THEATRE REVIEWS

6. The Nine Days’ Queen (1880)

The Nine Days’ Queen
by Robert Buchanan
London: Gaiety Theatre. 22 December, 1880 (matinée).
London: Royal Connaught Theatre 14 February to 12 March, 1881.
(Buchanan’s Only A Vagabond, a one-act curtain-raiser, is also on the bill.)
Other Performances:
Glasgow: Gaiety Theatre. Week beginning 21 March, 1881.

(Harriett Jay played the role of Lady Jane Grey.)

[Advert for The Nine Days’ Queen from The Times (19 February, 1881 - p.8)]

The Graphic (18 December, 1880 - Issue 577)

     Mr. Robert Buchanan’s historical drama, called A Nine Days’ Queen, will be produced at the GAIETY Theatre on Wednesday afternoon next. The character of Lady Jane Grey will be sustained by the author’s sister-in-law, Miss Harriet Jay, author of that remarkable novel of Irish life, “The Queen of Connaught.” The writer of the Monday article on the theatres in the Daily News states that Mr. Buchanan has made free use of Nicholas Rowe’s old play, though not to a degree to affect the substantial originality of his work. According to the same authority, Mr. Buchanan introduces a scene in the Tower between Queen Mary and Lady Jane which, like Schiller’s encounter between Mary Stuart and Queen Elizabeth, is without further warrant than the licence of the dramatist.

___

The Scotsman (23 December, 1880 - p.5)

“THE NINE DAYS’ QUEEN”

     LONDON, Wednesday night.—A romantic poetical drama in four acts, entitled “The Nine Days’ Queen,” by Mr Robert Buchanan, was produced at a morning performance at the Gaiety Theatre this afternoon. The play is founded on the life and death of Lady Jane Grey, and Mr Buchanan appends the following note to the programme:—
     “Little pretension is made by the author to historical accuracy, but the romantic attachment of the Earl of Hertford for Lady Jane Grey is not without authentic foundation. The meeting of Queen Mary and Lady Jane Grey in the Tower is possibly as justifiable on historical grounds as the famous encounter of Queens in Schiller’s ‘Mary Stuart.’ Free use has been made of Nicholas Rowe’s play on the same subject.”
     Taking, then, the salient points of Lady Jane Grey’s hapless career, the author has certainly given us a sufficiently romantic play, while he is also abundantly justified in claiming for it the epithet of poetical. “The Nine Days’ Queen” is written in vigorous and poetic blank verse, full of nervous English and admirable similes; indeed, the literary merit of the piece is exceptionally high. It may be questioned, however, whether the poet has not to some extent extinguished the playwright, for the piece would be much improved by wholesale excisions, and a general condensation, which would bring the dramatic situations closer together. Still, even with those faults, Mr Buchanan has written a really fine play, which, with due revision, should have a successful career on the stage. He deals with the life of his heroine in a masterly fashion, and the words he puts into the mouths of his various characters are invariably appropriate. We are shown Lady Jane Grey under all the trying circumstances of her life, and special stress is laid upon her love for Lord Guildford Dudley, as well as upon the romantic attachment conceived for her by Lord Hertford; while the latter’s treachery to her cause and subsequent repentance are used with skill and with good dramatic effect. The meeting above referred to of Queen Mary and Lady Jane in the Tower is well conceived, and with a little compression could be highly effective; and another strong situation shows us with much dramatic force the unhappy heroine’s acceptance of the crown which she would fain have refused. There is pathos, too, in the concluding scene, which was well managed, and indeed the whole play is a most welcome change from the adaptations from foreign sources which are now too common among us. It must be said, moreover, that it would have gained a great deal had the blank verse been spoken with more discretion by several of the actors who took part in it. The principal character, Lady Jane Grey, was played by Miss Harriet Jay, a lady who, as the authoress of “The Dark Colleen” and “The Queen of Connaught,” has won a high reputation as a novelist. Miss Jay has only once before made her appearance on the stage, and her performance was indubitably one of high promise. She has, as was only to be expected, much to learn, but still her acting is sympathetic and intelligent, and she evidently spares no pains to embody the author’s ideas. With more experience and confidence, and a more entire abandonment of herself to the situation, she will one day be an acquisition to the stage. Miss Louise Willes was a satisfactory Queen Mary, and Mr Beaumont played the Duke of Northumberland with sound art, and delivered his lines in welcome contrast to the elocution of Mr Arthur Dacre, who slurred them over as if he had never spoken blank verse before. The piece was effectively put upon the stage, and listened to with much attention, while all the principal characters were much applauded at the conclusion, and called before the curtain to receive the congratulations of the audience. In response to a loud demand for the author, Mr Buchanan made his appearance, and bowed his acknowledgments.

___

Glasgow Herald (23 December, 1880)

MR ROBERT BUCHANAN’S NEW PLAY.
_____

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)
_____

                                                                                                     London, Wednesday Night.

A “ROMANTIC POETICAL DRAMA” is now-a-days such a rarity that the production of Mr Buchanan’s four-act play, “The Nine Days’ Queen,” excited considerable interest, and a representative audience assembled at the Gaiety this afternoon to witness it. There was in addition the interest of a debut to attract the theatrical world, as Miss Harriet Jay, authoress of “The Queen of Connaught,” was announced to make her first appearance in London in the part of Lady Jane Grey, her only previous appearance on the Metropolitan stage having recently taken place at the Crystal Palace in a dramatisation of her own novel. We may say at once that Mr Buchanan’s play was listened to with respectful attention, and that several of the scenes were recognised as possessing genuine force and merit. Nevertheless, we cannot prophesy for the play any great success, even if it gets beyond the ephemeral existence of a morning performance.
     The first act takes place in the Duke of Suffolk’s gardens at East Sheen, and we find the Duke of Northumberland and the Duke of Suffolk plotting to prevent the accession of Mary to the throne on the death of Edward VI., which is now impending. Meanwhile Lady Jane Grey, all unconscious of the ambitious views entertained by her father, half admits, half conceals her love for Lord Guildford Dudley, the son of Northumberland. She is also loved by the Earl of Hertford, who is astonished to find a rival in his friend Dudley. he two friends agree that their rivalry shall not mar their friendship, and that each shall woo her fairly and openly and let her own will decide between them. Meanwhile Northumberland has secured from Suffolk the promise of her hand for his son. When she learns that her love for Dudley has her father’s approval she no longer conceals it, and their betrothal is announced amid popular rejoicings. Hertford on learning of it concludes, through a misunderstanding rather beneath the dignity of the poetic drama, that Dudley has played him false, and the curtain falls upon an outburst of his jealous rage. The second act opens in Mary’s oratory. The death of Edward VI. is announced to her by Hertford, who, in his jealous fury, at the same time betrays to her Northumberland’s design of putting Lady Jane Grey upon the throne. By his counsel she takes flight, and thus escapes from the partisans of Northumberland, who had been sent to seize her. The scene then changes to the Palace of Westminster, immediately after the death of the King. Northumberland and Suffolk announce to Lady Jane Grey the elevation for which they destine her. She protests vehemently against the unlooked for and uncoveted greatness, but her entreaties are in vain. She is proclaimed Queen, and falls fainting to the ground while the assembled nobles, with swords waving in the air, are doing her their first homage. The third act takes place before the Tower to which Lady Jane is brought as Queen. The treacherous Hertford arrives repentant of his treachery; but he is too late. The power is in Mary’s hands, and the order for the arrest of Lady Jane is brought by an officer, who announces to his astonished prisoner that it is through Hertford’s treason that Mary has been enabled to seize the kingdom. The main matter of the fourth act is a powerful interview between Queen Mary and Lady Jane, in which the Queen offers her not only her own life, but also that of her consort Dudley, on condition that she will renounce the Protestant faith. This she refuses to do. She even refuses to see Dudley before their execution, saying “it would only disturb the holy tranquillity with which they had prepared themselves for death.” The curtain thus falls upon the tragic denouement which history had led us to expect. Mr Buchanan does not lay claim to historical accuracy. He admits that he has made free use of Rowe’s play on the same subject, and justifies the interview between the two Queens by a reference to Schiller’s still more flagrant violation of historical fact in “Marie Stuart.” It is not with his history, however, that criticism will quarrel, but with the lack of dramatic effect which mars most of his well-written scenes. Some of them, notably the scene between Dudley and Hertford in the first act, the conclusion of the second act, and the great scene of the third act, have genuine dramatic stuff in them, and under better circumstances would no doubt meet with thorough appreciation.
     A certain air of intelligent amateurishness pervaded the representation. Miss Harriet Jay herself is still an unmistakable amateur, although an amateur of great promise. She has a fine and expressive face, an admirable presence, and an excellent voice, though she is untrained in the use of it. If she perseveres earnestly in her new profession, and is content with less ambitious efforts until she is more perfectly at home on the boards, she will be a genuine acquisition to the stage. Mr Arthur Dacre is too essentially modern in style to shine in a costume part, but his Dudley was manly and intelligent; while Mr Beerbohm Tree played the difficult part of Hertford with a certain amount of awkwardness, but still with some force and feeling. Mr A. Beaumont as Northumberland proved himself a thorough elocutionist and good actor; and Mr David Fisher was excellent as the rather weak-minded Suffolk. Miss Louise Willis played Queen Mary with all her unfailing earnestness and care. The piece, as is usual at Gaiety matinees, was very inadequately put upon the stage, and the author would have done well to suppress the unnecessary May-day merrymakings of the first act.

___

The Morning Post (24 December, 1880)

GAIETY THEATRE.
_____

     Whether Lady Jane Grey was indeed as gentle and guileless as her admirers paint her, or as crafty and disloyal as her enemies would have us believe, certain it is that there is no darker page in English history than that which records her brief, sad story. It is as doleful a theme as any dramatist could choose for the burden of his play; and it acquires no fictitious brightness in Mr. Robert Buchanan’s “romantic and poetical drama,” entitled “The Nine Days’ Queen,” which was brought out at this theatre on Wednesday afternoon. The author, who admits that he has made free use of Nicholas Rowe’s play on the same subject, also avows that in the present work little pretension is made to historical accuracy. He justifies, as not without authentic foundation, the romantic attachment of the Earl of Hertford for Lady Jane Grey, and suggests that the meeting of the latter and Queen Mary in the Tower—one of the principal scenes of the piece—is possibly as justifiable on historic grounds as the famous encounter of the Queens in Schiller’s “Mary Stuart.” But what the apologists of Lady Jane Grey will hardly view with favour is that she is represented as willing enough to compass the death of Queen Mary. Hertford lies in wait during the interview, having previously suggested that if she should wish her rival to be set upon and slain Lady Jane shall utter certain words, which are to be interpreted as a signal to that effect. Armed men will then appear and do the deed. The words are uttered in no uncertain voice, though without apparent premeditation, at the close of a fierce tirade. The offer of a pardon, afterwards found to be conditional, prevents the wicked plot from being carried into practice, and Mary escapes unhurt. The play is excellently written, the diction being uniformly polished, graceful, and harmonious, but the plot lacks variety of action and dramatic interest. It is wearisome and disappointing to find that a drama having a good dialogue and several well-drawn characters should be so lifeless and lugubrious. But these afternoon plays acted by “scratch” companies and produced under circumstances which forbid sufficient rehearsal and proper stage management are seldom satisfactory. Something of the weakness of the general effect may have been chargeable yesterday rather on the performance than on the play itself. Want of practice and a consequent lack of executive power disqualified Miss Harriett Jay from carrying out the good intention often discernible in her attempts to impersonate the unhappy heroine. Nothing that the other actors could do—though some of them, and more particularly Mr. Beaumont as the Duke of Northumberland, Mr. A. Dacre as Lord Guildford Dudley, and Mr. H. B. Tree as Lord Hertford, played their parts with zeal and skill—could compensate for the inadequate representation of the personage in whom the interest of the story chiefly centres.

___

Bell’s Life in London (25, December 1880 - p.11)

“A NINE DAYS’ QUEEN,” AT THE GAIETY.

     Mr Buchanan’s historical play, in four acts, dealing with the short and disastrous episode of the assumption of the Crown of England by Lady Jane Grey, was given for the first time in London at the Gaiety Theatre last Wednesday afternoon. The play, written in blank verse, treated the love and marriage of Lady Jane and Lord Guildford Dudley, and with the passion of the Earl of Hertford for the beautiful and unfortunate daughter of the Suffolks. Lady Jane Grey is represented as an unwilling tool in the hands of her ambitious and unscrupulous relatives. Over persuaded, she accepts the responsibilities, and with them the dangers, of an act of flagrant usurpation. For nine days she enjoys the doubtful privilege of titular royalty. Then Mary is proclaimed Queen, to the great joy of the nation; and the usurping bride and bridegroom are imprisoned in the Tower, and cast for execution. The situations in Mr Buchanan’s tragedy are ingeniously conceived; and, probably, in other hands the work might have achieved a fair measure of success. The author admits his obligation to the old English dramatist, Rowe, who composed a play on the same subject. Of the literary merits of “A Nine Days’ Queen” it is not possible to express an opinion, inasmuch as it cannot be conceived that the performers did justice to the text. Mr Buchanan is a practised man of letters, but if we were to allow that he wrote the slip-shod English spoken at the Gaiety he would have gained nothing more important than a triumph of tautology. The cast was in most respects unsuitable. Miss Louise Willes did fairly well as Queen Mary, and as the Duke of Northumberland Mr Arthur Beaumont bore himself with dignity, and spoke his lines with grace and propriety of elocution. Miss Harriet Jay, though intelligent and manifestly ambitious, has much to  learn before she can pretend to the knowledge and experience requisite for the representation of such a difficult and arduous part as that of Lady Jane Grey. Though in herself neither unbeautiful nor ungraceful, yet her voice is thin, her by-play seems insufficient and unfinished, and her entire artistic range limited, and displaying signs of immaturity. Mr Beerbohm Tree and Mr Arthur Dacre are both clever and aspiring young comedians. They are, however, apparently not used to don the magnificent costumes of the Tudor period. Of the two, Mr Dacre seemed more at home and less nervous in his gay clothes. The author was called for at the end of the play, and a bouquet awkwardly flung at Miss Jay struck her severely in the eye.

___

The Era (26 December, 1880 - Issue 2205)

“THE NINE DAYS’ QUEEN.”
_____

On Wednesday Afternoon, December 22d, 1880, a Romantic, Poetical Drama, in Four Acts, by Robert Buchanan, Founded on the Life and Death of Lady Jane Grey, and entitled

“THE NINE DAYS’ QUEEN.”

The Princess Mary     . . . . . . . .     Miss LOUISE WILLES
Feckenham                . . . . . . . .     Mr GIRARDOT
Gardiner                     . . . . . . . .    Mr BUTLER
Duke of Northumberland    . . . .    Mr A. BEAUMONT
Lord Guildford Dudley    . . . . . .    Mr ARTHUR DACRE
Lord Ambrose Dudley    . . . . . .    Mr T. BINDLOSS
Earl of Hertford          . . . . . . . .     Mr H. BEERBOHM TREE
Duke of Suffolk          . . . . . . . .     Mr DAVID FISHER
Duchess of Suffolk     . . . . . . . .     Mrs LEIGH MURRAY
Lady Jane Grey         . . . . . . . .     Miss HARRIET JAY
Sir John Brydges        . . . . . . . .     Mr R LANGFORD
Steward to Duke of Suffolk  . . .     Mr WILLIAM FIELD
Reuben                      . . . . . . . .     Mr WILLIAMS
Hetherington              . . . . . . . .     Mr ARTHUR GRAHAM
May Queen               . . . . . . . .     Miss V. COSTELLO

In presence of a large and certainly a friendly audience was produced at the Gaiety Theatre on the morning of Wednesday last Mr Robert Buchanan’s romantic poetical drama, in four acts, entitled The Nine Days’ Queen. Mr Buchanan, in a note on the day’s programme, says “Little pretension is made by the author to historical accuracy; but the romantic attachment of the Earl of Hertford for Lady Jane Grey (when we come to the plot it will be seen this attachment forms a very important feature) is not without authentic foundation. The meeting of Queen Mary and Lady Jane Grey in the Tower is possibly as justifiable on historical grounds as the famous encounter of the Queens in Schiller’s Mary Stuart.” Mr Buchanan acknowledges that free use has been made of Nicholas Rowe’s play on the same subject. He does not acknowledge that he is also to some extent indebted to Mr Tom Taylor’s historical play called ’Twixt Axe and Crown. The Nine Days’ Queen is a play in which a host of faults are conspicuous; but it must also be conceded that it possesses many merits entitling it to better treatment than it had on Wednesday at the hands of some of those engaged. If the lines strike us now and again as being turgid, high-flown, and approaching very near to that narrow line which is said to divide the sublime from the ridiculous, there are not a few of singular beauty and breathing the true spirit of poetry. Indeed, there is so much that is good in the play that we should like to see it again played with all the characters in the hands of competent artists. The piece opens in the Duke of Suffolk’s Gardens at East Sheen, where a very mild and simpering young lady is, for some undiscoverable qualities, being hailed as “Queen of the May.” Handsome young Lord Guildford Dudley, son of the ambitious Duke of Northumberland, subsequently makes desperate love to Lady Jane Grey, and is referred to her father, the Duke of Suffolk. There presently comes upon the scene the young Earl of Hertford, who is much moved when he hears of what has been going on; for he too loves Jane Grey, and his mission now is to ask for her hand. Dudley and Hertford have been staunch and loving friends, and, avoiding the impending quarrel, they decide that who wins the lady shall wear her, and that the other shall stifle all envy and throw away all bitterness of feeling. In his interview with the lady, Hertford becomes, as she terms it, “passionately mad,” and his madness is made somewhat worse when, hearing later on that her hand is to be given to Dudley, he imagines that he has been tricked and befooled by his friend. With a curse upon his lips he leaves the spot, and, guessing the plot in which Northumberland is engaged to make his daughter the successor to young Edward, he determines to be revenged, and rides for Hudston, where the Princess Mary is in seclusion. He tells her of the young King’s death; he is the first to hail her queen, and he informs her of the schemes of those whose presence he has so recently left. Meantime, Northumberland has urged upon the Lady Jane the necessity of allowing herself to be proclaimed queen. She shrinks from the proposal almost with horror; her young husband—for Dudley has taken her to wife—pleads for her, for he foresees that she will become a victim to his father’s ambition; but he pleads in vain, and at length, as she accepts the dangerous honours, and as the nobles bow the knee and hail her as their Sovereign, overcome by the excitement springing from the novel and dreaded situation, she swoons at their feet. The business here bringing the second act to a close should, if well carried out, prove highly effective. The scene of the third act is the Tower Steps and View of Old London. Lady Jane Grey is offered and accepts the keys of the Tower, and suddenly Hertford, coming upon the scene, is ordered under arrest by Northumberland. By Dudley and by the new Queen herself he is saved from indignity; but he has news that Mary is marching on London with twenty thousand men behind her. He cares nothing for Northumberland, but he dreads now that the lady whom he has so loved will fall before Mary’s wrath. He would save her now if he could. But it is too late. Her own soldiers revolt. She resolves not to resist. She looks upon her brief aggrandisement as a foolish jest. Jane and her husband are presently arrested, and their mental anguish is enhanced when from Mary’s own lips they hear that it is Hertford who has betrayed them. The fourth and concluding act shows us first, an ante-room in Westminster Palace, and then Lady Jane’s apartments in the Tower. The young husband and wife are presently separated, and there follows what, without doubt, must be considered the finest feature of the play, viz., the interview between the deposed and the reigning Queens. Lady Jane Grey denounces Mary in bitter terms; Mary, retaining her self-possession, offers her rival for the throne a pardon. With her own hands she gives her the paper which promises life and freedom, and she takes her leave, Lady Jane’s curses resolving themselves into blessings. Alas! she knows not the condition upon which her pardon is to be granted. It is that she shall renounce the Protestant faith and give her adhesion to the Church of Rome. When she learns this she spurns the proposal; she rejoices to think that her husband has had strength to do the same; and, as the procession which takes young Dudley to the scaffold begins to move the curtain falls, leaving us assured that a similar fate is in store for the “Nine Days’ Queen.” The acting, as we have hinted, was by no means generally adequate, and, consequently, the play suffered much. To begin with, the “Nine Days’ Queen” had a very incompetent representative in Miss Harriett Jay. Miss Jay may be, and doubtless is, a very able writer, but the writing of novels is no training for the stage. Miss Jay, in a word, is a raw amateur. She has not yet learnt how to walk the stage, and her action is irritatingly angular—not to say awkward. In the quieter passages of the play Miss Jay progressed very well, and won deserved sympathy; but directly there was the slightest occasion for warmth or passion, for the expression of horror, as in the scene where Lady Jane Grey conjures up visions of murdered monarchs and the sound of the funeral bell, she failed completely; the musical voice became harsh and strident, and little jerky sentences were screamed forth in a way that was anything but edifying or satisfactory. That Miss Jay was applauded, and that flowers were piled at her feet was said when we chronicled the presence of a friendly audience. Miss Louise Willes must be complimented on a very excellent rendering of the part of Mary, her share of the interview in the last act being carried out in really admirable style. Miss V. Costello appeared as the May Queen referred to above. She seemed thoroughly overwhelmed by the novelty of the situation. She was altogether inaudible, and there seemed at one time some danger that she would collapse. Mrs Leigh Murray attempts nothing without doing it well, and it is hardly necessary to insist on the fact that her portraiture of the Duchess of Suffolk was beyond reproach. Coming to the gentlemen, we must give the warmest praise to Mr A. Beaumont, whose impersonation of the Duke of Northumberland was throughout marked by much vigour and intelligence. Mr Arthur Dacre, looking remarkably well in the courtly costume of the period, played with a good deal of earnestness as Lord Guildford Dudley, but he would have been still better had he imparted a little more spirit to his speech and action. Dulcet tones are all very well in love-making; but this Dudley has something more to do than to make love, and we longed for a little more fire from Mr Dacre. Mr Beerbohm-Tree, we think, stepped very much out of his line when he undertook to portray the Earl of Hertford. He started badly. He made his lordship unnecessarily hideous. He forgot the text; and twice, with handkerchief to mouth, he had to wander distractedly about the stage until the prompter could come to his assistance. Soon, however, Mr Tree warmed up to his work. Memory no more proved treacherous, and the actor arrived at the end without further mishap, but with no éclat. Mr Butler did very well as the Bishop of Winchester; but none of the other parts call for special mention. The author was called to the front at the end and cordially applauded.

___

Reynolds’s Newspaper (26 December, 1880 - Issue 1585)

PUBLIC AMUSEMENTS.
_____

GAIETY THEATRE.

     Although lavish applause, floral tributes, and numerous calls marked Wednesday morning’s introduction of a new play and a new actress to the London public, it is very doubtful if a “Nine Days’ Queen” will become the proverbial nine days’ wonder, or if Miss Harriett Jay will ever attain that position on the stage which she has done as a writer of fiction. Judging by a single performance, the old saw of a cobbler sticking to his last is in this talented lady’s case singularly applicable. Mr. Buchanan’s “romantic, poetical drama,” whose action passes during the short period in Lady Jane Grey’s life elapsing between the death of Edward VI. and her execution, contains, without doubt, some good writing and strong situations; but these are smothered by what—so far as stage purposes are concerned—is a mass of verbiage. The author’s admirers will doubtless advise his revising his play, but Mr. Buchanan will do well to bear in mind that even the work of such skilful playwrights as Mr. W. G. Wills and Mr. W. S. Gilbert have not repaid the trouble of theatrical tinkerings, and having shown that he possesses poetic sentiment and dramatic power, let him give us as soon as possible a play fitted for the stage rather than the closet. A difficulty an author who writes blank verse has in the present day to contend with is finding actors capable of delivering it with due effect, and without impeding their natural action. In this respect Mr. Buchanan’s play decidedly suffered. The best and most forcible portraiture was that of the Princess, afterwards Queen, Mary, by Miss Louise Willes, who acted with a dignity and consistent conception of the part for which her previous efforts had not prepared us. Mr. A. Beaumont and Mr. David Fisher were most satisfactory as the Dukes of Northumberland and Suffolk, and the same may be said of the Duchess of Mrs. Leigh Murray; Mr. Dacre made a sufficiently handsome Lord to win the heart even of a queen; Mr. Beerbohm Tree, as the Earl of Hertford, was not up to his usual standard; and Miss Harriett Jay, in the trying part of Lady Jane Grey, if she never quite attained excellence, at least did not fall below mediocrity. Her most successful effort was in the last act, where the short-lived Queen sees her husband being led to the scaffold. Her agony, though somewhat hysterical, bore the stamp of truthfulness to nature. A word of praise is due to the prompter, but for whose distinct delivery a goodly portion of the dialogue would have been unheard.

___

The Pall Mall Gazette (27 December, 1880 - Issue 4943)

     At a morning performance at the Gaiety on Wednesday an historical drama, entitled “The Nine Days’ Queen,” was produced with complete success. The author of this, Mr. Robert Buchanan, has taken as his acknowledged basis the “Lady Jane Grey” of Nicholas Rowe. This he has, however, greatly altered and entirely rewritten. From a windy and wearisome play he has extracted a drama of solid merit, and one that, were the circumstances of its production other than they are, might invite and even command full description and analysis. A piece produced for one day only scarcely calls for criticism. Mr. Buchanan’s play has some good situations and some instances of powerful versification. A scene in which Lady Jane Grey refuses the crown thrust upon her by Northumberland and Suffolk is a striking advance upon a similar scene in Rowe. A second, bringing together of Lady Jane Grey and Mary Tudor, though rather too closely resembling the great scene between Elizabeth and the Queen of Scots in Schiller’s “Mary Stuart,” places in very striking contrast the two women with whom it deals. Much of the dialogue has, of course, a distinctly theological flavour, and the characters of Bishop Gardiner and Bloody Mary are exhibited in a sufficiently unfavourable light. There is, however, no such arraignment as is indulged in by Rowe, and no such passages are given as the following, and others even stronger, which the earlier dramatist employs:—

                                   Our foes, already
High in their hopes, devote us all to death.
The dronish monks, the scorn and shame of manhood,
Rouse and prepare once more to take possession,
To nestle in their ancient hives again.
Again they furbish up their holy trumpery—
Relics and wooden wonder-working saints,
Whole loads of lumber and religious rubbish;
In high procession mean to bring ’em back
And place the puppets in their shrines again, &c.

The feature of chief interest in the performance was the appearance of Miss Harriett Jay, the authoress of “The Queen of Connaught,” as Lady Jane Grey. The débutante has many distinct qualifications for the stage, but has as yet much of her art to learn.

___

Brief: the Week’s News (31, December, 1880)

     Gaiety.—At a matinée last week a new romantic, poetical drama in four acts (to quote the programme), founded on the life and death of Lady Jane Grey, and entitled “The Nine Days’ Queen,” written by Mr. Robert Buchanan, was given for the first time on any stage. The action of the play shows a rivalry existing between two bosom friends—Lord Guilford Dudley, heir of the Duke of Northumberland, and the Earl of Hertford—for the hand of Lady Jane Gray, daughter of the Duke of Suffolk. Dudley wins the day, and Hertford, smarting under his rebuff, at once hies to the Princess Mary to apprise her of a plot, set on foot by the Duke of Northumberland, to deprive her of her claim to the Crown. There are many poetic ideas expressed in the dialogue. Miss Harriet Jay speaks clearly, she moves, too, gracefully upon the stage. Mr. Arthur Dacre, as Guilford Dudley; Mr. A. Beaumont, as the Duke of Northumberland; and Miss Louise Willes, as Queen Mary, were excellent. Miss Jay was popular with her audience, and Mr. Buchanan came forward at the close.

___

The Times (21 February, 1881 - p.4)

     At the Connaught Theatre the entertainment is now entirely provided by Mr. Robert Buchanan. The evening opens with a play founded on one of Mr. Buchanan’s poems, in which a ne’er-do-well father, excellently played by Mr. Wood, shows his poetical superiority over a self-seeking and worldly son; and next comes the principal drama of the evening, the Nine Days’ Queen, a romantic play which tells the story of the short and unfortunate reign of the Lady Jane Grey. The play was produced at the Gaiety quite recently. As presented at the Connaught it is a series of effective tableaux, which tell with simplicity and force one of the most touching stories in English history. Miss Harriett Jay sympathetically represents the innocent usurper, and Mr. F. H. Macklin gives a manly impersonation of her husband. Miss Dillon as the persecutrix, Mary, and Mr. Edward Butler as Gardiner, the cruel Bishop of Winchester, earn the compliment of hearty hisses from the gallery.

___

Brief News and Opinion (26 February, 1881)

     The Connaught Theatre.—Mr. Robert Buchanan’s poetical play “The Nine Days’ Queen,” has been transferred from the Gaiety to the Connaught Theatre, where the advantages of constant repetition bring out the points more favourably than they were brought out originally. Experience of the stage strengthens Miss Harriet Jay’s representation of the Royal heroine, and Mr. Macklin’s assistance is of value. “Only a Vagabond,” also written by Mr. Buchanan, shows the author’s ability in a very different vein, and provides a character to which Mr. A. Wood does full justice.

___

The Otago Witness (New Zealand) (26 February, 1881 - p.20)

     Robert Buchanan’s four-act play of “The Nine Days’ Queen,” which is founded on the life and death of Lady Jane Grey, was produced at the Gaiety, London, on December 22nd. Miss Harriet Jay was not a success in the principal role. Serious tragedy is evidently beyond her powers. The play was a failure.

___

The Clerkenwell Press (12 March, 1881 - p.3)

CONNAUGHT THEATRE.

     THE “Nine Days’ Queen,” which is now drawing good houses at this theatre, is a romantic drama, illustrating a period in English History replete with material fashionable to the dramatist. The pitiful history and fate of the gentle, loving, pious, and much lamented Lady Jane Gray is the theme on which Mr. Robert Buchanan, a poet of considerable renown, has founded a drama touching in interest, striking in incident, and highly poetical in sentiment. The play opens with a very charming picture of peasants and “Queen of the May” in the Duke of Suffolk’s gardens at East Sheen. The plot begins with the successful wooing of Lady Jane by Guildford Dudley, son of the ambitious Duke of Northumberland, the detested lord who was instrumental in placing Jane on the soon after vacant throne. The young Lord Hertford arrives too late to declare his passion for the sweet Princess, and in bitterness of disappointment shows very debased feelings by savagely cursing the lovers as the act closes. It may be well here, before proceeding further with the engaging story of the plot, to note that the author makes “little pretension to historical accuracy,” which is nothing usual with dramatists, for the effect necessary to a stage play could very seldom be obtained if fact were too faithfully adhered to. License, therefore, is doubtless claimed for representing Guildford as the most noble character in the piece, a worthy partner, in fact, to such a beautiful and accomplished wife, which history tells us is far from truthful. We are introduced to Mary in the second act, engaged in Romish devotions, and Hertford, the disappointed suitor, is made the bearer to her of the warning which deprives Jane’s party of her capture. Lady Jane is apprised of Edward’s death, and forcibly persuaded to claim his crown. Subsequently she and her husband suffer arrest outside the Tower gates, as they learn, at the same time, through Hertford’s treachery. An effective scene follows, when Jane pleads for life to Mary, ending in that heartless woman granting a pardon on condition, as Jane soon after discovers, that “she adjures the faith heretical and swears allegiance to the Church of Rome,” which, as she declines the terms, does not save her from the headman’s axe, which is the ending of the play. So it will be seen a succession of episodes are well united into the continuity and coherency necessary to a dramatic poem. The spectator is never led away by bye plot, all being interwoven in the main thread of the story. The play could hardly be said to be of strong situations, still it abounds in effective scenes and tableaux well calculated to enlist the emotions and sympathies of an audience. A great deal might be said in favour of Miss Harriet Jay’s finished portrayal of the lovely heroine. In the first place, she is peculiarly suited physically for it. She appears to be just the soft, modest, patient and graceful girl we imagine that hapless maiden to have been. Her beauty, her innocence, her tenderness, and her piety are all in turn set forth, and it is easy to imagine her the “combination of a scholar’s learning to a woman’s wit.” Nor is Miss Jay in any respect deficient in historic ability for so important a character; her performance throughout showed signs of ripe cultivation of rare natural endowments. In the scenes where she swoons on hearing she is to be made a queen, where she takes her last farewell of Guildford, and where she pleads mercy of Mary, especially, there are powers displayed of a very high order of dramatic excellence indeed, and talents which would lead us to expect that this far from unsuccessful novelist may soon acquire a greater renown as an actress as well. Miss Jay is supported by Mr. F. H. Macklin, who imparts an air of true nobility to his picturesque character of Lord Guildford Dudley, Mr. H. St. Maur, who does not allow the part of Lord Hertford to lose any obtainable points, and a thoroughly efficient and well selected company. The “Nine Days’ Queen” is preceded by “Only a Vagabond,” a comedy drama, founded on one of Mr. Buchanan’s “London Poems,” in which Mr. Langford produces considerable merriment as an old tramp who turns up, to the chagrin of his son, an attorney.

___

The Scotsman (22 March, 1881 - p.4)

     GLASGOW THEATRES. — Last night, Mr Buchanan’s new play, “The Nine Days’ Queen,” was produced, for the first time in Glasgow, at the Gaiety Theatre. Miss Harriet Jay, the authoress of several novels, appeared as Lady Jane Grey, and had a good reception, being twice recalled. She was, however, indifferently supported, particularly in one important character, to whose aid the prompter was too frequently in request.

___

Glasgow Herald (22 March, 1881 -  Issue 69)

THE THEATRES.
_____

GAIETY—“THE NINE DAYS’ QUEEN.”

     Mr Robert Buchanan’s poetical drama “The Nine Days’ Queen” was produced at the Gaiety Theatre last evening. The audience was not as large as might have been wished, especially when it is remembered that the author is a Glasgow man, although now a citizen of the world, and that the play served to introduce Miss Harriet Jay, a young novelist, who has many readers, and an actress of whom report has said some flattering things. When “The Nine Days’ Queen” was first produced at the London Gaiety in December last, we referred to it at some length. Now that the drama has been brought to our own doors, it may be interesting again to indicate the general lines upon which it proceeds. When the play opens the death of Edward VI. is near at hand. The first act is carried through in the gardens attached to the residence of the Duke of Suffolk, who, in anticipation of the vacant throne, takes counsel with the Duke of Northumberland as to how the accession of Mary may best be prevented. They come to the conclusion that the most effective way of doing so is to place Lady Jane Grey on the throne, and it is part of their compact that this lady (the daughter of Suffolk) shall be given in marriage to Northumberland’s son, Lord Guildford Dudley. Only the matrimonial portion of their scheme is at first made known, and as the prospective union is entirely agreeable to the young people, the betrothal becomes the subject of general rejoicing. The Earl of Hertford, however, is also in love with Lady Jane, and when he learns that Dudley has been preferred, he concludes that that nobleman has wronged him, and the first act closes upon an outburst of his rage and jealousy. In the second act we are introduced to May’s oratory. Hertford, riding in hot haste from London, informs her of the death of Edward VI., and also acquaints her with the plot to prevent her accession to the throne. At his instigation she takes flight, and thus escapes from Northumberland’s emissaries who have been sent to seize her. Meanwhile the plot proceeds, and in the Palace of Westminster, Northumberland and Suffolk intimate to Lady Jane the elevation reserved for her. In a powerful scene Lady Jane rejects the crown, but her protestations are disregarded. She is proclaimed Queen, and falls fainting to the ground, while the assembled nobles render homage. In the third act Mary is in power, and the order is given for the arrest of Lady Jane; while the fourth act is chiefly taken up with an interview between the Queen and her prisoner, the latter being offered not only her own life, but that of her consort Dudley, if only she will renounce the Protestant faith. This she refuses to do. She even declines to see Dudley before their execution, since “an interview would only disturb the holy tranquillity with which they had prepared themselves for death.” The curtain falls on the tragic denouement. Mr Buchanan frankly acknowledges that he does not lay claim to historical accuracy, and that he has made free use of Nicholas Rowe’s play on the same subject. The poetical treatment of the drama is, of course, Mr Buchanan’s own, and the spirit he has infused into it is essentially tender and elevated. Poetic charm and dignity are the characteristics of the musical lines, which gain in flowing grace as spoken by Miss Jay. With a good figure and an expressive face, Miss Jay has also a sympathetic voice; but she still lacks stage experience, and in the more impassioned scenes we miss the needful tragic force. In the opening May-day rejoicings, before the young life of Lady Jane is shadowed by the crown, Miss Jay’s tuneful voice and sunny manner are in finest keeping with the situation; it is only in the later scenes, clouded by greatness, that we think the actress somewhat too careful in the exercise of her powers. The company brought together to support Miss Jay is not a first-class one, and the voice of the prompter was heard too frequently in the earlier scenes. “The Nine Days’ Queen” will be continued during the week.

[Press notices of Harriett Jay in the Glasgow production of The Nine Days’ Queen
from The Era (26 March, 1881 - Issue 2218)]

The Morning Post (26 September, 1881)

     It is reported that Mr. Robert Buchanan’s historical play “A Nine Days’ Queen,” will be translated into French for Madlle. Sarah Bernhardt, who intends to play the heroine.

___

I have found no evidence that Sarah Bernhardt ever played Lady Jane Grey and I’ve come across no other productions of The Nine Days’ Queen. Buchanan (in a letter of April 1881) tried to interest Augustin Daly in an American production of the play. Three years later, during his American visit, he made another attempt according to an interview in the New York Daily Tribune. However, despite the following item, no American production was forthcoming.

The Salt Lake Daily Tribune (12 October, 1884)

     Robert Buchanan, dramatic author, expects to produce his new play entitled ‘Nine Days A Queen,’ at the Madison Square shortly, with Robert Mantell in the leading part.

___

And a final reference to another possible American production of The Nine Days’ Queen which also seems to have come to nothing:

Waterloo Daily Courier (Iowa) (23 September, 1897)

     Julia Arthur will present next season Robert Buchanan’s “A Nine Days’ Queen,” in addition to Mrs. Frances Hodgson Burnett’s “A Lady of Quality.”

_____

Next: The Mormons: or St. Abe and his Seven Wives (1881)

Back to the Bibliography or the Plays or Harriett Jay Theatre Reviews