is due to a court case from December 1888, in which Shook and Collier attempted to regain the money they had advanced to Buchanan, and a letter from Buchanan to The Era (9 March, 1889) giving his side of the story. The New York Times (20 December, 1888) NOT TRUE TO AMERICAN LIFE. In 1884, when Sheridan Shook and James W. Collier were managing the Union-Square Theatre, Robert Buchanan engaged to write them an American society drama, for which he was to receive £1,000. An advance payment of £150 was made, and in due time the new play was brought over. It was called “A Hero in Spite of Himself,” and was built on the English ideas of Western life. The male characters would have been obliged to wear red flannel shirts and tuck their trousers into their boot legs, and the ladies in the cast would have appeared in costumes equally incongruous to real American society. Shook & Collier sued Mr. Buchanan to recover their £150 advance, and yesterday David Gerber of ex-Judge Dittenhoefer’s office presented the case to the jury in the Supreme Court, before Judge Lawrence. Mr. Buchanan was defended by Howe & Hummel. The jury were not satisfied with Mr. Buchanan’s ideas of American society and brought in a verdict against him of $945. ___
Following Shook & Collier’s rejection of A Hero in Spite of Himself, Buchanan tried Lester Wallack, the producer of his other American success, Lady Clare. There is some confusion about the genesis of Constance, Buchanan’s next American play. In a letter to the New-York Daily Tribune (22/11/84) Buchanan admits taking “the central situation employed by Leon Gozlau, by Sardou and finally by myself”. However, a letter from Kate Munroe in The Era (6/12/84) draws a parallel with the Harriett Jay novel, A Marriage of Convenience which was serialised in the weekly magazine, The Lady’s Pictorial: A Newspaper for the Home from 12 July to 29 November, 1884. The article below from The Omaha Daily Bee (25/11/84) actually refers to Harriett Jay writing the final chapters of the novel for the magazine around the time that the play was being performed at Wallack’s Theatre. The New York Times (19 October, 1884) THE ACTOR AND THE PLAY THE PLOT OF MR. ROBERT BUCHANAN’S NEW WORK. It is not yet decided what to call the new play which Mr. Wallack has purchased from Mr. Robert Buchanan, although it has been determined, as already foreshadowed in THE TIMES, to bring the piece out as the next production at Mr. Wallack’s theatre. The play itself appears to contain the elements of quite unusual strength. There is nothing conspicuously new in the story, but the plot seems to be very well constructed, and the indications are that the play is the best piece of dramatic work which has yet come from Mr. Buchanan’s pen. The story as told yesterday by Mr. Arthur Wallack is closely woven and interesting. The villain, who is one of the chief characters in the play, is a Spanish nobleman. Before the action of the piece begins he has eloped with the wife of another man, and having tired of her in due course has cast her aside and come to live in England. Here he has an opportunity to contract an advantageous marriage with a young girl whose grandmother is ambitious for an alliance with a family of noble lineage. The girl herself loves a young army surgeon, who loves her in return, and this affection is the only bar to the proposed marriage between herself and the Duke. The grandmother, who is not conspicuously soft-hearted where her own wishes are concerned, tells the girl that the father of the young man with whom she is in love was the direct cause of her mother’s death, and that to marry into that particular family would consequently be a crime against the memory she holds dear. Meanwhile the old woman has exercised her influence to the extent of getting the young surgeon ordered away to the Cape, where his regiment is stationed, and the coast is thus left clear for the Duke to prosecute his suit. Always near the Duke in some capacity or other, but at this time as his valet, is the husband of the woman he has ruined. This man is waiting in patience for a complete revenge, and he is satisfied to put up with any hardship and to endure any sacrifice that will aid him in ruining and bringing to his death the object of his hatred. The Duke succeeds in securing the hand of the young girl, who is moved through grief at what her aged relative has told her to accede to that person’s wishes in regard to an exalted marriage. In a short time the Spaniard grows weary of his young wife and begins to seek some method of so compromising her that he may have some reasonable, or at least plausible, excuse for putting her aside. The avenging valet, who divines his purpose, is moved partly by hatred for his supposititious master and partly by kindliness to the wife, who is a sweet and lovable woman, to thwart this design. The Duke undertakes a scheme to get his wife into questionable surroundings by offering to take her to a certain ball, then being ostensibly called away, and sending her a message to go without him. She sends to the Spanish Embassy to secure the escort of her husband’s friend, and while the bearer of her message is gone upon this errand her former lover enters her apartment. He has been wounded in an African engagement and sent home for purposes of recuperation. Not knowing the heroine has been married in his absence, he finds his way to her boudoir and in an impassioned scene pours out his love for her. She finally has the strength to check him, although she discovers the deception that has been practiced upon her. When she tells him that she has become the wife of another the shock is so great that his wound breaks out afresh, and he falls fainting to the floor as the valet rushes upon the scene to foretell the unexpected coming of the Duke. Anxious to save the innocent wife, he induces her to retire, and she leaves the stage as the Duke comes in. He finds what he supposes is the dead body of a man in his wife’s boudoir, and he orders his valet to fling it into the street as the curtain descends. It goes up again almost immediately, showing what appears to be the lover’s body lying on the sofa covered over with a rug. The Duchess is called in and accused of infidelity by her husband. There is a bitter scene between them, filled with denunciation on his part and denial upon hers, and upon their parting the act ends. The valet, in place of obeying the orders imposed upon him, has taken the unconscious lover to the house of a physician who figures in the play, and he is there restored to life and prospective strength. In the last act, the wife has proceeded to a convent in Brittany for the purpose of entering its doors for the rest of her life. The husband is there in pursuit of her, and the avenging valet is also on the ground. If the Duke does not recover his wife he is ruined, and in this complication the wronged husband of the woman he seduced years ago determines at last to strike. After a number of scenes between the various characters, working up to the final climax, the whilom valet declares his rightful identity and demands the satisfaction of mortal combat. He has brought the Duke’s dueling pistols with him, and proposes an immediate settlement of their account. The Duke at first refuses, but finally, stung with the taunts and insults of his adversary, he agrees to fight, and is shot dead. His wife, the young lover, and the other characters are on the stage. The Duchess, standing beneath the convent cross, sends a prayer to heaven for the forgiveness of the man who has so wronged her, and upon this picture the piece comes to an end, leaving an intimation that the principal personages will come together in the future. The underplot lies between the physician who restores the hero to health and a young girl who is full of life and animal spirits, and who has been designed by her friends for a convent career, which is precisely opposite to her inclinations. The physician is a general philanthropist who unwinds the tangled skein of the various characters and ultimately weds the spirited young lady. These two personages furnish the lighter portions of the piece, and form an entertaining contrast to the sombre incidents I have related. This play will be placed in rehearsal on Wednesday, and will be carefully prepared for production three weeks hence. Mr. Tearle, Miss Coghlan, and Mme. Ponisi, together with two other important players not yet decided upon, will be seen in this production. Mr. Goatcher is painting the scenery, of which there are two very pretty exterior sets, the sketches now being complete. ___
Brooklyn Eagle (16 November, 1884 - p.2) MR. LESTER WALLACK opened the regular season at his theater with a “new” play, by Robert Buchanan, called “Constance.” The central situation of the play is taken from that master playwriter of France, Sardou. The plot is from one of the plays of the late Leon Gozlan, and various other parts are familiar to old theater goers who have seen Augustine Daly’s adaptation of “Maison Neuve” and a play which had quite a run here some years ago under the name of “The White Cockade.” Most of the dialogue is so old that it might have been taken for any of the trite standard English melodramas and the characters are all conventional. With these trifling exceptions “Constance” is original with Mr. Buchanan. At any rate its performance served to bring out the most distinguished first night audience of the season, and, as the play was put on in the most sumptuous and lavish style, it is pictorially quite a go. The best applause of the evening was for the scene painter, who kindly came out and bowed several times during the first three acts. The action of the play was stopped, and the actors stood about like mummies while this robust, bald and rather pushing person strode forth to received the plaudits of the multitude. I am sorry to say that the multitude consisted of a claque stowed away judiciously in the rear of the house. In fact, it became so noisy at last that it was roundly hissed by the audience, and from that time on the scene painter was invisible. A new member of Mr. Wallack’s company—his name is Henly—did the only praiseworthy work among the men. He is not a great actor, but is a very conscientious one, and played the part of a Spanish duke very intelligently. This man, by the way, came over with the troop of British blondes who made such a disastrous failure at the Park Theater a month or so ago. From a British blonde at the Park to a Spanish duke at Wallack’s is quite a jump. Mr. Osmond Tearle, who is a red faced, mild eyed and far from romantic looking Englishman off the stage, stepped from behind the scenes made up as a Brazilian adventurer. The effect was startling. Mr. Tearle wore an extraordinary black mustache, his customary light eyebrows and a wild black wig. Above his forehead Mr. Tearle looked very much disordered, very unpoetical and very unhappy. That section of his face between his wig and his upper lip was mild, beneficent and sunny as an English May day. The lower section of his face, which was decorated by the black mustache, looked villainous and deep. The ensemble was rather curious. Mr. Tearle’s duties at Wallack’s Theater seem to be to kill Miss Coghlan’s cruel husbands. He did it this time with his usual finish and dispatch. Of the women in the cast, Miss Rose Coghlan is the only one who was at all successful. In the third act of the play, the scene which is taken from Sardou, there is a chance for a bit of strong and heroic acting; it brought out all of the powers of Mr. Wallack’s leading lady. When there is a chance for acting of this sort Miss Coghlan shows the metal of which she is made. She has grown considerably slighter since her trip to Europe and now has the figure of a girl. Her costumes were simply gorgeous. It is a pity that she has so few opportunities for heroic acting in the namby pamby plays produced at Wallack’s. What struck the audience most forcibly at the performance of this play was the entire artificiality of the actors. There was a garden scene in the first act, and the actors walked in one after the other, doffed their hats in response to the applause of the audience, doffed them when they addressed their sweethearts, doffed them when spoken to, and then took them off with an angular motion when mentioning the name of the Divinity. To see Mr. Kelcey make an appeal to his Creator, with one arm raised on high while he tipped his hat with the other hand as though acknowledging the salute of some girl on the other side of the stage, was not a solemn spectacle. The men all wore very new clothes, spoke with extraordinary deliberation, and proved that they were a lot of very common place actors in an extremely bad play. Mr. Buchanan, the “author” of the play, sat in a proscenium box ready to receive the calls for the author. He was not called. His sister in law, Harriet Jay, sat with him. She is very tall, blonde, and has rather sharp features. For some extraordinary reason the audience thought she was Ellen Terry, and the play was forgotten during the half hour following her arrival, while they gazed at her. She shielded her face with a huge white fan, so that people were a long while finding out that it was not Miss Terry. ___
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Wallack’s Theatre, New York and below, Lester Wallack. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Constance was not a success, running for just a fortnight and, as far as I know, was never produced in Britain or elsewhere. Meanwhile, Harriett Jay was pursuing her acting career on the American stage. Considering the following article, which had appeared five months earlier, she must have felt she had something to prove. The New York Times (18 May, 1884) Mr. Robert Buchanan, the adapter of “Lady Clare,” has written a new comedy which he is trying to get produced in London. Mr. Buchanan is led to this reckless course through the success of “Lady Clare” and the large royalties which have poured into his pocket from this country ever since the production of this piece. In London Mr. Buchanan is not regarded with enthusiasm by theatrical managers. In the first place he has written a large number of pieces, none of which, barring “Lady Clare,” has been successfully performed in the English metropolis. In the second he has a sister-in-law named Harriet Jay, who is the cause of travail and sorrow in managerial circles. Whenever Mr. Buchanan writes a play he insists, as far as he can, upon having Miss Jay perform the principal character. The lady is an amiable and interesting person when she does not try to act. But the quickest preparation for a London exodus lies through the appearance of Miss Jay in public. It is because Mr. Buchanan, metaphorically speaking, goes around with a bundle of manuscript under one arm and his sister-in-law under the other that he is not enthusiastically regarded by English managers. ___
The New York Times (1 October, 1884) Mr. Robert Buchanan, who is now staying in this city, announces that Miss Harriett Jay, the young English actress and novelist, fresh from Drury-Lane, where she was leading lady last season, will shortly make her American début at the Madison-Square Theatre. Her first appearance will be in a series of special matinées, under the personal direction of Mr. Buchanan. Afterward she will create the title rôle in a new play, written by Mr. Buchanan specially for her, and accepted by Mr. Mallory for production after the run of the “Private Secretary.” ___
The New York Times (2 November, 1884) The representation of “Lady Clancarty,” intended to introduce Miss Harriet Jay to local playgoers, occurs at the Madison-Square Theatre on Wednesday afternoon of this week. The proceeds of the performance are to swell the Actors’ Fund, and Miss Jay will have the co-operation of Messrs. Plympton, Pigott, and Whiffen, and that of Miss Stanhope and other artists. ___
The New York Times (2 November, 1884) The performance of “Clancarty” which is to be given on Wednesday afternoon at the Madison-Square Theatre for the purpose of introducing Miss Harriet Jay to the American populace will not include the services of Mr. Kelcey, as was originally announced. The gentleman has been obliged to throw up his part in order to more carefully devote himself to rehearsals at the Wallack Theatre. His place in the cast of “Clancarty” will be taken by Mr. Eben Plympton. The principal design of this stage representation seems to be to prove to the great American public that Miss Jay is a vastly more beautiful woman than Mrs. Langtry. ___
The Daily Bee (Omaha) (25 November, 1884 - p.2) A NOVEL FEMININE COSTUME Picturesque Costume of a Hod-Carrier New York Letter to Buffalo Express. ___
The New York Times (27 November, 1884) MISS HARRIET JAY. Miss Harriet Jay made her first appearance in America at the Madison-Square Theatre yesterday afternoon before a numerous audience. The play was Tom Taylor’s “Clancarty,” a romantic drama of the Jacobite days, and the supporting actors, members of Wallack’s and the Madison-Square companies most of them, were efficient, so that the performance was smooth and satisfactory. Miss Jay, of course, played Lady Elizabeth Clancarty, daughter of the Earl of Sunderland and wife of Donagh Macarthy, an adherent of the Stuarts. Miss Jay is a lady of stately presence, with an interesting face, and her methods as an actress were evidently derived from a careful study of good models. Her voice is sufficiently strong, though her utterance is lacking in variety of tone, and therefore somewhat monotonous. In moments of excitement Miss Jay’s speech is apt to be thick, as if her mouth were filled with pebbles. This defect, however, may be partly attributable to the nervousness due to her first appearance before a strange audience. As a whole, her performance yesterday produced a decidedly favorable impression, and it is safe to predict that this lady will always please in characters which do not demand too great a display of emotional power. Her Lady Clancarty is a sweet and lovable gentlewoman, more at ease while hearing good tidings of her absent husband from the lips of the pseudo Hazeltine than in the subsequent scenes of sorrow and despair. Her graceful manner and her earnestness, however, pleased everybody, and she was warmly applauded. Mr. Charles Glenny was Clancarty, and Mr. Thomas Whiffen, in an admirable make-up, Scum Goodman, the smuggler and cut-throat. Mr. J. W. Piggott contributed an effective sketch of the King, William of Orange, and Mr. E. J. Henley, of Wallack’s, was the stern brother of Lady Clancarty. ___
Brooklyn Eagle (7 December, 1884 - p.2) THE NEW Park Theater, after a series of dreary and disastrous fiascos, has at last been abandoned by its tenants, who have given up their leases and withdrawn from it permanently. The number of ambitious theatrical men which the Park Theater has ruined is great. The last two were John A. Stevens and Frank Murtha, who made comfortable fortunes in the old Windsor Theater only to lose them up town. The scheme now, I am told, is to turn the Park Theater into a dime museum, that style of amusement having sprung into extraordinary popularity of late. It is hoped that in this form, at least, the building will pay. In connection with this last failure, another one occurs to me. It is that of Miss Harriet Jay, the sister in law of the author, Robert Buchanan, whose last play fell so flat. Mr. Buchanan said that his sister in law was considered the handsomest woman in England, and that he considered her a great actress. The first statement didn’t go for much; the faith of the American people in the appreciation of the English for female beauty grows beautifully less as the years roll on. There was, therefore, no surprise when Miss Jay proved to be a very long, square shouldered, sharp featured and awkward lady. As for her histrionic ability, it may be said that she made one appearance only, and that the effect of her acting was somnolent, solemn and trite. It was a comedy part, too. ___
The “new play, written by Mr. Buchanan specially for her, and accepted by Mr. Mallory for production” mentioned in the October article, never materialised, instead there was a revival in January 1885 of Lady Clare at Niblo’s Garden.
The New York Times (4 January, 1885) The little difficulty between Mr. Mallory, of the Madison-Square, and Mr. H. M. Pitt, whose salary it was sought to reduce, has been amicably adjusted, and the actor retains his post in the company. This week Mr. Pitt is loaned to Mr. Frohman for the “Lady Clare” engagement at Niblo’s, and he will for the first time undertake to be sentimental in a leading and lachrymose rôle. Mr. Pitt has hitherto flourished chiefly as a performer of characters of the sluggish and lackadaisical kind. The other item of interest in connection with the “Lady Clare” production is in the statement that Miss Harriet Jay will appear in masculine attire in the part played at Mr. Wallack’s theatre by young Mr. Buckstone. It is reported that when it was decided Miss Jay was to play the part she immediately sent all the way to London for the raiment in which she originally appeared in this character. It has hitherto been supposed that there were plenty of clothes in America. ___
The New York Times (6 January, 1885) A company of competent actors and actresses appeared at Niblo’s Garden last night in “Lady Clare,” Robert Buchanan’s version of “Le Maitre des Forges.” Miss Cora Tanner, as Lady Clare, acted with grace, dignity, and earnestness. Mr. H. M. Pitt, as John Middleton, proved that, while he was not as much at home in a serious rôle as in a “character” part, he had sufficient power to hold the interest of the audience and in some scenes to awaken their hearty admiration. Lord Ambermere was played by Mr. Henry Aveling, an actor well qualified for the part. Miss Harriet Jay appeared as the Hon. Cecil Brookfield, originally played by her in London, and gave a charming performance. Mr. Max Freeman displayed his eccentric humor as Mr. Gould Smale, and Miss Louise Dillon was a petite and piquant Mary Middleton. The other parts were in good hands and the play moved with smoothness and good effect. The audience was large and the applause frequent. On Wednesday afternoon what is known as a “professional” matinée of “Lady Clare” will be given, to which all the members of the dramatic profession in town will be invited that they may witness Miss Jay’s performance of the Eton boy. ___
And the mention of Cora Tanner brings us to one of the greatest theatrical successes of Robert Buchanan and Harriett Jay, Alone in London. The play is dealt with at length in the Theatre Reviews section of the site, but I thought the following two items were worth repeating here. The first is from the New York Times, which gives an indication of how much the reputations of Robert Buchanan and Harriett Jay had changed as a result of their American trip (i.e. not at all), the second from the programme of the London production. The New York Times (12 March, 1885) Mr. Robert Buchanan has succeeded in disposing of one more play in this country. This piece is called “Alone in London,” and it is to be tried on in Philadelphia some time in May next. If “Alone in London” proves successful it will be brought out in New-York at the beginning of the following season, and after that it will be sent through the general country. “Alone in London” has a material attachment in the shape of Miss Harriet Jay, who appears to be generously thrown in with the most of Mr. Buchanan’s theatrical bargains. Miss Jay is regarded by Mr. Buchanan as the most beautiful woman and the most accomplished actress in the world, and this fact indicates the degree of generosity which induces him to insist that managers who accept his plays shall also receive the further boon of having them performed by the radiant and accomplished Miss Jay. ___
The Olympic Programme and Looker-On (7 November, 1885) “ALONE IN LONDON,” IN AMERICA. ALONE IN LONDON was produced by the authors for the first time on any stage at the Chestnut Street Theatre, Philadelphia, on Monday evening, March 30, 1885, being performed simultaneously in England for the purpose of preserving copyright. Its success in America was so unmistakeable and instantaneous that within a few days it was secured by the well-known entrepreneur, Colonel William E. Sinn, of Brooklyn, for a two years’ tour of the United States and Canada. The entire Company, a remarkably strong one, was re-engaged for that purpose, with the single exception of Miss Harriett Jay, who had created the part of Tom Chickweed for that occasion only, and who shortly afterwards left to produce the play in England. After the summer recess Colonel Sinn’s Company opened, August 31st, at the Park Theatre, Boston, playing for two weeks to receipts of over fourteen thousand dollars; thence to the People’s Theatre, New York, with a week’s business of seven thousand dollars; thence to Brooklyn and Williamsburg, with similar results; thence to the Grand Opera House, New York, with a weekly total of eight thousand dollars. The play is now running every week to phenomenal business. Its popular success is peculiarly interesting, as it destroys the managerial fallacy that a drama, to secure success in America and the colonies, must first have secured a long London run, or possess a London reputation. ___
Alone in London was the last of Buchanan’s plays to be produced during his visit to America. Information about his activities after the Philadelphia production is scarce and the actual date of his return is unknown. According to Harriett Jay, “Mr. Buchanan’s health again broke down and he had to hasten his return home”, which is confirmed by the following items. The first, a very brief notice from The Salt Lake Herald implies that Buchanan was back in England by the end of July (the ‘long dramatic poem’ was presumably The Earthquake, which was published in December, 1885). The second, from The Era, confirms that Harriett Jay was back in England at the beginning of August. The Salt Lake Herald (1 August, 1885 - p.2) British Bits. LONDON, July 31.—Robert Buchanan is seriously ill. He has just finished a long dramatic poem. ___
The Era (8 August, 1885 - Issue 2446) MISS HARRIETT JAY has returned from America, bringing with her the manuscript of Mr Buchanan’s new melodrama, Alone in London, which was written at her suggestion, and has obtained success in the United States. The American rights have been secured by the well-known entrepreneur, Colonel Sinn, of Brooklyn, who pays Miss Jay forty per cent. of the nett profits, with a guarantee that her share for the first season of forty weeks shall not be less than twelve thousand dollars (£2,400). Mr Buchanan remains very ill, having not yet recovered from the serious pulmonary attack which prostrated him during the severe winter in New York. During the coming season he will produce a new romantic play at Wallack’s and an original comedy at Daly’s. ___
The plays for Lester Wallack and Augustin Daly did not materialise ‘in the coming season’, although they had been mentioned back in March while Buchanan was publicising Alone in London. The Evening Critic (Washington, D.C.) (23 March, 1885 - p.2) Mr. Robert Buchanan says: “My new play, ‘Alone in London,’ will be produced in London and Philadelphia on the same day, March 30. I don’t know how American authors feel, but I look with no little envy on the enormous field of life and character lying open before them in this country. In England it is very difficult to hit on anything new. In a talk I had some time ago with Mr. Palmer, that gentleman said that it would amply repay any English dramatist to reside for a time in America and study the vast social material which native dramatists, for some inscrutable reason, persistently neglect; and I have been acting to some extent on his advice. Since I came to America I have been overwhelmed with offers for dramatic work, most of which I have had to decline on account of the pressure of my more important literary avocations. Mr. Daly has made me a liberal offer for the production of an original comedy next season at his theatre, and as soon as I can find time I shall complete a new play for Mr. Wallack.” ___
Buchanan never returned to America, but his association with the American theatre continued. Sophia was produced at Wallack’s Theatre in November, 1886. In April, 1888, Partners was produced at the Madison-Square Theatre, and in September, Col. Sinn followed up his success with Alone in London with another Buchanan/Jay collaboration, Fascination (which also starred Cora Tanner) at New York’s Fourteenth-Street Theatre. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
[From the Cass City Chronicle (Michigan) (15 June, 1906)] And with the imagined strains of “Will You Love Me in December as You Do in May”, sung by Gussie Lenshaw, Lady Baritone, still ringing in our ears, I’ll leave this page of Buchanan’s American theatrical ventures. Except for one more item. It has only a minor connection to Buchanan but it’s a nice example of the strange tales which turn up when you’re searching through newspaper archives on the internet. At one point I did wonder about adding an aside about the trial of Dr. Robert W. Buchanan for the murder of his wife in 1892 which became rather a cause celebre and dragged on until his execution in April 1895. There were considerably more mentions during that period of that Robert W. Buchanan than the Robert Williams Buchanan I was searching for in the archives of The New York Times. But, beyond the coincidence of names there was no real connection. Although, given Buchanan’s passionate opposition to capital punishment and his letter to The Daily Telegraph touching on the first use of the electric chair (reprinted in The Coming Terror), one wonders what Buchanan thought about his namesake’s eventual demise in that device at Sing Sing. Murder also cropped up in relation to William Terriss, the star of the American production of Roger la Honte: or, A Man’s Shadow, who was stabbed to death outside the Adelphi Theatre, London, on 16th December 1897. But, in the end, I decided to just include the following:
The New York Times (11 September, 1886) CHARGES OF MALPRACTICE. CHICAGO, Sept. 10.—Alonzo Blondin, leading juvenile of Robert Buchanan’s “Storm Beaten” company was arrested to-night as accessory to criminal malpractice. Dr. Albert E. Palmer was arrested as the principal. Miss Kitty Reber, Buchanan’s leading lady, is at the Harrison Court Hotel, in a critical condition, the result, it is alleged, of their crime. Blondin and Palmer deny the charges. Miss Kitty Reber is a sister of Sallie Reber, whose death about a year ago in New-York, under peculiar circumstances, created a sensation. ___
The New York Times (12 September, 1886) NOT A RELATIVE OF MISS REBER. CHICAGO, Sept. 11.—It is now said that Miss Kitty Rober, the actress who is lying ill here, under peculiar circumstances, is no relation to Miss Sallie Reber, the actress whose secret marriage to Mr. Fish, in New-York a year ago, caused much comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||