THEATRE REVIEWS

24. A Man’s Shadow (1889)

A Man’s Shadow
by Robert Buchanan (adapted from the play, Roger la Honte by Jules Mary and Georges Grisier, based on the novel by Jules Mary).
The play received a copyright performance on 29 November, 1888 at the Elephant and Castle Theatre, London under the title of Roger la Honte, or Jean the Disgraced.
London: Haymarket Theatre. 12 September, 1889 to 29 March, 1890. Followed by provincial tour.
Other performances:
London: Britannia Theatre, Hoxton. 25 September, 1893.
London: Her Majesty’s Theatre. 27 November, 1897. (Revival with Herbert Beerbohm-Tree).
Manchester: Queen’s Theatre. 26 May, 1903.

Buchanan’s version of A Man’s Shadow was not produced in America. However, Roger La Honte was adapted by Augustin Daly, who based his version on Buchanan’s play. Daly copyrighted his version at the Library of Congress, 10 December, 1888 as “Roger La Honte; a drama in 4 acts, from the French.” And the play, now titled, Roger la Honte; or, A Man’s Shadow, received its New York premiere at Niblo’s Garden on 8 October, 1889. An advert in the New-York Daily Tribune for this production credited Buchanan as co-author, and his name was mentioned in some reviews. Since there is some doubt as to how much Daly changed Buchanan’s play, I have added a separate section on the American version.

Film: A Man’s Shadow, directed by Sidney Morgan, 1920.
(There have also been five French versions of the original novel, Roger la Honte, two silent (in 1913 and 1922) and three ‘talkies’ (in 1933, 1946 and 1966). Full details of these are available on imdb.com.

 The Stage (23 November, 1888 - p.9)

     Messrs. W. Terriss, Charles Cartwright, and C. Overton, have secured the English and colonial rights of Roger la Honte, which will be adapted by Robert Buchanan.

___

The New York Times (18 August, 1889)

     Robert Buchanan’s English version of “Roger la Honte,” the French melodrama that was founded on a sensational romance printed in Le Petit Journal, will be produced by Beerbohm Tree at the Haymarket Theatre Sept. 7. Mr. Buchanan is understood to have furnished his adaptation with a prologue in which some of the previous acts of Roger and his comrade in arms, Lucien de Noirville, are presented to the eye of the spectator instead of being merely described, as in the original. This must require some curtailment of the subsequent scenes, for “Roger la Honte” is in three parts, five acts, and ten tableaus, and, though it begins at the Ambigue, in Paris, punctually at 8, is rarely ended before midnight.

___

The Times (13 September, 1889 - p.3)

HAYMARKET THEATRE.

     During the past six months the French melodrama Roger La Honte has attained a degree of popularity at the Ambigu which has rendered its transference to London more or less inevitable. The taste of the English public, it is true, has latterly been somewhat indifferent to French adaptations, but there is always room on the English stage for a picturesque, pathetic, absorbing story of wronged innocence and rewarded devotion; and MM. Jules Mary and Georges Grisier’s play could not have fallen into better hands than those of Mr. Beerbohm Tree, by whom it was produced last night, under the title of A Man’s Shadow, amid unquestionable signs of popular approval. Roger La Honte has not undergone adaptation in the common acceptation of the word. Mr. Robert Buchanan, who is responsible for the English version, has retained the French scene and the French characters, contenting himself with such structural changes as tend merely to quicken and intensify the action. Considering that the story is intimately bound up with French methods of justice, and that the great sensational scene of the third act is a criminal trial in a French court, no other course appears to have been feasible. Even had it been otherwise, it is more than probably, indeed, that a thoroughly Anglicized version would have been less acceptable to a Haymarket audience, who in a general way may be said to have little admiration for the somewhat ad captandum devices of melodrama. So far from being an evil, therefore, the retention of the French criminal procedure, together with a certain French flavour which the adapter has communicated to his dialogue, may help to determine the popularity of the play, the story by that means being redeemed from commonplace.
     In its general aspect the story of Roger La Honte is far from novel. The conviction of an innocent man of murder or some other crime and the ultimate assertion of his innocence has long been a staple theme of melodrama, both French and English. MM. Jules Mary and Georges Grisier’s claim to originality lies in the ingenuity with which a net of circumstantial evidence is thrown around their hero, although it is evident that in working out their plot they had some recollection of Une Cause Célèbre, well known to English playgoers as Proof, the chief incriminating evidence in both cases being furnished by an infant daughter of the accused. Roger Laroque, a commerçant, and Raymond de Noirville, an avocat, are bosom friends, but on their return from the Franco-German war, where they have served side by side in the ranks, the former discovers to his horror that his friend’s newly-made wife is a former mistress of his own. Of a thoroughly vicious nature, Julie de Noirville seeks to renew her relations with Roger, but the high-principled hero regards the duties of friendship as paramount, and the scorned woman falls in accordingly with a scheme of revenge devised against Laroque by a spy named Luversan, who has suffered punishment at his hands. The vengeance is of a somewhat circuitous, not to say improbable, kind, but it results in this—that Luversan murders a banker, robs him of 100,000f., and, with an abnegation truly phenomenal, sends this money to Laroque, together with a note from Julie, begging him to accept it in order that he may tide over certain financial difficulties. As Laroque is on the verge of bankruptcy he falls into the trap, and is forthwith accused of being the banker’s assassin, while a regard for the feelings of his friend Raymond and for Julie’s reputation prevents him explaining how the stolen bank-notes have come into his possession. This is one link in the evidence against Laroque; another is that his own wife and child believe they saw him commit the crime, the banker’s house being exactly opposite his own. The cause of this misapprehension is a remarkable likeness between Laroque and Luversan, who has been reported to be dead.
     Seen through a window in the depths of the stage, the murder is a thrilling episode and provides some exciting material for the second act, inasmuch as the police make an inroad into Laroque’s house and ultimately arrest him as the criminal. But the interest of the play centres in the trial scene of the third act—a vivid and realistic representation of a French assize-court. Here Laroque is defended by his friend De Noirville, whose presence renders it absolutely impossible for him to explain his relations with Julie. Luversan, still thirsting for vengeance, is on the watch, and at a critical juncture passes a note to De Noirville, apprising him of his wife’s faithlessness, and, by implication, of Laroque’s innocence of the charge. For a moment the avocat, who is overcome by the terrible revelation, hesitates what course to pursue. He resolves to do his duty by his client; but, in the act of divulging the name of the “shameless woman” from whom Laroque had received the fatal bank-notes, he is struck down by apoplexy, and dies in open Court, bringing down the curtain. In the fourth and last act, Laroque is discovered as an escaped convict, meeting his wife and child by stealth. The gendarmes are on his track; but Julie, now repentant, appears upon the scene to save him, though not before Luversan, his double, has been shot down by the police in mistake.
     As will be gathered, the story is full of exciting incident, sometimes of a pathetic character, as when the child, in examination by the police, and afterwards in Court unconsciously prejudices her father’s case. It is inevitable in melodrama that acting should be subordinate to situation; but the evil is modified by the admirable versatility of Mr. Beerbohm Tree, who, after the manner of Mr. Irving in The Lyons Mail, doubles the parts of the hero and his evil genius. In Paris the characters of Laroque and Luversan are embodied by actors between whom no striking resemblance exists, and the alteration made at the Haymarket not only furnishes Mr. Tree with the opportunity of performing a congenial tour de force, but also adds to the plausibility of the story. Mr. Tree’s changes of individuality are sometimes of what is known at the music-halls as a “lightning” character, and extend not only to dress, but, what is more remarkable still, to voice and general bearing. “Doubling” is often a dangerous experiment for an actor to make, but in Mr. Tree’s hands it proves astonishingly successful. Mrs. Tree has some pathetic moments as Madam Laroque, and Miss Julia Neilson appears to advantage as the adventuress Madame de Noirville. The child is prettily played by Miss Minnie Terry. As Raymond, Mr. Fernandez is enabled to rivet attention in the culminating scene of the drama. At the Haymarket, Roger La Honte is altogether a more impressive play than it is on its native stage, where it is but indifferently mounted and acted.

___

The Penny Illustrated Paper (21 September, 1889 - p.10)

MR. TREE has opened the autumn season at the Haymarket Theatre with a powerful new play from the French, “A Man’s Shadow,” adapted by Mr. Robert Buchanan from the successful Parisian drama “Roger la Honte.” Mr. Tree has furnished yet another proof that he is the bright particular stage chameleon of the period. I have so often dwelt in these columns on the unrivalled versatility of Mr. Tree, and on the rare skill with which he merges his own identity in the gallery of clearly defined characters he has created, that there is no occasion now to expatiate on the merits of his rotund Falstaff or of his shambling Russian spy in “The Red Lamp,” of his murderous Macari and his incisive Captain Swift, not to enumerate all his wonderfully real creations. A tall, fair young man in private—he is hit off to the life in the above photograph by the London Stereoscopic Company—Mr. Tree has very early in life won for himself a foremost place in the ranks of histrionic artists. He has a unique reputation. His peculiar talent gave exceptional interest to his assumption on Sept. 12 of the dual rôle of the hero and his criminal “shadow” in Mr. Buchanan’s strong new piece at the Haymarket. I don’t remember to have ever seen the theatre fuller. There could be no denying the expectant and sympathetic audience had plenty of robust dramatic fare set before them. There was great grip in the story. It opened with the generous intercession of the advocate, Raymond De Noirville, with an implacable creditor of his old friend and comrade, Lucien Laroque, who has incurred heavy monetary responsibilities which he is unable to meet. Laroque himself appears upon the scene. To his amazement and embarrassment, he finds his friend De Noirville has married a fair creature who was once his (Laroque’s) mistress. A married man himself, and, bound by ties of warm friendship to the husband, Lucien Laroque repulses with horror the overtures of Julie De Noirville, who on his departure determines to write one last amorous appeal to him, baited by the offer of a loan of money. It is while Julie is writing this missive that the vile “shadow” of Laroque—a villanous ne’er-do-weel, named Luversan—glides into the room, on burglarious thoughts intent. Bearing a close resemblance to Laroque, Luversan is mistaken at first by Julie as her quondam lover, and she hands him the letter. This puts him in possession of her secret, on which he forthwith trades. More. It enables him to revenge himself on Laroque for a wrong he conceived he had suffered at his hands during the war, when he was locked up in a barn as a spy and was near being burnt to death. Gaining admittance to Laroque’s apartments, Luversan finds a pistol in a drawer, and with this shoots the banker who lives exactly opposite Laroque, leaving the weapon there to throw suspicion on Laroque. This crime is witnessed by Madame Laroque, her little girl, and her maid-servant, each of whom fancies it is Laroque who commits the murder. There is even a stronger situation than this. It is in the trial scene, where Laroque is charged with the murder, and is defended by De Noirville. Laroque’s heroic daughter has, to save her father, persisted that she had seen nothing of the crime; and the fainting of the little witness causes the Judge to adjourn the Court. It is in this interval that the diabolical Luversan sends the billet-doux of Madame De Noirville to the barrister, who is overwhelmed when he learns the perfidy of his wife and (as he fancies) of the friend whom he is defending. Mr. Fernandez rouses the enthusiasm of the house by one of the strongest pieces of declamation delivered for some time—the closing passage in which, true to his trust, albeit cut to the heart, he lifts his voice to show that this imagined intrigue accounted for Laroque’s possession of the sum of money it was alleged he had stolen from the murdered man. At the height of his noble argument, De Noirville gasps for breath, totters, and falls dead on the floor of the court. Laroque is sentenced to transportation, but returns to France in time to unmask Luversan, and to clear his fair fame as the wretched existence of his vile “shadow” dies out. Admirable on the first night, Mr. Tree's embodiment of the parts of the well-set-up Laroque and the slouching spy and scoundrel Luversan is now more finished still. As Laroque he is the retired French officer to the life. In his impersonation of Luversan there are artistic suggestions of the criminal “masher” Prado, and various dexterous suggestions of the rascally lounger who is at home at Bullier’s, an adept at the can-can, and a haunter of the lowest wine-shops—in fine, an irreclaimable “bad lot.” Mr. Tree is equalled by Mr. Fernandez in the powerful situation which closes the trial. As Julie Miss Julia Neilson quite distinguished herself, making good the high promise I ventured to recognise she gave in “Brantingham Hall.” Mrs. Tree again proved herself to be the thoughtful artist she ever is, but her Henriette Laroque would command heartier sympathy were she to allow her love for her husband to banish all suspicion of him in the murder scene. Miss Minnie Terry was charmingly natural as Suzanne Laroque. Miss Norreys was worthy a better part; and the same may be said of Mr. Collette and Mr. E. M. Robson, the comic couple of soldiers. Mr. Buchanan has, on the whole, done his work skilfully and well; music and mounting are everything that could be desired; and the Haymarket Management has deservedly scored another unmistakable success.

___

 The Theatre (1 October, 1889)

“A MAN’S SHADOW.”

New Drama, in four acts, adapted from the French play “Roger la Honte,” by ROBERT BUCHANAN.
First produced at the Haymarket Theatre, Thursday evening, September 12, 1889.

     In its original form as produced at the Ambigu twelve months ago in Paris, the “Roger la Honte” of MM. J. Mary and G. Grisier would most decidedly not have suited a Haymarket audience, but Mr. Buchanan has so deftly adapted the powerful story, retaining all that was valuable and casting off what was superfluous, that “A Man’s Shadow” secured one of the most decided successes. It goes without saying that the favourable reception was also due to the general excellence of the cast. The French version was founded on a novel that appeared in Le Petit Journal, and the story was spread over two generations, but as the strong scene of the piece as then played, which had been worked up to, culminated in the third act, the remaining scenes lost much of their interest. By his masterly condensation, and the writing of an entirely new last act, Mr. Buchanan has avoided all chance of weariness, and has retained the interest in the play right up to the final fall of the curtain. Lucien Laroque, during the Franco-Prussian War, has saved, at the imminent risk of his own, the life of Raymond de Noirville, and they have become firmly attached friends. On their return to Paris the latter resumes his profession as an advocate, while the former endeavours to re-establish his business as a manufacturer. But during the hostilities the business has dwindled away to nothing, and Laroque must become a bankrupt unless he can raise a sum of two hundred thousand francs due to M. Gerbier, a banker. During the war a spy named Luversan has been taken prisoner, and condemned to death by Laroque and De Noirville, but escaping by a miracle he owes a deep debt of hatred to the men who have convicted him. Laroque and Luversan so strangely resemble each other as to be readily mistaken for one and the same man. Laroque visits the advocate to explain to him the position of his affairs, and discovers in Julie, Madame de Noirville, a worthless mistress of his youth. Now happily married, and with one child, Suzanne, he repels Julie’s renewed advances, and transforms her into a bitter enemy. Luversan, who knows of her past life, threatens her with exposure unless she supplies him with funds, and, soon discovering her present feelings towards her former lover, persuades her to join with him in an endeavour to ruin him. Laroque has paid to M. Gerbier 100,000 francs in notes. Luversan, having obtained hush money from Julie, now determines to try his fortune with Laroque. Whilst at the latter’s house M. Gerbier, who lives opposite, is seen counting his money, and calls to Luversan, mistaking him for Laroque, to come over for the formal receipt for the sum paid. Luversan goes, determines to seize the opportunity to rob him, and, after a struggle with the banker, shoots him down, and takes the notes, the deed being witnessed by Madame Laroque and by little Suzanne and Victoire, the servant, who imagine that in the murderer they recognise husband, father, and master respectively. With fiendish cunning the spy then drops into Laroque’s letter-box the roll of notes accompanied by a letter purporting to come from Julie imploring him to accept the assistance thus offered. Laroque is arrested; his servant and child are called as witnesses; little Suzanne, faithful to a promise made to her mother, will disclose nothing, even though entreated by her father to speak the truth, and so, as he hopes, exculpate him. The possession of the notes is damning evidence against him, but he prefers to suffer condemnation rather than confess the source from whence they came, and so bring dishonour on his friend, who is defending him. Luversan, to wreak his spite on De Noirville, and as he thinks to ensure the ruin of his other enemy, causes Lucien’s supposed letter to be handed to De Noirville. He reads it. Notwithstanding the horror of his discovery, he determines to be true to the man whose cause he is advocating, though it will entail the confession of his wife’s shame. In a powerful speech he is addressing the jury, and asserting that he can prove Laroque’s innocence. He is just about to utter the name of the woman who sent the notes when he drops dead, the excitement having been too much for a constitution already weakened by wounds received during the campaign. Laroque is sentenced to penal servitude in New Caledonia. He escapes from thence, and returns to France. Luversan becomes aware of this, and is doing his best to hand him over to the police, when Julie de Noirville, repentant of the evil she has done, confesses everything to Madame Laroque, who is thus convinced of her husband’s innocence. The confession will also clear him in the eyes of justice. Soon after Henriette meets Luversan, and taxing him with the crime is detaining him. Her screams for assistance bring in the gendarmes, who, thinking it is Laroque endeavouring to escape, shoot the man down, the real Laroque almost at the same moment appearing at the head of the stairs as his wife and child rush forward to embrace him.

The third act is undoubtedly the strong one—the interior of the Assize Chamber, with its realistic and novel features of French procedure, the impressive ceremonial of the trial, the sufferings of the innocent prisoner, the agony of his child, all vividly impress themselves on the audience. Here Mr. Fernandez certainly took the honours of the evening, and was absolutely grand, not only in tke expression of the torture he was suffering at the discovery of his wife’s baseness, but in his impassioned pleading for the man who had so betrayed him. His address roused the usually apathetic Haymarket audience to a very storm of applause. Mr. Beerbohm Tree in a remarkably clever manner preserved the outward similarity of the two characters he was representing, and at the same time made the difference of their moral natures as apparent as possible; the one noble and chivalrous, the other a crafty vaurien, the voice and gait even were altered. His changes were most rapidly effected, and the final one was a perfect tour-de-force. Mr. Kemble’s manner as the President of the Court was admirably dignified and his delivery most impressive. Mr. Gurney rendered the character of Lacroix, the police agent, a most effective one. Mr. Collette and Mr. E. M. Robson, whilst thoroughly amusing, deserve the greatest credit for restraining any tendency to overdo their comic parts, in which they satirise the French law of divorce. Mr. Hargreaves gave an excellent bit of character acting as Jean Ricordot. Mrs. Tree, though pleasing, was scarcely intense enough as the wife, horror-stricken at the crime, as she thinks, her husband has committed, though the expression of her features left nothing to be desired. The Suzanne of Miss Minnie Terry was a surprising performance for so young a child, and would no doubt have been stronger but for the cough from which she was suffering. Miss Norreys gave an exquisite touch of pathos, and exhibited a true dramatic instinct in the one scene in which she had her opportunity. Miss Julia Neilson realised the success that her first appearances shadowed. Her handsome face and rich-toned voice conveyed the expression of the passions running riot in the person of the lovely but treacherous adventuress Julie, and her repentance at the close was tenderly and pathetically portrayed. Mr. Tree and his company were repeatedly called, special favour being shown to Mr. Fernandez. The author also appeared, and Mr. Tree, being forced to say a few words, announced that there would shortly be given matinées of classical plays.

___

The Graphic (5 October, 1889 -  Issue 1036)

“A MAN’S SHADOW” AT THE HAYMARKET THEATRE

     THIS piece has been ingeniously adapted by Mr. Robert Buchanan from a drama, by MM. Jules Mary and Georges Grivier, called Roger La Honte, which has been performed for several months with great success at the Ambigu Theatre, Paris. We need not again related the plot, but be content to mention a few of the leading features. A bad woman, Julie de Noirville (Miss Julia Neilson), desires to be revenged on a former admirer, one Laroque, because, being now married, he repudiates her renewed attentions. She accordingly conspires with a villain named Luversan, who has motives of his own for vengeance against Laroque. Luversan murders a banker, relieves him of 100,000 francs, sends the money, through Julia, to Laroque, who, being in financial straits, accepts the fatal cash, and is forthwith accused of being the banker’s assassin, because a strong personal resemblance exists between himself and Luversan. It will be noticed that these strange incidents belong rather to Stageland than to real life; nevertheless, the piece, which was produced at the Haymarket on September 12th, has achieved a decided success. As did Mr. Irving in The Lyons Mail, so Mr. Beerbohm Tree “doubles” the characters of the villain and his victim; while Julia’s husband, Raymond de Noirville, an honourable advocate, who has hitherto been ignorant of his wife’s previous history, is impressively enacted by Mr. Fernandez. His chief opportunity occurs in the trial scene, where, while defending his friend Laroque, a note from Luversan informs him of his wife’s faithlessness and treachery. He resolves to do his duty, but falls stricken down with apoplexy, and dies in open court. Another thrilling episode is the incident of the murder, which is witnessed through a window in the depths of the stage.

[click the picture for a larger image]

___

The Penny Illustrated Paper (26 October, 1889 - p.339)

     Mr. H. Beerbohm Tree (who had the gratification of being able to announce that the Haymarket matinée for “Box and Cox” Morton yielded over £250 for the veteran author) is depicted on another page in the successful drama of “A Man’s Shadow,” adapted skilfully from the French by Mr. Robert Buchanan. I have so fully, in noticing this powerful piece, cited the main points of Mr. Tree’s dual performance of the murderer and of the innocent man who suffers for his crime, and have already so warmly praised the strong acting of Mr. Fernandez as the barrister, and of Mrs. Tree and Miss Julia Neilson in the play, that I need now do no more than point to the fidelity with which our Artist has portrayed the leading personages in “A Man’s Shadow.”
                                                                                                      THESPIS.

[click the picture for a larger image]

___

Te Aroha News (New Zealand) (20 November, 1889 - p.4)

TABLE TALK.
_____

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)
_____

                                                                                                 LONDON, September 20.

...

     Mr Robert Buchanan is perhaps the most misliked man of letters amongst his fellows in London. He has few friends, and many enemies, and I don’t suppose he ever in his life went out of the way to retain one of the former, or conciliate the latter. This being so, one may, I think, conclude (human nature being human nature) that when one finds the critics unanimously praising a new work of Buchanan’s it must be very good indeed. I, at any rate, thought so, and it was full of expectations I went with a friend to the Haymarket on Friday to see “A Man’s Shadow.” Nor were we disappointed. The French original of the piece “Roger le Honte” (now playing at the Paris Ambigu Theatre) is, from all accounts, a tawdry melodrama, spoilt at its strongest points by inane buffooneries, and reeking with sentiments which no English audience would tolerate for a moment. Mr Buchanan has converted it into a wholesome, sensational, yet sympathetic play, with crisp dialogue, and at least three singularly powerful situations. The plot turns (like the “Lyons Mail”) on the likeness between a good man and a bad one, Mr Beerbohm Tree. of course, acting both.
     Laroque, the hero, has incurred the undying enmity of his “double” Luversan, a Prussian spy, who schemes with the former’s cast-off mistress to ruin and destroy him. Laroque is accused of a murder committed by his double, who skilfully weaves an inextricable chain of circumstantial evidence around him. Even Laroque’s wife and child, who see the murder committed from the window of the house opposite, believe him guilty, although the agonised mother trains the terrified and sensitive child to deny everything. Then comes the trial, and the child is brought up to bear witness against her father, but still denies having seen or heard anything, though the perplexed prisoner implores her to speak the truth. The explanation of one piece of damning evidence could prove his innocence, and this it is in his power to give; but this revelation, though it saved his own life, would break the heart of his dearest friend, comrade, and advocate, for it would involve the public shaming of that friend’s wife, the prisoner’s former mistress. He therefore remains persistently silent on this point. But his “double” gives this information to the advocate just as he is about to make his speech for the defence, and believing his friend has been false to him, he is in the awful position of having to decide between proclaiming his own dishonour and the shame of his wife to save the innocent, or remaining silent and allowing the friend he believes to have wronged him to suffer unjustly. He chooses the path of duty, but sudden death spares him in the terrible act of performing it.
     It was in this episode that Mr James Fernandez, by his splendidly intense acting, ensured the success of the play. It was a grand effort, the situation was thrilling, and the audience was intensely excited and surprised; consequently, when the tension was over, the house rose at the actor, and thundered its applause. The startling situation of the previous act, when the murder was committed, albeit the agony was unduly prolonged, had distinctly prejudiced the audience in favour of the play; but the end of the trial scene clinched matters, and the sombre but still exciting, and in some measure, pathetic, last act—which, by the way, is entirely Mr Buchanan’s own—was followed with that substantial interest which assured success always awakens. Mr Beerbohm Tree played the dual part of the villain and the hero with artistic effect, suggesting the difference in resemblance, though he will surely work out his double conception with still more subtlety and greater distinction—for versatility in characterisation is his forte. Miss Julia Neilson played the advocate’s wife and the hero’s cast-off and jealous mistress with much nervous force and suppressed passion, and in the last act with pathos. It was not her fault that the character was extravagant in motive; the beautiful young actress showed nevertheless that she had in her that true dramatic instinct and power of which we recognised the promise from the first. Experience alone is what she requires.
     Little Minnie Terry, however, secured the greatest triumph of all in the painful part of Laroque’s child. During the trial scene the feminine part of the audience was bathed in tears. Even we men sniffed and blew our noses. Nevertheless there was a general feeling that a small child ought not to be acting such a tragic role, and that on every account little Miss Terry would be better in bed.

___

The Stage (20 December, 1889 - p.9)

     The hundredth night of A Man’s Shadow and the performance of Miss Rose Norreys as Nan in Good for Nothing at the Haymarket are noticed elsewhere in this paper. The programmes given away on Monday were beautifully illustrated with portraits, reproduced from photographs, of Mr. Beerbohm-Tree as Laroque, and Luversan, Mr. Fernandez as the advocate, Mrs. Beerbohm-Tree as Henriette, and Miss Terry as the child Suzanne, while an admirably executed picture of the trial scene covers the front leaf.

_____

     Speaking of A Man’s Shadow reminds me that little Mabel Hoare, who has for four years been playing child’s parts with Miss Mary Anderson and Mr. Wilson Barrett here and in America, and has I am told, now reached the magic age of ten, has been engaged by Mr. Horace Lingard to play Suzanne during the tour of the Haymarket piece.

___

The Stage (28 February, 1890 - p.12)

THE GRAND.

     Although the company organised by Mr. Horace Lingard have been introducing A Man’s Shadow to a few of our country cousins, Robert Buchanan’s adaptation is as yet practically unknown in the provinces, pending the visits of the company organised under the direction of Mr. Tree himself, who commenced operations as near home as the Grand, where their rendering of this interesting play has been received with a unanimous concensus of favourable opinion. As a whole, the performance has been judged by many who had witnessed the original production at the Haymarket to be more than satisfactory. In some cases a character is represented on lines that follow more or less closely the ideas of the creator of the part in England: in others a distinct endeavour is to be noticed to strike out an individual line of action independently of any predecessor, but in all the results are found to be more than praiseworthy, and the tout ensemble presents an excellent degree of finish and completeness. Mr. J. G. Grahame, who plays the parts of Laroque and Luversan, has far surpassed the anticipations of his most friendly of critics. The salient features of two widely different characters are, as he conceives them, distinctly individualised, and though he may be at times a trifle lacking in strength of method, it is perfectly evident that he has devoted both brains and study to his conception of the character, and his impersonation is not only clever but interesting. Mr. J. S. Haydon, a very capable actor, who is, perhaps, not so well known in London as he deserves to be, though in his time he has done much good work, has made a well-deserved success as De Norville, and is more particularly to be praised for the favourable verdict he has forced from fairly critical audiences, by the fact that Mr. Fernandez, the original whom most had seen, was undeniably almost perfect in the part. That Miss Maud Milton, who is spoken of by an esteemed contemporary as “painstaking,” made the most of the opportunities afforded to her in playing Henriette follows as a matter of course. Miss Milton is an artist in the best sense of the word, and if we have seen her in parts which gave her better opportunities, there can still be no hesitation in recording our opinion that we have few actresses who could have done so well in the circumstances. Miss Ina Goldsmith has won good opinions for a careful and intellectual rendering of Julie. Miss Edie King as the little Suzanne is almost beyond praise, for these children’s characters are, after all, seldom well-played, and Miss King possesses an evident savoir faire which is far beyond her years. It is difficult to separate Picolet from Tristol, or Tristol from Picolet, these two worthy heroes being capitally represented by Messrs. John Benn and Lytton Grey, who have between them worked up the humours of the piece in a highly diverting manner. Miss Floyd as Victoire, and, indeed, all the members of the Co., strive hard to show that they give the most conscientious attention to the smallest detail of the production, and their efforts have met with the heartiest approval of well-filled houses during their short sojourn in the North. The farce, Done on Both Sides, has been played as a first piece.

___

The Scotsman (25 March, 1890 - p.4)

     At the Royalty Theatre another adaptation by Mr Robert Buchanan from a French work—namely, “A Man’s Shadow”—was presented last night before a good house. As a play it bristles with striking dramatic incidents, and is a powerfully-written work, but its sentiment is hardly suited to the Scottish taste, although the play, from its clever acting, had a very favourable reception last night. A feature of the play was the staging.

___

The Stage (11 April, 1890 - p.5)

     NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE —

     TYNE (Sole Lessee, Mr. Augustus Harris; Manager, Mr. C. T. Burleigh).—Robert Buchanan’s adaptation of A Man’s Shadow, is occupying the boards of the Tyne this week. On Monday a holiday audience filled the house from floor to ceiling. The production is under the direction of Mr. Beerbohm Tree, which is a sufficient guarantee of its excellence in every detail. The success of the drama depends very materially on the capabilities of the artist selected to play the two widely distinct characters of Laroque the merchant, and Leversan the spy. The performance of this dual rôle, by Mr. J. G. Grahame, is of the most praiseworthy description, insomuch that to the large majority of the audience it seems the work of two individuals. Mr. J. S. Haydon is very fine as the advocate, Raymond de Noirville, especially in the trial scene in act three. Miss Maud Milton is always welcome here, and probably upon no occasion has her acting evinced more art and brought her higher praise than the part of Henriette, wife of Laroque. Mr. John Benn and Mr. Lytton Grey are amusing as Picolot and Tristot. Suzanne, the child of Laroque, is so pathetically played by Miss Edie King as to leave few dry eyes among the audience. Other parts are well filled by Miss Ira Goldsmith, Miss Floyd, Mr. Wilfrid, Mr. Lake, &c.

___

The Stage (8 August, 1890 - p.9)

THE SURREY.

     There are melodramas and melodramas, which distinction it is only just to make in the case of A Man’s Shadow. Mr. George Conquest on Monday afternoon began the experiment of ascertaining how far the higher form of this prolific variety of the dramatic family, as seen in the Buchanan adaptation of this Ambigu play would be acceptable to his audiences. The precise result it would be rash to predict; A Man’s Shadow reaches a degree in melodrama to which the Surrey playgoers may find it more difficult to rise than the Haymarket playgoers found it easy to descend. On Monday evening the audience was a little doubtful to begin with, but later it warmed under the influence of the powerful interests, and did not depart without a hearty verdict of approval. Whatever the upshot, of two things—certainty: Mr. Conquest deserves every praise for adventuring the piece, and his company the like meed for their spirited presentation of it. Mr. H. Beerbohm-Tree’s dual rôle falls to Mr. C. J. Hague, and Mr. J. Fernandez’s avocat with the famous speech to Mr. Philip Cunningham. Mr. Hague’s Lucien Laroque plus Luversan is a highly commendable tour de force, marked by no little ingenuity and no little ability; and Mr. Cunningham’s Raymond de Noirville, if without the robust quality of declamation instinctively looked for in the trial scene, is well finished and genuinely artistic. Other of the male characters are played by Mr. Henry Belding, a good Gerbier; by Messrs. Cruickshanks, Edward Lennox, Reuben leslie, E. S. Vincent, a capital Jean Ricordet; and by Messrs. George Conquest, jun., and Fred Conquest, who freely elaborate the queer humours of Picolot and Trislot. Mrs. Bennett plays with excellent vigour and full effect as Julie, and there is much to speak well of in Miss Annie Conway’s Henriette. Miss Cissy Farrell acts neatly as Victorie, and little Miss Jennie Humm is wholesomely natural in the not very naturally wholesome part of poor wee Susanne. That his audience should have plenty for its money, Mr. Conquest has put on the two-act comic drama, Old Phil Hardy, as the forepiece, in which with his usual skill he himself plays the part of Old Phil, supported by Mr. E. Lennox (Harry), Mr. E. S. Vincent (Charles), Mr. H. Belding (Peter Grip), Mr. B. Shelton (Captain Rough), Miss Jenny Lee (Mrs. Hardy), and Miss L. Dyson (Amy).

___

The Era (26 September, 1891 - Issue 2766)

THE MARYLEBONE.
On Saturday, Sept 19th, the Play,
in Four Acts and Four Tableaux, by Robert Buchanan, entitled
“A MAN’S SHADOW.”

Henriette                        ...     Mrs HENRY GASCOIGNE
Lucien Laroque              ...
Luversan                        ... ^}   Mr ACTON BOND
Raymond de Noirville     ...     Mr J. FREDERICK POWELL
Gerbier                           ...     Mr EDWARD BODDY
Picolet                            ...     Mr WILFORD BAILEY
Tristot                            ...     Mr CHARLES R. STONE
Jean Ricordot                 ...     Mr T. S. DELLER
President of the Court     ...     Mr JOHN HENDERSON
Advocate-General          ...     Mr ARTHUR HART
Lacroix                           ...     Mr CHARLES A. MORGAN
The Usher                       ...     Mr WILLIAMS
Valet                               ...     Mr J. VIVIAN
Officer                            ...     Mr G. FRANCIS
Susanne                          ...     Miss LILY IVANHOE
Victoire                           ...     Miss LUCY MURRAY
Julie                                ...     Miss MADGE DENZIL

     It was evident on Saturday evening from the favourable reception given to A Man’s Shadow that Mr Gascoigne’s policy of producing the melodramas and plays that have won popularity in more fashionable centres is one that meets with the entire approval of his patrons. The story that Mr Robert Buchanan has adapted with such skill from the Ambigu piece Roger La Honte is once that appeals with irresistible power to a popular audience. The force of cruel circumstance that overwhelms Laroque and makes him suffer for the crime of Luversan is due to the strong facial resemblance between the two men; and in this respect only A Man’s Shadow resembles Le Courrier de Lyon, known to Lyceum audiences as The Lyons Mail. Mr Buchanan in his slightly compressed version has skilfully retained all the best situations of the original piece; and none of these have created a more powerful effect at the Marylebone during the week than the solemn trial scene, where Raymond De Noirville, under the burden of an imagined dishonour put upon him by the man he is defending, quenches the bitterness of hate that gnaws at his heart, bravely attempts to do his duty as an advocate, and falls dead in the attempt. When A Man’s Shadow was produced at the Haymarket the fine acting of Mr James Fernandez as the advocate produced a very remarkable impression in this same scene—one of the best of its kind that has ever been composed in melodrama. Mr J. Frederick Powell, the Raymond De Noirville of the Marylebone cast, attacked its difficulties bravely and successfully, his savage and whispered upbraiding of Laroque, as well as the working of his facial muscles indicating the intense excitement under which the advocate is labouring. His speech for the defence was powerful in its intensity, and there was no undue forcing of the note. The part is one that some actors might be tempted to “tear a cat” in. Mr Powell avoids the Scylla of rant, without falling into the Charybdis of tameness. An altogether artistic piece of acting, too, was that of Mr Acton Bond, on whose shoulders fell the double responsibilities of the rôles of Laroque and Luversan. The difference in the characters is a remarkable one, though the lineaments are so alike. Mr Bond’s success at the Marylebone is greatest when, as soon as the dignified and manly Laroque has left the dock in the trial scene, his villainous counterpart, with a horrible chuckle, makes his appearance opposite to hand Julie De Noirville’s fatal note to her husband. Could it be one and the same individual playing the two parts? was a question that naturally arose in one’s mind, and this very doubt is perhaps the greatest tribute that can be paid to the young actor, whose elocution is so excellent, and whose power is already so well under restraint. Mrs Henry Gascoigne made an excellent Henriette, delineating with no little skill the conflicting emotions of the distraught wife, and Miss Madge Denzil’s Julie was a careful and painstaking performance. Miss Lucy Murray as Victoire, the waiting-maid, also did well. The puerile humour of Picolot and Tristot does not add strength to the trial scene, but it seemed to be relished by the Maryleboners, who roared at the “business” of Mr Wilford Bailey and Mr Charles R. Stone. Mr T. S. Deller had a comic appearance as Jean Ricardot; Mr Charles Morgan was a good Lacroix; and Mr John Henderson’s president could scarcely have been improved upon. Miss Lily Ivanhoe’s pronunciation as little Susanne left something to be desired. Other parts were adequately played by Messrs Edward Boddy, Arthur Hart, Williams, J. Vivian, and G. Francis. The Waterman preceded the principal piece of the evening. Mr John F. Storer, the courteous acting-manager of the house, carries out his duties with real tact.

___

The Stage (28 September, 1893 - p.12)

THE BRITANNIA.

     A powerful and impressive presentment of Robert Buchanan’s adaptation from the French, A Man’s Shadow. is the fixture for this week, and until further notice, at the great Hoxton theatre. This performance is as good as any we have seen on the Britannia boards. It goes without saying that the staging is excellent, and the acting is in all respects worthy of the reputation which the company here have won. There are many points in this play which appeal to lovers of strong dramatic effect. Mr. Algernon Syms is in his very best vein in the double rôle of Lucien Laroque and Luversan. His work in the second act is quite masterly, and deserves to be ranked among his best efforts. The intense naturalness of it, the repressed emotion, the well portrayed despair of the man who finds himself falsely accused of the most terrible of crimes, and the distinctly limned personality of the shadow, Luversan, are strong points on which Mr. Syms may well pride himself. Mr. Walter Steadman shows what true dramatic fibre is in him in the trial scene of the third act, in which Raymond de Noirville figures so prominently. Mr. Steadman acts brilliantly in this critical scene. It is a splendid effort, and one of the finest things Mr. Steadman has given us. Mr. W. S. Parkes is an effective M. Gerbier. Mr. W. H. Perrette is distinctly successful as Picolet. Mr. Joseph Rowland does well as Tristot. Mr. G. B. Bigwood causes much amusement by his droll portrayal of Jean Ricordot. As President of the Court Mr. Bruce Lindley displays his usual natural style, and has a good make. Mr. F. Beaumont is an effective Advocate-general. Mr. Walter Copley’s brisk and telling manner is well in accord with the part of Lacroix, the police agent. As Henriette, the wife of Laroque, Miss Oliph Webb puts forth all her best powers of tenderness, pathos, and realistic portraiture. Miss Winnie Whyte, who has been specially engaged for these performances, is remarkably effective as Suzanne. There is real talent in the acting of this clever child. Much of her good work is doubtless due to careful training, but there are, too, lights and shades of facial expression and inflections of tone which cannot be other than spontaneous and natural. Miss Lalor Shiel is as vivacious and attractive as ever as Victorie. Miss Beatrice Toy is a charming Julie. The remaining parts are in good hands. The varieties are entrusted to Harry Lemore and Adeline, the latter of whom goes through her clever trapeze performance. The afterpiece is My Turn Next.

___

The Stage (10 June, 1897 - p.12)

THE MATINEE.

     Messrs. Acton Bond and Charles Meyrick, who are starting on tour with their company in A Man’s Shadow, are filling a week’s engagement at the comfortable theatre in Langham Place, where the performance of Robert Buchanan’s adaptation of Jules Mary and Georges Grisier’s popular melodrama, Roger La Honte, was received with great cordiality on the evening of Whit Monday. Many things have happened in Mr. Beerbohm Tree’s progress since September, 1889, when he was seen at the Haymarket in the characters of Lucien Laroque, the honest man and brave soldier, who is the victim of circumstantial evidence, and the so-called “Shadow,” Luversan, spy, blackmailer, and murderer. Though not so fine a dual rôle as that of Lesurques and Dubose in The Lyons Mail, the Laroque-Luversan combination offers excellent opportunities to an actor of versatility and resource, and of these chances Mr. Acton Bond made generally good use in the representation given at the Matinee on Monday. perhaps he did the better work as Luversan, making that jaunty rascal blithe and debonnair even in his desperation, and reproducing frequently the characteristic tones of Mr. tree. Besides managing the changes adroitly, Mr. Bond differentiated admirably between the physical and psychological traits of the two men, and his demeanour as the wrongly-condemned Laroque was refined, gentle, and earnest, the beseeching of the child Suzanne to speak the truth in the Trial scene, and the grave reproach to the still suspecting wife in the last act, being among the other noticeable points in an excellent and highly creditable performance. Provincial playgoers who appreciate artistic acting should enjoy Mr. Acton Bond’s twin assumptions of Laroque and Luversan. The company supporting him in this in parts powerful, but, speaking generally, artificial, melodrama, are on the whole efficient, and some of the characters were very well played, although in the inept and dramatically worthless “comic relief” supplied by Mr. Buchanan, Messrs. H. G. Payne, W. Devereux, and Robson Paige were unable to do very much as the little Corporal Tristrot; the big Sergeant Picolot, and the egregious expert in handwriting, Jean Ricordot. It is a wonder, indeed, how such feeble comedy ever passed muster. In the part of Raymond de Noirville, which at the Haymarket Mr. Fernandez played with such tremendous effect, Mr. Frederick J. Powell gave on Monday a performance studiously restrained up to the scene where the advocate works himself into a frenzy and falls dead of heart disease in the Assize Chamber as he is on the point of confessing his wife’s shame to save his comrade’s life. Herein Mr. Powell acted with considerable  [Note: there seems to be a missing line here.] juncture was followed, as before at the Haymarket, with warm applause. Julie de Noirville and Henriette Laroque appear respectively in two only out of the four acts, and hence the characters are less important than they should be in a more skilfully contrived dramatic scheme. Miss Dora de Winton, however, as Julie showed with emotional intensity and deep-toned voice the fluctuations between passion and revengefulness experienced by  Laroque’s ci-devant mistress, and Miss Keith Wakeman, although almost too subdued in the matter of utterance, brought out well the affection and perturbation of the soul-harrowed wife. As the little girl Suzanne, who refuses at the trial to inculpate her father, Miss Lulu Valli spoke and acted with the true ring of childish sorrow, and indeed at all points her performance was one of high promise. Miss Edith O. Crawford did capital work as that unwilling witness Victoire, the waiting maid; and Mr. Reginald Rivington as the police agent Lacroix, and Mr. John Henderson (who also stage managed a carefully-executed “production”) as the President of the Court, were both of much service. The other parts were passably filled, and the effects were suitably made. Mr. Charles Meyrick is business manager of the company.

___

From Dramatic Opinions and Essays - Volume Two by George Bernard Shaw (New York: Brentano’s, 1906 - p. 380-382)

A Man's Shadow. Adapted from the French play “Roger la Honte” by Robert Buchanan. Revival.
Her Majesty’s Theatre. 27 November, 1897.

     It is not in human nature to regard Her Majesty’s Theatre as the proper place for such a police-court drama as “A Man’s Shadow.” Still, it is not a bad bit of work of its kind; and it would be a good deal better if it were played as it ought to be with two actors instead of one in the parts of Lucien Laroque and Luversan. Of course Mr. Tree, following the precedent of “The Lyons Mail,” doubles the twain. Equally of course, this expedient completely destroys the illusion, which requires that two different men should resemble one another so strongly as to be practically indistinguishable except on tolerably close scrutiny; whilst Mr. Tree’s reputation as a master of the art of disguising himself requires that he shall astonish the audience by the extravagant dissimilarity of the two figures he alternately presents. No human being could, under any conceivable circumstances, mistake his Laroque for his Luversan; and I have no doubt that Mr. Tree will take this as the highest compliment I could possibly pay him for this class of work. Nevertheless, I have no hesitation in saying that if the real difficulty—one compared to which mere disguise is child’s play—were faced and vanquished, the interest of the play would be trebled. That difficulty, I need hardly explain, is the presentation to the spectators of a single figure which shall yet be known to them as the work of two distinct actors. As it is, instead of two men in one, we have one man in two, which makes the play incredible as well as impossible.
     However, as I have said, the play serves its turn. The one act into which the doubling business enters for a moment only (a very disastrous moment, by the way) is thoroughly effective, and gives Mr. Tree an opportunity for a remarkable display of his peculiar talent as an imaginative actor. Indeed, he plays so well as the prisoner in the dock that all the applause goes to the bad playing of the advocate who saves himself from the unpleasantness of defending his friend at the expense of his wife’s reputation by the trite expedient of dropping down dead. I dare say this will seem a wanton disparagement of a stage effect which was unquestionably highly successful, and to which Mr. Waller led up by such forcible and sincere acting that his going wrong at the last moment was all the more aggravating. But if to let the broken-hearted Raymond de Noirville suddenly change into Sergeant Buzfuz at the very climax of his anguish was to go wrong, then it seems to me that Mr. Lewis Waller certainly did go wrong. When he turned to the jury and apostrophized them as GENTLEMEN, in a roll of elocutionary thunder, Raymond de Noirville was done for; and it was really Lucien Laroque who held the scene together. The gallery responded promptly enough to Mr. Waller, as the jury always does respond to Sergeant Buzfuz; but I venture to hope that the very noisiness of the applause has by this time convinced him that he ought not to have provoked it.
     By the way, since Mr. Tree is fortunate enough to have his band made so much of as it is by Mr. Raymond Roze, he would, I think, find it economical to lavish a few “extra gentlemen” (or ladies) on the orchestra, even if they had to be deducted from his stage crowd. Two or three additional strings would make all the difference in such works as Mendelssohn’s “Ruy Blas” overture.

___

The Penny Illustrated Paper (4 December, 1897 - p.353)

“A Man’s Shadow”

(Mr. Robert Buchanan’s translation of “Roger la Honte”) was most enthusiastically received on its revival by Mr. Tree, at Her Majesty’s, last Saturday night. Miserably wet outside, it was most cosy within this admirably managed new theatre. By the opening scene of Lucien Laroque’s introduction by De Noirville to his wife (a former mistress of Laroque), one was irresistibly reminded of the leading incident in “The Tree of Knowledge,” albeit it is not a Tree, but an Alexander who reaps as he sows at the St. James’s. If anything, the impersonation by Mr. Tree of the respectable Lucien and his disreputable double, Luversan, has gained in finish, and in the diablerie of the murderous scoundrel of whose crime Laroque is accused in the tragic trial which ends in his counsel’s sensational death. This last bit of strong characterisation is the best thing Mr. Lewis Waller has done. But the acting that pleased me best of all was the very lifelike Jean Ricordot of Mr. Gerald Du Maurier, and the infinitely pathetic and natural little Suzanne of Miss Dorrie Harris. Admirable in their parts also were Mrs. Tree and Miss Lily Hanbury, Miss Winifred Leon, Mr. Lionel Brough, Mr. E. M. Robson, and Mr. Charles G. Allan, the impressive President. “A Man’s Shadow” deserves to enjoy a fresh lease of popularity.

[From The English Illustrated Magazine Vol. XXI, April to September, 1899 - p.178]

The Stage (22 November, 1900 - p.14)

THE BRITANNIA.

     The Britannia management have selected a safe draw for this week in that interesting drama, A Man’s Shadow, which, it will be remembered, Robert Buchanan adapted from the French play Roger La Honte. Not the least interesting features of the narrative which it sets forth are the haunting of Lucien Laroque’s life by his mysterious double, Luversan, for whose crime he is arrested owing to the extraordinary likeness between them; and the dramatic Trial scene in act three, wherein the chainwork of circumstances is wrought into one of the most powerful situations that a dramatist could conceive. Laroque’s counsel discovers that, in order to prove his client and friend guilty of the crime of which he is accused, he (the counsel) must proclaim the shame of his own wife and her guilty connection with Laroque; and in steeling himself to the performance of this terrible duty he falls dead. This scene was presented with real power on Monday by Mr. Edwin Fergusson, who has rarely done better work. His portrayal of De Noirville’s mental suffering and high sense of honour which bade him do his duty at all costs was admirable. Mr. Roy Redgrave is also to be complimented upon the effective and versatile manner in which, in presenting the double rôle of Laroque and Luversan, he portrayed the different natures and manners of the two men—the straightforwardness and candour of Laroque, the brutal cunning and reckless gaiety of Luversan. The contrast was a skilful and well-emphasised one. Mr. Frank Carlile and Mr. Fred Lawrence were highly successful in their respective delineations of those two good-hearted but excitable old soldiers, Picolot and Tristot. From Mr. R. A. Beaton came a sound and forcible study of Lacroix, the police agent. Miss Louisa Peach was in her best vein of emotional power in her well-sustained exposition of Henriette. Miss Judith Kyrie was an excellent and convincing Julie. Victorie was well delineated by Miss Marie Brian. Miss Maud Mead spoke her lines clearly and played well as Suzanne. A capable M. Gerbier came from Mr. J. B. Howe. Mr. B. Johns presented a capital study of Jean Ricordot. Mr. Ronald Douglas was a dignified President of the Court, and Mr. C. Weathersby a satisfactory Advocate-General. The remaining parts were sustained by Messrs. Broughton, Barrett, and Gregory. After the drama, which is well staged, comes variety contributions by Arthur Stacey and Teddy Mosedale, and a display of Bert Bernard’s Rayograph. The programme concludes with The Boarding School, presented by members of the company.

___

The Guardian (26 May, 1903 - p.6)

     THE QUEEN’S.—Mr. Robert Buchanan’s drama “A Man’s Shadow” is presented here this week by Mr. Arthur Hare’s company. Mr. Hare himself plays the two parts of the injured hero and the villain, the resemblance between whom is the cause of all the mistakes which go to make the melodrama. The villain is a poor specimen of his kind, but the hero is a strong creation, though we are never allowed to forget for long that he is, after all, only an English translation of a Frenchman. It is through the English eyes indeed, that we are shown the France and the Frenchmen of the whole piece, and the court scene might have been written to cast ridicule upon the judicial procedure of our neighbours. Mr. Hare acted last night with much force, but it was noticed that the necessity which he is under of speaking at short intervals in two different voices produces a huskiness which should hardly be in these grand melodramatic speeches. Miss Sydney Fairbrother performed her important part with an uncommon restraint, and the part undoubtedly gained from her treatment of it. Mr. Bertram Steer was highly successful in the “speech for the defence”—made by an advocate who has just discovered that his wife has addressed to the prisoner a compromising letter,—and the unpleasant part of Julie was well taken by Miss Elise Clarens. The agony is more skilfully heaped up than in the every-day melodrama, but there is a great deal of it.

_____

The American production of Roger la Honte; or, A Man’s Shadow

_____

Next: Theodora (1889)

Back to the Bibliography or the Plays