 |
|
|
|
|
ROBERT WILLIAMS BUCHANAN (1841-1901) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THEATRE REVIEWS 18. Sophia (1886)
Sophia September, 1887: Thomas Thorne purchases the sole rights of Sophia in England, America, and the Colonies, for £600. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
[Kate Rorke as Sophia from The Theatre, 1 February, 1887.]
Daily News (5 April, 1886 - p.3) The management of the Vaudeville Theatre have determined to produce Mr. Buchanan’s “Sophia,” at a morning performance, to be given on Monday next. This will be the first attempt to treat Fielding’s novel seriously on the stage. Joseph Reed’s “Tom Jones,” brought out at Covent Garden in 1769, comprised but few of the characters, and even excluded Partridge, who is to be played by Mr. Thomas Thorne, and will be a prominent personage in the Vaudeville piece. The older play is described as “wanting in incident,” a fault certainly not due to lack of material; and we are told that in the endeavour to make Jones more amiable and interesting, the author “contrived to reduce him to a mere walking gentleman.” Reed’s piece was furnished with songs, and was, in fact, an adaptation of Poinsinet’s opera, brought out with Philidor’s music in Paris a few years earlier. In the latter piece Dowling the Quaker furnished the grotesquely humorous element. A new adaptation of “Tom Jones” ought not to miss the excellent opportunities the story affords for scenery and costumes illustrative of English localities and manners in the days of George II. If the Western of the cast were equal to the task it would be well worth while to introduce Philidor’s famous hunting song. ___
Sophia from the Daily News (12 April, 1886 - p.6) Apropos of our recent observation that Mr. Robert Buchanan’s “Sophia” will be the first attempt to treat Fielding’s novel “seriously on the stage,” Joseph Reed’s old opera including but few of the characters, Mr. William Archer writes: “I have lately been looking over some Adelphi playbills, and find announced for Monday, the 9th of February, 1824, by permission of T. Dibdin, Esq., the burletta of ‘Tom Jones; or, the Foundling,’ with a very large cast of characters, including all the chief personages of the novel.” From the memoirs of Thomas Dibdin we gather that he brought out this piece at the Surrey Theatre about 1818. It is described by him as “an operatic burletta in three acts,” and is stated to have been produced as an afterpiece. Dibdin adds that it became a stock piece, and elsewhere he says, “My proposed system of dramatising popular classic novels, as ‘Tom Jones,’ ‘Roderick Random,’ ‘Humphrey Clinker,’ &c., having appeared to be successful, a similar plan was immediately adopted at the Coburg,” so that it appears that there was yet another “Tom Jones” in the field. ___
Daily News (13 April, 1886 - p.5) “TOM JONES” AT THE VAUDEVILLE. Mr. Buchanan has not achieved the superhuman feat of putting Fielding’s voluminous novel upon the stage; but he has been able to present a fair outline of its story, suppressing or modifying with considerable tact its grosser features, while boldly and ingeniously seizing upon every opportunity that has arisen for developing dramatic situations. In so doing he has brought before us nearly all the leading personages; and though he has availed himself but little of the novelist’s dialogue, and has found it expedient to place some of Mr. Jones’s licentious adventures upon the shoulders of his insidious rival, Blifil, and to add a darkening touch to the portrait of Lady Bellaston, the relations of the parties remain substantially the same. It is more to the purpose, however, that the author of “Sophia” has produced a thoroughly-interesting play. Its four acts, including the time occupied in the construction of one or two substantial set scenes, occupied yesterday fully three hours; but the performance had secured from the first the sympathy of the audience, and at no point did the interest flag, until at the conclusion of the rhymed “tag” the curtain fell amidst a demonstration of satisfaction that no experienced eye or ear could have confounded with the languid approval which a complaisant afternoon audience will occasionally bestow upon works of little merit. The play has the great advantage of being admirably acted. Mr. Glenney’s Tom Jones is no doubt a more romantic personage than our old acquaintance of that name, and he is a trifle given to swagger and to dispense smiles of affability, but still he is a young man of spirit and such a one as the lovely Sophia, who is played by Miss Kate Rorke with great charm and sweetness and in the prettiest of Georgian costumes, might well be supposed to prefer to the smooth, intriguing, insinuating Blifil. Partridge in the play is also not quite the Partridge of the novel. As the action does not commence till the hero has arrived at manhood the worthy barber’s original pursuit is not impressed on the mind of the spectator, and hence his scraps of Latin have a more incongruous air; but the honest simplicity of the barber, and the unbounded trustfulness and admiration with which he regards Tom Jones, whose fate he shares, are brought into strong and agreeable relief by Mr. Thomas Thorne. A superadded touch of the humours of Caleb Balderstone, in the scene in which these twain are supposed to be suffering penury in the London garret, is not unwelcome; and there is genuine pathos in the tones in which the old man responds to Jones’s angry dismissal by offering to sit on the stairs until his companion’s vexation has passed. It is long since Mr. Thorne has been provided with a character filled in with so many pleasing contrasts, and so thoroughly acceptable to his audience. A capital portrait of the coarse, roaring, self-willed, but good-hearted Squire Western is furnished by Mr. F. Thorne. The character, however, is necessarily thinner in substance than in the book; though it is not quite so attenuated as Mr. Allworthy, who, however, so far as anything remains of that Somersetshire worthy, is efficiently represented by Mr. Gilbert Farquhar. Miss Sophie Larkin’s Miss Western is highly diverting, as are most of this amusing actress’s impersonations, though the severe dignity of that conscientious student of the Gazettes has somehow evaporated. Very clever impersonations of the waiting-woman, Honour, and the redoubtable village flirt Molly Seagrim, by Miss Lottie Venne and Miss Helen Forsyth respectively, have also to be noted. Miss Rose Leclercq, resplendent in hoops and furbelows and diamonds, played with great force and effect the part of Lady Bellaston. Square, we may note, is adroitly represented by Mr. Akhurst, though the total disappearance of his old friend and fellow-disputant Thwackum necessarily reduces him to rather shadowy proportions. Mr. H. Akhurst, who played the part of Blifil, has, if we mistake not, been hitherto unknown to the London stage. His performance was remarkable for its moderation, its ease, its high finish, its total freedom from all unworthy means of winning applause. So chaste a style is apt to seem wanting in force and colour; but it is certainly not so in this case. It would be absurd to call Mr. Akhurst young, though he appears to be a promising actor. As someone wittily observed, an actor should not promise but perform, and this Mr. Akhurst does in the very best sense of that expression. Sophia, we may take it, will quickly find its way to the evening bill. Its simple old-fashioned story, compactly and dramatically set forth, its adroitly contrived situations, and its pleasing glimpses of old manners render it a welcome relief from the strong excitements of melodrama. ___
The Times (14 April, 1886 - p.4) VAUDEVILLE THEATRE. “First nights” at the Vaudeville having of late been more or less disastrous to the management, the new piece which has been prepared for this theatre by Mr. Robert Buchanan in the shape of an adaptation of Fielding’s novel of “Tom Jones,” was on Monday put forward in a purely tentative fashion at a matinée. The precaution proved, as it happened, to be uncalled for. The piece was in every respect successful, and would undoubtedly have met with a cordial welcome at the hands of the ordinary first night audience, whose so-called organized opposition to certain new plays is, we are convinced, purely a managerial fantasy. Mr. Robert Buchanan calls his adaptation Sophia. Why it should not have been called Tom Jones it is hard to say, for Tom Jones is as much the hero of the play as of the novel. Various as have been Mr. Robert Buchanan’s contributions to the stage, there can be little doubt but that this is his happiest effort in play writing. It is rare indeed that we find a purely English comedy so wholesome, so stirring, so interesting, and so full of human nature as Sophia. In dealing with Fielding’s romance, the author’s plan of action has been to set forth succinctly and consistently the love-story of Tom Jones and Sophia Western as complicated by the perfidies of Blifil and Lady Bellaston. Every incident not directly bearing upon this has been omitted, the result being four acts of highly dramatic material, tending towards a definite and, indeed, an inevitable dénouement—namely, the union of Tom Jones and Sophia and the discomfiture of their enemies. Mr. Robert Buchanan has wisely refrained from taking liberties with his author except on one or two minor points. In the play Square is a very estimable gentleman, whose only fault is susceptibility to the mature charms of Squire Western’s sister; it is Blifil who conducts the illicit amour with Molly Seagrim of which Tom Jones for a time incurs the odium, while Lady Bellaston’s overtures to the hero are only such as to entitle her to be described as an impressionable lady. Mr. Robert Buchanan in a playbill note claims credit for having eliminated every offensive element from the story, and not only may the claim be allowed, but it may be added that he has at the same time done full justice to his author’s genius so far as concerns the delineation of character and the conflict of the generous and the sordid motives of human nature. The weak point of the play, as presented at the Vaudeville, is that it affords but small opportunity for the display of Mr. Thomas Thorne’s comic powers as Partridge, the barber, who is rather an excrescence upon the action than otherwise. On the other hand, that excellent young actress, Miss Kate Rorke, has never been seen to better advantage than in the part of Sophia Western, who in the play as in the novel is perhaps the most lovable type of womanhood ever depicted in fiction. Her scenes with Mr. Glenney, as Tom Jones, are delightfully true and refreshing. Mr. Glenney might look the character better, but he plays with adequate manliness and vigour. Miss Larkin contributes with Mr. Thorne to the humours of the story in her own inimitable fashion by combining girlish artlessness with the mature charms of spinsterhood; Blifil’s hypocrisy is cleverly brought out by Mr. Carleton; Mr. Fred Thorne is a sufficiently vulgar, though perhaps somewhat too noisy representative of Squire Western; Mr. Gilbert Farquhar makes a smug Mr. Allworthy; and Miss Helen Forsyth plays picturesquely and intelligently as Molly Seagrim. In the minor parts of Seagrim and Square, Mr. Mellish and Mr. Akhurst are also deserving of commendation. The piece, in short, is admirably played and mounted, and placed in the evening bill, it will no doubt effectually revive the languishing fortunes of the theatre. ___
The Stage (16 April, 1886 - p.14) VAUDEVILLE. On Monday afternoon, April 12, 1886, was produced here a new comedy, in four acts, founded on Fielding’s “Tom Jones,” by Robert Buchanan, entitled:— Sophia. Tom Jones .......................... Mr. Charles Glenney The difficulty of adapting a successful novel for the stage has seldom been so clearly evinced as in this, the first serious attempt to place the world-famous story of “Tom Jones” in a dramatic framework. The novel reader generally forms his own ideal of the characters in a book, and herein arises the first stumbling block in the path of the adaptor, who must not only try to faithfully reproduce the characters as they have been conceived by their author, but he must endeavour to satisfy each individual spectator of these personages as transferred from the book to the stage. An additional difficulty has been presented in the present case, where the nature of manners and customs of a bygone age render the task of exact reproduction of characters and incidents well-nigh impossible. Such, we may remind our readers, was the coarseness displayed in Henry Fielding’s great work that its appearance in Paris was at first prohibited, and readers of “Tom Jones” will readily recall incident after incident, scene upon scene, and dialogue illimitable that could not possibly be presented to the playgoer of to-day. The vices and folly of our age are much the same as when Fielding wrote, but they are more carefully hidden, more adroitly concealed. To quote Mr. Buchanan’s prologue, “Modes of speech have now grown nicer; Folk, if not purer, are at least preciser.” It was obvious that no minute photograph of Fielding’s characters could be attempted now, but Mr. Buchanan has gone, as we think, a little too far in the purifying process. He has whitewashed the principal character with a vengeance. The adaptor confesses that “he has taken leave to purify the character of the hero somewhat.” He has, indeed; and he has left him Tom Jones in name only. A similar process has been pursued in regard to most of the other characters presented in the adaptation, which are but distantly allied to those in the novel. Readers of Fielding will on this account be disappointed in the play. The adaptation, however, possesses much to commend it. It is chiefly concerned in relating the story of the love of Tom Jones for Sophia, and, as such, the story is told well enough. The piece is neatly constructed, and the action is progressive and interesting throughout the first half. Thereafter it falls off, and it is felt that the conclusion is lamely and clumsily continued. Nor is the dialogue written in the best possible manner, and the listener is frequently compelled to wish that Mr. Buchanan had allowed Fielding’s own words to be occasionally heard. Despite its faults, Sophia shows a successful solution of a difficult task, and should win popular favour. The first act takes place before Squire Western’s house. Its incidents comprise the declaration by Tom Jones of his affection for Sophia, his defence of George Seagrim, and his thrashing of the hypocritical Blifil. The action of the second act takes place at first within, and latterly without the barber’s shop, where Partridge is introduced. It concludes effectively with the flight of Sophia to London. Lady Bellaston is introduced in the first scene of the next act where Tom Jones appears to have lost all spirit, and is shown white-faced and snivelling. A “garret in London,” where Tom Jones hides Mrs. Honour, Lady Bellaston, and Sophia, one after the other, and the scene of which is very like a French farce in its arrangement, concludes the act. Sophia renounces Tom Jones, and declares her intention of allowing her father to dispose of her as he will, a dramatic scene as it stands, but one that would be still stronger if Sophia were entrusted with a speech of greater power and impressiveness. In the final act the course of true love is made to run smoothly at last. Blifil is unmasked, and the impulsive Jones is restored to the arms of the forgiving Mr. Allworthy. The play, as a rule, is admirably acted. Mr. Charles Glenney plays the hero with dash, vigour, and in a fine manly style. He is better suited in the first part of the piece than in the latter, where the silly sentiment of the part naturally hampers an actor of a robust style. There could not be a better Blifil than Mr. Royce Carleton, at once smooth, polished, insinuating, and without the slightest trace of exaggeration. Mr. Gilbert Farquhar’s rendering of Mr. Allworthy is excellent, and by far the best impersonation we have yet seen him give. Mr. Fred Thorne has a good idea of Squire Western, but he was far too noisy on the occasion of the first performance. [Note: the next passage was illegible and has been omitted.] Kate Rorke [....] when momentarily believing Tom Jones to be worse than he really is, and consequently resigning herself to her father’s wishes, was also admirably expressed by the actress, who gives a consistent, pretty, and winning rendering of the character. Another hit is likewise made by Miss Helen Forsyth, a young actress who does now hesitate to sink her natural refinement of manner and her grace for the proper portrayal of the rustic Molly Seagrim, as the part is drawn by the adaptor. It is a very able sketch of character, and should go a long way in securing Miss Forsyth a permanent place on the metropolitan stage. Miss Lottie Venne is just as pert and pleasing as ever as Mrs. Honour; Miss Sophie Larkin is amusing as Mrs. Western; and the cast is completed by Miss Rose Leclercq, a handsome Lady Bellaston. No piece has been so well dressed or mounted at the Vaudeville for a considerable time as this. The costumes are by Miss Fisher and Messrs. May and Co., and the scenery has been supplied by Messrs. Perkins, Bruce, Smith, and Helmsley. A brilliant audience, including Mr. Henry Irving, Mr. W. S. Gilbert, and Mrs. Langtry, witnessed the first performance. Sophia was placed in the regular bill of the theatre on Tuesday evening, and there are every signs of its enjoying a successful [last word omitted - presumably ‘run.’] ___
The Era (17 April, 1886 - Issue 2482) THE LONDON THEATRES. In the dramatic chronicle of the week the most notable event has been the production of Mr Robert Buchanan’s version of Fielding’s novel of “Tom Jones,” which, produced on Monday at an afternoon performance, has been since played every evening at the VAUDEVILLE, under the title of Sophia. At the LYCEUM Faust has now passed its hundredth night. With this week The Private Secretary closes its prolonged career at the GLOBE. Called Back at the GRAND now gives place to Adam Bede. At the BRITANNIA Miss May Holt has appeared in her drama called Every Man for Himself. The PAVILION has reproduced Rail, River, and Road. The ELEPHANT AND CASTLE has furnished a new version of Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet-street. The STRATFORD, East London, has represented the drama called My Partner, and at the PRINCE OF WALES’S, Greenwich, Miss Helen Barry has appeared in Led Astray. THE VAUDEVILLE. Tom Jones .......................... Mr CHARLES GLENNEY The Vaudeville management has had more than one slice of good luck in connection with morning performances, and more than one disaster in connection with “first nights.” It was not surprising, therefore, even if inconvenient, to find that Mr Thomas Thorne had decided to bring out Mr Robert Buchanan’s adaptation of Fielding’s “Tom Jones” at a matinée. Matinée audiences are, as a rule, amiably disposed, and in no way severely critical, and so, if we cannot credit manager and author with courage, we can give them excuse on the score of expediency. It has been very properly stated that Mr Buchanan has made the first attempt to treat Fielding’s novel seriously for the stage. Tom Jones, by Joseph Reed, produced at Covent-garden in 1769, was but a weak affair, and we are told that the author, in the attempt to make the hero more amiable and interesting than he originally was, contrived to reduce him to a mere walking gentleman. In Reed’s piece songs were introduced, and it was really an adaptation of Poinsinet’s opera, produced in Paris a few years before. We are reminded of another adaptation by Thomas Dibdin, brought out at the Surrey about 1818, and taking the form of an operatic burletta in three acts. Mr Buchanan, like Mr Reed, has made his hero more amiable and virtuous than he originally was; but, in subjecting him to a moral whitewashing, he has not exposed himself to the charge brought against his predecessor. The Vaudeville Tom Jones is a real flesh and blood hero, full of life and full of vigour, and he is none the less interesting because his virtues are made more prominent than his vices. In an “author’s note,” Mr Buchanan says, “Although the leading characters and incidents of this comedy are based on the greatest work of our first and greatest satirical novelist, care has been taken to select only what is perfectly stainless and void of offence. Despite a certain taint, which is coarseness rather than immorality, ‘Tom Jones’ has gained its immortality as a work of art because it is fundamentally right and pure in its pictures of human nature. The reader who discovers in it coarseness only would have to close the works of Cervantes and Le Sage, as well as those of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dryden, and Molière. In the present play the author has tried to preserve Fielding’s healthy moral (which Sheridan also preserved when copying from the novel the characters of Charles and Joseph Surface), although he has taken leave to purify the character of the hero somewhat, to alter many of the incidents, and to invent others.” Mr Buchanan further claims that almost all the dialogue and the leading situations are original—so far, at least, as anything can be original, which is in no true or absolute sense the dramatist’s own, but the merest echo of a great master; and he modestly adds that whatever merit the play may possess belongs to him whose supreme genius inspired it, and that for whatever shortcomings it may show the dramatist is alone to blame. We may as well say at once that Monday’s audience recognised no shortcomings, that they discovered many merits, and that for these they were quite ready to give all the praise to the living author, whose work afforded unmixed enjoyment, and who was called at the end to receive the assurance of success in the enthusiastic plaudits of a crowded house. Friends! in the quaint old fashion flown away, Full seven score years! Tho’ far man’s feet have ranged You guess, from this, Love is to-day our theme? And if, while tricking for our modern stage ___
The Weekly Dispatch (18 April, 1886 - p.7) THEATRICALS VAUDEVILLE. Mr. Robert Buchanan’s “Sophia” ought to be a success, although it has faults which are almost inevitable to a modern play “founded” on a long novel. Shakespeare constructed his masterpieces on the plots and suggestions offered to him by earlier story tellers; but Mr. Buchanan, although he considers himself competent to “purify” Fielding, in whom he deprecates “a certain taint, which is coarseness rather than immorality” (Mr. Buchanan credits the public with a short memory if he expects it to forget the more than tainted immoralities as well as coarseness that he has given out ere now in profusion), is not a Shakespeare. He has taken the names of his characters, some of their characteristics, the main idea of the plot, and as many of its incidents as he thought he could string together in a four-act play, from Fielding’s “Tom Jones,” and, we gladly admit, has thus built up a piece far superior in incident and dialogue to the average farcical comedy. Let no one suppose, however, that in seeing “Sophia” he is receiving a dramatic interpretation of “Tom Jones.” In a rare freak of modesty Mr. Buchanan admits that “whatever merit the play may possess belongs to him whose supreme genius inspired it; for whatever shortcomings it may show the dramatist is alone to blame.” This is true, and having said this much we may commend as very entertaining and capitally acted patchwork the play which, tentatively performed on Monday afternoon, was placed in the evening programme on Tuesday. Mr. Buchanan has shown some skill in selecting from Fielding’s novel, and sometimes materially altering, enough of its story to keep a modern audience amused during three hours. In the first act we see Tom Jones in his most rollicking mood, contrasting boldly with the hypocritical meanness of his fellow-pupil Blifil, incurring the wrath of his guardian, Mr. Allworthy, by his drunken gaiety, making a worse enemy of Squire Western by his friendship for a poacher, and, most lamentably of all to him, grievously offending Sophia Western by his real and supposed vices; the result of all being that he is driven from his home, and for a time cast off by Sophia, who all the while, and in spite of her principles and aversions, is honestly in love with him, and shrinks desperately from his favoured rival and her treacherous suitor, Blifil. In the next act, which brings Partridge to the front, Sophia, to escape from the marriage with Blifil which is appointed for her, runs away, and Tom Jones follows her at a distance, accompanied by his faithful friend Partridge. In the third, the Lady Bellaston incident being made much of, with perversions, Tom Jones discovers Sophia in London, and when he thinks he has won her forgiveness is again repudiated by her under more sensational conditions than Fielding provided. In the last act everything is set right by a rather clumsy process, which, however, enables all the characters to appear on the stage, and, Blifil being exposed and hopelessly disgraced, results in the concurrence of everybody else in the union of Tom and Sophia. To provide Mr. Thomas Thorne with a suitable part, much is made of Partridge, and, though he is by no means Fielding’s Partridge, Mr. Thorne acts so well, with so much humour and pathos, that his performance alone should suffice to make “Sophia” as it is now played, acceptable. Mr. Charles Glenney’s Tom Jones, also, though not Fielding’s, is vivacious, and Miss Kate Rorke is an altogether charming Sophia Western; while Mr. Royce Carleton gives a very careful and effective personation of the hypocritical Blifil. As Squire Western Mr. Fred Thorne is needlessly boisterous and vulgar, burlesquing rather than representing the manners of eighteenth-century country “gentlefolk”; but he is amusing, and so is Miss Larkin as Miss Western. No better representative of Sophia’s pert maid, Honour, could be found than Miss Lottie Venne, whose briskness makes the part nearly the most diverting in the play. Miss Helen Forsyth also puts in a very attractive appearance now and then as a gushing country wench called Molly Seagrim, but in no way resembling Fielding’s peasant girl of that name; and Miss Rose Leclercq tries hard to personate a heartless eighteenth-century lady of fashion as Lady Bellaston. Other parts are creditable played by Mr. H. Akhurst, Mr. Gilbert Farquhar, and Mr. Fuller Mellish. ___
News of the World (18 April, 1886 - p.7) THE DRAMA. VAUDEVILLE.—Mr. Thomas Thorne has scored a decided success with Sophia—a dramatic version of “Tom Jones,” written by Mr. Robert Buchanan—which, on being received with unquestionable approval on Monday afternoon, was transferred to the evening bills on Tuesday. Henry Fielding’s lively and witty story has been subjected to many changes to make it conformable to the supposed prejudices of modern playgoers, who, by the way, sometimes show a strange facility for swallowing camels when they strain at gnats; indeed the alterations are so numerous that Mr. Buchanan is perfectly justified in referring to his work as being only “founded on” the famous original. The generous light-hearted scapegrace Tom has for his principal companions in this piece the mean-spirited hypocritical Blifil (who is on terms of affectionate intimacy with buxom Molly Seagrim), the designing Lady Bellaston, the loud-voiced Squire Western, the amiable self-denying village barber Partridge, and, it need scarcely be said, the beautiful and innocent Sophia Western, as charming a type of true womanhood as ever found a place in the pages of romance, and whose engaging attributes Mr. Buchanan very effectively preserves upon the stage. The course of a comedy which contains much bright dialogue, and is constructively commendable, may be guessed by those who know “Tom Jones,” when it is stated that the hero is in the first act dismissed from the presence of the kindly Mr. Allworthy for making as is supposed a false accusation against Blifil in relation to Molly Seagrim, that in the second Sophia takes the coach to London rather than wed Blifil, that in the third Jones is ardently pursued by the wealthy woman of fashion Lady Bellaston, and that in the fourth the exposure of Blifil’s treachery restores Jones to the good opinion both of his sweetheart and her friends. Miss Kate Rorke supplies an exceedingly pretty picture to mind as well as to eye as Sophia Western, and the next most pleasant character—the faithful Partridge—is played with much quiet humour and taking geniality by Mr. Thomas Thorne, who has seldom of late had a part more adapted to his style. Excellent impersonations, too, are the Lady Bellaston of Miss Rose Leclercq, the Molly Seagrim of Miss Helen Forsyth, the Miss Western of Miss Sophie Larkin, the Honour (Sophia’s maid) of Miss Lottie Venne, the Tom Jones of Mr. Charles Glenney, the Blifil of Mr. Royce Carleton, and the Squire Western of Mr. Fred Thorne. All these are showy characters, and they could not be better represented. Sophia, it should be added, is not only an interesting but a wholesome and thoroughly English sample of nineteenth-century comedy. ___
Reynolds’s Newspaper (18 April, 1886 - Issue 1862) PUBLIC AMUSEMENTS. VAUDEVILLE THEATRE. What must chiefly have struck the intelligent playgoer who on Monday afternoon witnessed the performance of Mr. Robert Buchanan’s interesting dramatic version of “Tom Jones,” was, firstly, that Mr. Thorne had in the adaptation of this old standard work secured a piece likely to suit the general public taste; and, secondly, that Fielding’s novel offered another exemplification of the truth of the proverb which insists upon there being nothing new under the sun. As like as two peas, or as Mr. Pinero’s “Squire” to “Far from the Madding Crowd,” are many of the characters and sayings in Sheridan’s comedy of the “School for Scandal” and those which Mr. Buchanan has in his “Sophia” taken from the novel. Tom Jones is, in his light, buoyant humour, reckless generosity, and natural kindliness of heart, the prototype of Charles Surface. Blifil, with his assumed studiousness, oily hypocrisy, and oft-quoted philosophy, is the double of Joseph Surface and his sentiment; Sophia is the model of Maria; Lady Sneerwell might have been suggested by Squire Western’s sister; and but for her age and the fact of her having buried two husbands, Lady Bellaston and Lady Teazle occupy a very similar and equally do-nothing position in society. This similitude, however, in no wise detracts from the attraction of the play. We simply meet old friends in a new dress and with fresh surroundings. AT the commencement of the piece, Tom Jones, who has been partaking of the cup which inebriates as well as cheers, shows a decided liking for Squire Western’s charming daughter, and a pretty talent for osculatory exercise, which, in more modern times, would have made “the foundling” a prime favourite at Sunday schools. But what Tom Jones does is done openly; he wears his heart upon his sleeve, and no wonder, therefore, that daws of the Blifil genus peck at it. In secret, this Blifil has won the affections of Molly Seagrim, a character which Mr. Buchanan has artistically changed from the unpresentable personage of the novel to a decidedly attractive Audrey. By his championship of Molly’s father, the hero excites the anger of Squire Western, and makes that Conservative member of the unpaid magistracy more than ever averse to a union between Tom and Sophia; whilst, on the other hand, the time-serving Blifil, by his moralizing upon the enormity of a man killing a hare for his starving family, makes himself a favoured suitor in the Squire’s eyes. By the devices of Blifil, who, much to the satisfaction of the audience, comes in for a thorough thrashing at the hands of his rival, mischief is made, not only between the hero and his kind, if pedantic, guardian, Mr. Allworthy, but also between Tom and his fair mistress, the lady being led to believe him the sweetheart of Molly. To avoid the odious match with Blifil, Sophia, with her vivacious maid, Honour, seeks shelter in London with her fashionable cousin, Lady Bellaston, and to London Tom, accompanied by the faithful and Latin-quoting barber, Partridge, follows her. Lady Bellaston, struck by the good looks of Tom, conceals from him the presence of her cousin Sophia, and behaves in a manner worthy of a Bowdlerized edition of Potiphar’s wife. In spite of his poverty and the attractions of Lady Bellaston’s wealth, Tom is as deaf as a second Joseph—the Joseph of Scripture, not of Sheridan—to the voice of the charmer, and remains true to the memory of his beloved Sophia. By a series of incidents, cleverly and naturally brought about, Honour, Lady Bellaston, and Sophia visit Tom’s attic, and—here an agreeable flavour of modern farcical comedy coming in—are concealed in cupboards and Tom’s bedroom. From the latter Lady Bellaston is “unearthed” by Squire Western, who has come in search of his daughter, whilst her presence is made to appear in Sophia’s eyes as a proof of her lover’s faithlessness. In the last act, my lady, irritated by Tom’s constancy for Sophia and indifference to herself, joins with his enemies, but is defeated by Honour, who from her hiding-place has been a witness of the whole scene. Molly Seagrim exposes the perfidy of Blifil, and Sophia and Tom enter that lover’s haven of rest, each other’s arms, without which no well-ordered comedy is complete. The new piece has the advantage of being exceptionally well played. Its hero is as well and heartily carried out by Mr. Charles Glenney as is that of “Harbour Lights” by Mr. Terriss. Both are admirable specimens of what our modern young actors can do. Mr. Glenney’s rollicking good-nature in the earlier scenes, his sympathetic acting in the more tender ones with Sophia, and his energetic castigation of his rival, won him golden opinions from his audience. Maybe one would have liked to see Tom Jones a more cheerful and blithe person than he is represented in the garret scene; but such an interpretation would have been at variance with the author’s text. Miss Kate Rorke formed a companion picture, matching well with Mr. Glenney’s of Tom, as the charming Sophia, whom she made one of the most dainty and lovable of old comedy heroines. The difficult part of Blifil was, in the hands of Mr. Royce Carleton, capitally represented, the oily hypocrisy, beneath which the viciousness of the character now and again peeps out, being a cleverly-conceived and executed study. In the village barber and phlebotomist, Partridge, with his humorous sayings, Latin quotations, and reminiscences of the late Mrs. partridge, Mr. Thomas Thorne was fitted with a part which exactly suited his quaint drollery, whilst his rendering of the more sympathetic side of the man’s character had more than one agreeable touch of pathos. Miss Sophie Larkin’s gushing middle-aged spinster has formed subject for mirth to Vaudeville patrons again and again; but so long as she can afford such amusement as she did as Miss Western on Monday no one would wish to see her in any new form of character. A very fresh and bright bit of acting was the Molly Seagrim of Miss Helen Forsyth; Miss Lottie Venne was a delightfully coquettish Honour; and Miss Rose Leclercq was an overwhelmingly grand Lady Bellaston, seeming in her gorgeous attire not only to fill the stage, but the whole house, with her presence. Mr. Fred Thorne’s reading of the noisy, choleric, hunting Squire is doubtless correct in theory, but it proved objectionable in practice. He seemed to want a few hundred acres of breezy downland to exercise his lungs upon, and until these are forthcoming, a little moderation of their power will make his acting of Squire Western more in accordance with his surroundings. Mr. Fuller Mellish as the Poacher, Mr. Gilbert Farquhar as Squire Allworthy, Mr. H. Akhurst as Square, and other parts by their respective representatives were adequately filled. Amongst the large audience which witnessed Mr. Buchanan’s play were Messrs. Irving and Gilbert, Mrs. Langtry, Miss Harriett Jay, and a host of theatrical celebrities. The excessively favourable reception awarded it was sufficient warranty for the management to place “Sophia” upon the evening bills on Tuesday night. ___
The Theatre (1 May, 1886) “SOPHIA.” A Four-Act Comedy, adapted by ROBERT BUCHANAN from Fielding’s Novel, “Tom Jones.” |
|
|
|
|
|
A crowded, not to say crammed, house greeted Mr. Buchanan’s version of “Tom Jones” at the Vaudeville, brought forward at a morning performance. This seems to have excited a certain amount of ingenious speculation, though the truth is it has been constantly done at this house—an ingeniously tentative mode of experimenting on an audience. The acting on this occasion was full of spirit and liveliness, and the distinct freshness of the characters gave unbounded satisfaction. It was curious to note the suggestions here for “The School for Scandal,” it being clear that Sheridan drew the characters of the two Surfaces from Blifil and Tom. It is not, however, so well known that the famous and ever-effective “screen scene” was taken from the same source, the screen being the old curtain, which fell so awkwardly and discovered the Tutor in Molly Seagrim’s room. Even the culprit’s protest on his detection is in the form of Joseph’s “Notwithstanding, Sir Peter, all that has passed,” &c. The amazingly light touch of Sheridan, his fashion of abstracting the very essence of a character, is happily shown by contrast with this work of Mr. Buchanan, who, at least, cannot be blamed for lacking the genius of the gifted Brinsley. Indeed, the modern system of bringing out details of a character is invariably to make every sentence illustrate the character as the hypocrite may only deliver hypocritical sentiments, &c., whereas, as we learn from Shakespeare, a colourless or indifferent line is often as appropriate. PERCY FITZGERALD. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
[Helen Forsyth from The Theatre, 1 May, 1886.] The Theatre (1 May, 1886) Another surprising success has been made in the course of the month by Miss Helen Forsyth, the bright, clever, human little Molly Seagrim attached to Mr. Robert Buchanan’s “Sophia” at the Vaudeville. Hitherto, Miss Helen Forsyth has only been known as the pretty girl in several Haymarket plays. With a sweet voice and a charmingly refined manner, she has justly been considered one of the best of the modern drawing-room young ladies. She was welcomed, and justly so, in “Dark Days,” and at the first performance of “Jim the Penman” she showed how a bright, happy English girl can be naturally and unaffectedly played. But few were prepared for the transformation as Molly Seagrim. Away went the pretty frocks, the fair skin was stained to the tint of a gipsy, and Miss Forsyth appeared to the very life as a country hoyden, loving, ignorant, passionate, unsophisticated, the very picture of a village wench who might have been a poacher’s daughter. But Miss Forsyth did not succeed alone as a picture of highly-coloured rusticity. She entered into the heart and spirit of the character. She understood Molly Seagrim, the tangled weed of the country lanes, soon to be crushed under a strong man’s heel. It was a clever performance because we felt there was art in it and not artifice. Directly Miss Forsyth came on the stage the whole attention of the house was directed towards her. She had enlisted the sympathetic attention of her audience, and she held it whenever she was on the stage. ___
The Era (12 June, 1886 - Issue 2490) “SOPHIA” AT THE VAUDEVILLE. Tom Jones .......................... Mr CHARLES GLENNEY About the attractiveness of Mr Robert Buchanan’s adaptation of Fielding’s “Tom Jones,” properly described as the greatest work of our first and greatest satirical novelist, there is no dispute, and adaptor and manager have since the first night of production found gratification, not alone in the presence of good audiences, but in the evident appreciation with which the representation of the comedy has been received. It is claimed for “Tom Jones” that, despite a certain taint, which is coarseness rather than immorality, it has gained its immortality as a work of art, because it is fundamentally right and pure in its pictures of human nature, and certainly we must admit the claim to credit put forward for the fact that care has been taken to select only for stage purposes what is perfectly stainless and void of offence. What if the hero has been morally whitewashed? He is still, as we have before remarked, a real flesh and blood hero, full of life and full of vigour, and not the less interesting because his virtues are made more prominent than his vices. Mr Buchanan very neatly in eight lines summed up the story he had to tell— You guess, from this, Love is to-day our theme? Mr Buchanan is no mere scissors and paste adaptor, and while readily admitting his claim to have furnished for the greater part the leading situations and the dialogue, which is of excellent quality, we would, with him, ask the hypocritical and those to whom the name of Bowdler is hateful to Remember, modes of speech have now grown nicer; To the excellent acting of those engaged in the representation we have already done some justice, but not full justice, and a second interview with Sophia induces us to give it further attention. Courtesy compels and inclination leads, and so we give first place to ___
The New York Times (26 July, 1886) I cannot say that I was carried away by “Sophia,” which is close upon its one hundredth performance at the Vaudeville Theatre—the theatre of long “runs,” where “Our Boys” ran I forget how many years, and pieces that are withdrawn less than six months after production are regarded as having died in their infancy. The Vaudeville, nevertheless, is filled nightly by people anxious to see “Sophia,” and as the taste of English-speaking audiences the world over is not vastly dissimilar, I presume that the piece, which is soon to be exported to America—like “Jim the Penman,” by the way—will prove as remunerative across the Atlantic as it is here. “Sophia” is founded upon Fielding’s “Tom Jones,” and Mr. Robert Buchanan, the author of the play, gives credit to the English author for the parentage of the work. I have heard some English writers declare that Mr. Buchanan was unwise in acknowledging his indebtedness to Fielding, on the ground that his achievement was sufficiently “strong” to require no assistance. I beg to differ from these gentlemen, and to express the belief that Mr. Buchanan acted with praiseworthy shrewdness as well as with honesty in placing under the protection of a great literary memory a number of characters and incidents that a modern audience would often be tempted to weary of and laugh at. There is no little of what Mr. Daly would call human interest in “Sophia,” and women will sympathize with the much-persecuted hero, and wait to see how he will escape from the sea of troubles whose waves he buffets for a pretty long evening, but the goody-goody personages, the old-fashioned garrulity, and the wildly improbable episodes are tolerably trying to an auditor that does not promptly get into the atmosphere and spirit of the piece. The name of Fielding, however, covers a multitude of sins, and he that cares to read “Tom Jones” may experience a kindred enjoyment in witnessing “Sophia.” The rôle of Tom Jones is sustained at the Vaudeville, in a simple and manly fashion, by Mr. Charles Glenny. I learn that it is to be intrusted in the United States to Mr. Kyrle Bellew. I should have mentioned that “Sophia” is intended for Wallack’s Theatre. Mr. Bellew’s craving for female sympathy, inordinate though it may be, is likely to be sated by the character’s multitudinous woes. Sophia finds a comely interpreter in Miss Sophie Larkin, and the “fine lady” of the olden time, with her airs and graces, and her brocade gowns and diminutive blackamoor, is pictured with delightful fidelity to the accepted type by Miss Rose Leclercq. The comic rôle of the piece, which has been more or less felicitously “written up” to meet the requirements of Mr. Thomas Thorne, the popular comedian and manager of the Vaudeville, is that of a barber that sticks to Tom Jones through thick and thin, and winds up his bachelor’s life by wooing and winning Honor, Sophia’s maid, and the dea ex machina, whose story rights all wrongs ere the final curtain falls. ___
The Stage (17 September, 1886 - p.15) EDINBURGH. ROYAL (Lessee, Mr. Cecil Beryl; Acting Manager, Mr. Walter Hatton).—Robert Buchanan’s successful adaptation of “Tom Jones,” entitled Sophia, as played by Mr. Thomas Thorne’s Co. compares favourably with most provincial performances. Mr. Frank K. Cooper as the modernised Tom Jones looks, acts, and speaks to the entire approbation of the audience. Mr. A. Harding as Blifil fills an ungrateful but colourless part with tact. Mr. (why not Squire?) Allworthy has an excellent exponent in Mr. William Holman; Mr. D. D. Betterton is sufficiently sententious as Tutor Square, while Mr. C. A. White, although noisy enough as Squire Western, can scarcely be said to be a complete exponent of the part. Mr. A. Wood is quite successful in imparting a delightful tinge of humour to his impersonation of Partridge, and his “next, please” never failed to draw a hearty laugh. Miss Lillian Gillmore, it is almost needless to say, with her charming manner and sweet face, is a most perfect Sophia. Miss Lilian Seccombe gives a piquant reading of the part of the little gipsy, Molly Seagrim; indeed, in its entirety, her impersonation could not have been surpassed. Miss Gladys Homfrey as Lady Bellaston is stately and reserved, as suits the lady of fashion, and Miss Carbury is charmingly neat and spirited as Honour. The scenery is excellent, and the costumes are thoroughly creditable. Miss Fannie Leslie next week. ___
The Stage (15 October, 1886 - p.13) Robert Buchanan’s adaptation of Fielding’s “Tom Jones” was revived very successfully at the Vaudeville Theatre on Saturday evening. Although Sophia has many faults as a play, and although it is an adaptation which is most satisfactory to those least acquainted with Fielding’s novel, it interests and pleases the ordinary spectator. The chief alteration in the cast was the substitution of Mr. Charles Warner for Mr. Charles Glenney in the part of Tom Jones. Mr. Warner cannot by any means be accepted as an ideal embodiment of Fielding’s hero; he is either too melodramatic or too farcical, as the fancy moves him, but the audience seem to appreciate his rendering of the character. Miss Helen Forsyth as Molly Seagrim and Mr. Thomas Thorne as Partridge once more successfully resume their admirable impersonations. The remainder of the cast, which includes Miss Kate Rorke as the heroine, Mr. Royce Carleton as Blifil, Mr. Gilbert Farquhar as Allworthy, Mr. Fuller Mellish as Seagrim, Miss Rose Leclercq as Lady Bellaston, Miss Sophie Larkin as Miss Western, Mr. Fred Thorne as Squire Western, and Miss Lottie Venne as Honour, is substantially the same as in the original production of Mr. Buchanan’s adaptation. ___
The New York Times (5 November, 1886) AMUSEMENTS. “SOPHIA” AT WALLACK’S When Mr. Robert Buchanan first conceived the idea of making a play out of “Tom Jones” he had undoubtedly read the book. The malicious insinuations to the contrary that found their way recently into English newspapers do not deserve consideration. The play called “Sophia” bears several marks of relationship to Fielding’s master work. Most of the characters bear names to be found in the novel, and the framework of the plot is very similar in both works. Tom Jones, in both, is a foundling befriended by Allworthy, loved by Sophia, wronged by Blifil, persecuted by Lady Bellaston, served by Partridge. But if Mr. Buchanan had seen fit to provide other names for his characters he would have given no offense, and might even have escaped a measure of critical censure. For besides the framework of the plot, which is not strikingly ingenious, and the names of the characters, there is little enough of Fielding in the play; not only is the frank indelicacy of that great genius very properly avoided, but the truth, the humor, and the humanity of “Tom Jones” are very faintly reflected in the play, so that Mr. Buchanan’s announcement of his indebtedness to Fielding might suggest, to a cynical person, that he sought to bolster up his own literary reputation by coupling it with the immortal Fielding’s. ___
The New York Times (19 December, 1886) ROBERT BUCHANAN’S OPPORTUNITY. It appears that the English cemetery at Lisbon is in a state of disgraceful neglect. Here, as every one knows, Henry Fielding is buried, and here, as every one does not know, “cart-loads of the bones of British soldiers,” collected from the battlefields of the Peninsular war, were deposited after 1810. The tomb of Fielding, so a recent visitor writes to the Times, is entirely overgrown, and even the inscription is in places obliterated. This is certainly not as it should be, and if the English residents in Lisbon have not sufficient patriotic piety to tend Fielding’s tomb it devolves on literary England to see that it be rescued from its present state of neglect. Might not Mr. Robert Buchanan at once advertise “Sophia” and express his gratitude toward Fielding by trimming and whitewashing his monument as he has trimmed and whitewashed “Tom Jones”? It would be a graceful act of expiation. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
[Cover of the programme for the 350th performance of Sophia on Wednesday, June 15th, 1887,
The Stage (30 September, 1887 - p.13) Mr. Thomas Thorne has purchased from Robert Buchanan the sole acting rights of Sophia in England, America, and the Colonies—a good bargain, for Sophia is a clever play, and will live. ___
The Stage (28 October, 1887 - p.13) Mr. Thomas Thorne has purchased of Mr. Robert Buchanan, for a large sum of money, the sole rights of the very successful comedy Sophia. ___
From the chapter, ’The Boston Museum’ in The Dramatic Year 1887-1888, edited by Edward Fuller (Boston: Ticknor and Company, 1889 - p. 108-111). ... Having said this much, we pass on to a brief consideration of “Sophia.” This play, as every one knows, is a dramatization of Fielding’s novel, “Tom Jones.” We should like to write Fielding’s familiar novel; but we fear that the self-constituted censorship of morals at the Boston Public Library (and other similar institutions, no doubt) has made the epithet impossible. It is much safer to say of one of the most brilliant of English novelists what was once said with truth of the greatest of English dramatists—that every one talks about him and no one reads him. With that self-sufficient class of modern writers to whom Thackeray is already a barbarian, Fielding is a hissing and a byword. How much of the well-nigh utter neglect into which he has fallen is due to the rigid propriety of the age, we will not attempt in this place to discuss; but it may be remarked in passing that it is doubtful if we are so very much the superior of our ancestors in virtue, and that our rage is not so much against vice as against vice unadorned. Fielding is tabooed, but we do not find that “Ouida” is yet altogether a literary outcast. This is, however, somewhat aside from the question of the merits of Mr. Buchanan’s play, which can never for a moment raise any ethical suspicions in the mind of the most prudent. Mr. Buchanan has left us a hint of the fact that Tom Jones is a sad dog; but his specifications (outside of the Lady Bellaston incident) are so vague that they carry little positive conviction. Besides, Tom’s conduct toward Lady Bellaston is made on the whole so irreproachable, and his treatment of Molly Seagrim (another inconvenient episode) is so blameless, that he fairly poses throughout the play in an attitude not unbecoming the virtuous hero of melodrama. It is here, perhaps, that Mr. Buchanan has erred on the side of delicacy; though leaving the literary and taking the purely dramatic point of view, it is difficult to say what other course was open to him. It was obviously impossible that he should make Tom Jones all that Fielding made him; idealization was absolutely necessary; but at the same time the purifying process may possibly have been carried too far. We do not mean by this that we would have liked to see the play made coarse or vulgar; but there is always a danger to real strength and virility in the process of Bowdlerizing, and this danger Mr. Buchanan has not altogether escaped. But it would be unfair, on the other hand, not to recognize the fact that he has preserved the healthy, hearty atmosphere of the novel to a gratifying extent, and that he has left Tom Jones himself a good share of the essential manliness and honour with which his creator endowed him. It is upon Sophia Weston, however, that the interest of the play largely depends; Mr. Buchanan is entirely right in his assertion that that gracious figure “dominates his drama as it really dominates the novel.” There are few more lovable characters in all English fiction than she; we must come to Thackeray’s Laura Pendennis before we find one who can compare with her in maidenly faithfulness and purity. The blackness of the world around her only makes more radiant her whiteness of soul. This world of rakes of both sexes Mr. Buchanan has transferred from the novel to the play with admirable fidelity and discretion. Squire Weston, Lady Bellaston, Molly Seagrim, and Blifil step down from their eighteenth-century frames into our modern atmosphere, and give even the spectator who is unacquainted with his Fielding a taste of that master-spirit. And the far more genial figures of Allworthy and Partridge become once more vivid and instinct with life to the reader who cherishes for them an affectionate remembrance. ___
The Theatre (1 January, 1890) [From ‘Our Amateurs’ Play-Box’.] There were just four reasons why the Hampstead Club should have tried their hands at Mr. Buchanan’s “Sophia,” and those four just outweighed the eight or ten others there were for leaving it alone. These latter lay in the peculiar unfitness of the club’s utility men to do anything beyond getting into the clothes of the characters of Fielding’s “Tom Jones;” getting into not wearing, be it observed; and in the case of an English classic this becomes a very important point, for it is nothing short of an artistic crime to despoil us of our fancies of Allworthy and Square and Seagrim, Supple and Corpse and Partridge, and try to have us believe they were mild-mannered gentlemen all of a pattern, all a wee bit frightened of lace ruffles, knee-breeches, and frilled shirts, and all with a spirit about equal to that of the clerical heroes of the much esteemed Miss Emma Jane Worboise. The Blifil too could never have taken in even the Hampstead version of his benefactor; and as Fielding insists so very strongly on the insinuating qualities of his double-distilled Joseph Surface, in addition to the others’ clearly defined qualities, one had to drop four-fifths of the players and concentrate one’s attention on the minority who composed the four reasons pro the play. Mr. H. W. Preston is a talented actor, ingenious and finished in character parts, but a little out of his element as a hero; his Tom, however, was frank and honest, picturesque and interesting, and where he failed to move his audience it was as much their fault as his. Mr. Morton Henry was quite as highly coloured as Squire Western as was Mr. Fred Thorne, and the amateur had the advantage of knowing how to tone down some of the coarseness. Miss K. Sinclair gave us a portrait of Molly in all her simplicity and waywardness we wish never to see fade, and Mrs. Thompson in the gentler scenes of Sophia could scarcely have been excelled for charm and naturalness. These were the four by whose means the whole edifice was saved, and who won for the play a reception that would have delighted even Mr. Buchanan; but when next the Hampstead actors choose old comedy, let them keep a warier eye on the utility, or else engage Mr. Charles Harris to stage manage. ___
The Times (7 June, 1892 - p.8) VAUDEVILLE THEATRE. In default of fresher attractions, Sophia has once more found its way into the Vaudeville programme. The revival comes, no doubt, a little earlier than would have been the case had fortune smiled upon Mr. Thomas Thorne’s recent experiments with new plays; but there can be no question as to the enduring qualities of this version of “Tom Jones,” in which Mr. Robert Buchanan is certainly seen at his best as an adapter. Sophia is one of the very few modern plays which can be seen again and again with pleasure, and in the present instance it is favoured with an exceptionally good cast. Mr. Charles Warner takes up the part of the brilliant scapegrace who yet with all faults, is so much more lovable than the immaculate heroes of modern melodrama. It is a part eminently suited to the actor’s robust and vigorous method, and although Mr. Warner could do with a little more verge and scope than is furnished by one of the smallest stages in London, he succeeds in winning a full measure of sympathy for his character. Miss Maude Millett brings her sympathetic manner to bear with excellent effect upon the engaging personality of Miss Sophia Western, while Mr. Fred Thorne and Miss Vane re-appear with undiminished success as the bluff Squire Western and the heartless woman of fashion, Lady Bellaston. Mr. Thomas Thorne is of course at home in his old part of Partridge. _____
Next: Fascination (1887)
Back to the Bibliography or the Plays
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||