Anticerr ds
IARCH 1, 1905.
COURT THEATRE.
VEDRENNE-BARKER MATINEES.
1 THE POT OF BROTH.“
By W. B. Trars.
John Coneelv Mr. GEoRGe F. TuLIv.
Sibby Coneely Miss AuF LAMBORN.
A Tramp Mr. Roszar PArEMAN.
*IN THE HOSPITAL.“
By Anrnon Schyirzuen, translated by Canis¬
TOPHIER HORNE.
Karl Rademacher Mr. J. D. BEvERIDGE.
Florian Schubart Mr. GEORGE TROLLOPE.
Alexander Weibgart... Mr. Runcr HakblNd.
Dr. Tantner. Mr. HowARD STURGE.—
Dr. Tann Mr. EnnuNb GWENN,
Juliana Paschanda Miss Isanzi. Gnur.
Scene: An Extra Ward in the Vienna General Hospital.
· HOW HE LIED TO HER HUSBAND.“
By BERNARD SHAw.
Her Lover Mr. GRasvILLE BARKER.
Her HusbandMr. A. G. Pounros.
Herself Miss Ganraune Kisosros.
Scene: Her Flat in Cromwell-road.
Of the three one-act plays produced vesterday
afternoon at the abovetheatre“ In the Hospital,
translated by Christopher Horne from the German
of Arthur Schnitzler, proved far the most interest¬
ring. Nor was it anything but a reliefto find it
travel beyond the obvious scope suggested by its
title, that of some wearisome study of disease and
death in the old but, let us hope, by now dis¬
pcredited manner of the thédtre lihre. There was
pdeath in it, to be sure, but only in its most humane
Faspect, coming to Rademacher, the broken-down
journalist, as relief and rest after a lifeof much
Ftoil and disappointment. And, best of all, there
was evidence in it of that higher intelligence,
Ethat of the heart, in which as a rule this descrip¬
The olc
tion of play is so wofully de
theatrical sentimentality, with# passion for:
Happy ending at whatever cost, was sufficientl,
tireseme; gettit was sehreelg more ropugnant t#
common sense thau the raideur which for som
time past has marked the development of moderi
dramatic themes. To that“ In the Hospital
forms a welcome exception, and, admirably actet
as it was by all concerned, thoroughly deserved
the hearty reception it enjoyed.
The chief honours of therepresentation restwitl
Mr. J. D. Beveridge, whose performance of the
dying Rademacher was worthy of the highest
praise. The man has been a failure, mainly, one
feels, through his own fault, and nowon his death¬
bed has only theonedesireleft, the desirewhich all
his journalistie life hehas been probably indulging,
that of gratifying, and for the last time, his spite
and revenge. Töthat end he begs the doctor to
bring him his old friend Weihgart, an eminent
and successful poet. Years ago they quarrelled
and parted, and now Rademacher’s one wish is to
humiliate him by telling him to his face that he
has been his wife’s lover, that heandshe have often
discussed him disparagingly together, and that
Weihgart's wife is as fully convinced of bis
complete nullity as his old friend Rademacher.
The scene is acted before us in a sort of dress
rehearsal of it with Schubart, a young actor dying
also in the hospital of consumption; yet when
Weihgart comes something touches Rademacher,
and he feels he can no longer do it. What that
something is is conveyed to us with extreme
delicacy and subtlety by Mr. Beveridge. It is
not exactly pity for Weihgart andthe confessionhe
makes of the insecurity of his position owing to the
persistency with which the new generation are
knockingathis door. Ibis, one feels, a combination of
elements, and chief among them the recollection
of the day when they were friends, and the desire
of dying with some purer feeling in his heart than
that of gratified revenge. So Weihgart goes, with
his belief in his wife intact, and Rademacher dies,
a better man than probably he ever lived. Acted
asit was, by Mr. George Trollope as Schubart and
by Mr. Rudge Harding as Weihgart, “ In the
Hospital! created a considerable impression and
is very well worth seeing.
Ins“ How He Lied ta ### ## ar
in the case of bounty-fed sugar, and he considers the
results tobe admirable. We may conclude that, if he got
the mandate he desires at the coming election, he would
proceed next to practisc on steel-billets which are sup¬
posed to be sold below cost price here because they
are tariff-protected abroad. The Providence which watches
over Free Trade has happily, in the interval, enabled us to
gauge the probable results from practical experience.
We are not the least surprised that in these circum¬
stances Mr. Bazrouk’s party should be very restive about
the Fiscal question or that Mr. Bauroun himself should be
endeavouring by all possible means to change the issue.
Nevertheless, the letter in which he tells the Unionist
candidate for Buteshire that the issue at the next election
will be—not Fiscal Reform, but—Home Rule is really
atrifle too audacious. The MacDonnell incident is not
yet a weck old, and the public do not forget that
the suspected Home Ruler is still Permanent Under¬
Secretary for lreland, and that the Ministers who have
flirted with “projects of Home Rule,' as Mr. Batrouk
himself called them, are still members of the Govern¬
ment. It is not for us to say whether Mr. Bazrouk is
wise or otherwise in thus condoning this incident, but, if
he decides to do so, his efforts to beat up prejudice against
his opponents on the Irish question will simply exeife
laughter. But this, like everything else, is perfectly well
understood by his own partv as another piece of his
peculiar strategy against the Chamberlainites. Vesterday
brought the letter from the Chief Conservative Whip.
oronouncing the Fiscal question to be no test of Unionist
oyalty; to-day brings a letter from Mr. Bauroun declar¬
ng that the Irish question and no other is to beithe test
it the next election. This concerns Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
nuch more than it concerns the Liberal Party, and we
are not surprised to learn that these final proceedings
have angered the Chamberlainites without allaying the
suspicions ofthe Free Traders. Mr. Baxroun will probably
make a bolt back into the Chamberlain camp next week,
but surely it is time for the Unionist Party to take the.
matter into its own hands and to save its dignity by.
accepting the inevitable appeal to the country.
A TRIPLE BILL AT THE COURT THEATRE.
It is one of the mysteries of Theatre-land that the great success
of the original“ triple bill'' of modern times produced a very
small crop of imitations. Speaking as a person of experience in
theatrical matters, 1 shouid say that no entertainment would have
so great a chance of success in the present troubled times as a
triple bill. The new programme of the Scart Theatre consists
of three interesting pieces, nonc, I tear, quite of sufficient import¬
ance to produce any very great success. Certainly we spent a
very agreeable afternoon —agreeable with mixed pleasures. The
affair began with Mr. Veats’s play“ A Pot of Broth,“’ given not
long agb at the Royalty Theatre. It is entirely anecdotal, and
very diverting on a first hearing; by way of reminder, one may
mention that it tells of a trick played by a hungry tramp upon
the uncharitable wite of a small farmer. Mr. Robert Pateman,
a versatile actor of great ability, too rarely seen of late in London,
gave an admirable humorous performance as the tramp, and if it
must be hinted that he acted a little too much to the audience tliere
is a fair excuse in the fact that he had to begin with a long
soliloquy.“ In a Hospital, by Arthur Schnitzler, translated by
Christopher Horne—item No. 2—is a curious, rather audacious
experiment in play-making. It is difficult exactly to point out in
what it is novel; perhaps, indecd, its only novelty lies in the fact
that the author has attempted to give subtleties and fine shades
beyond the range of drama. As the title suggests, the play passes
in the ward of a hospital. The central figure is Rademacher, an
elderly journalist, dying of something with an unmentioned Latin
name, ### bad luck and failure, Asort of friendship exists
betwcen him and Florian Schubart, a consumptive actor, wio,
though within eight days of death, has the typical optimism of
the consumptive and is making eager plans for the future.
Rademacher is sitting in a chair facing the audience throughout
the play, and to me perhaps the chief interest in the matter lay
in the cxtraordinary play of light and shadow upon the rugged
face of Mr. Beveridge, the actor, who presented some superh
studies. The dying journalist has an intense longing to see
Weihgart, a successful rival of whom he is hideously jealons.
His repulsive dying wish is to humiliate tlie man who has done
him no wrong by telling him that his wife has been faithless;
mn
ran
S
10
IARCH 1, 1905.
COURT THEATRE.
VEDRENNE-BARKER MATINEES.
1 THE POT OF BROTH.“
By W. B. Trars.
John Coneelv Mr. GEoRGe F. TuLIv.
Sibby Coneely Miss AuF LAMBORN.
A Tramp Mr. Roszar PArEMAN.
*IN THE HOSPITAL.“
By Anrnon Schyirzuen, translated by Canis¬
TOPHIER HORNE.
Karl Rademacher Mr. J. D. BEvERIDGE.
Florian Schubart Mr. GEORGE TROLLOPE.
Alexander Weibgart... Mr. Runcr HakblNd.
Dr. Tantner. Mr. HowARD STURGE.—
Dr. Tann Mr. EnnuNb GWENN,
Juliana Paschanda Miss Isanzi. Gnur.
Scene: An Extra Ward in the Vienna General Hospital.
· HOW HE LIED TO HER HUSBAND.“
By BERNARD SHAw.
Her Lover Mr. GRasvILLE BARKER.
Her HusbandMr. A. G. Pounros.
Herself Miss Ganraune Kisosros.
Scene: Her Flat in Cromwell-road.
Of the three one-act plays produced vesterday
afternoon at the abovetheatre“ In the Hospital,
translated by Christopher Horne from the German
of Arthur Schnitzler, proved far the most interest¬
ring. Nor was it anything but a reliefto find it
travel beyond the obvious scope suggested by its
title, that of some wearisome study of disease and
death in the old but, let us hope, by now dis¬
pcredited manner of the thédtre lihre. There was
pdeath in it, to be sure, but only in its most humane
Faspect, coming to Rademacher, the broken-down
journalist, as relief and rest after a lifeof much
Ftoil and disappointment. And, best of all, there
was evidence in it of that higher intelligence,
Ethat of the heart, in which as a rule this descrip¬
The olc
tion of play is so wofully de
theatrical sentimentality, with# passion for:
Happy ending at whatever cost, was sufficientl,
tireseme; gettit was sehreelg more ropugnant t#
common sense thau the raideur which for som
time past has marked the development of moderi
dramatic themes. To that“ In the Hospital
forms a welcome exception, and, admirably actet
as it was by all concerned, thoroughly deserved
the hearty reception it enjoyed.
The chief honours of therepresentation restwitl
Mr. J. D. Beveridge, whose performance of the
dying Rademacher was worthy of the highest
praise. The man has been a failure, mainly, one
feels, through his own fault, and nowon his death¬
bed has only theonedesireleft, the desirewhich all
his journalistie life hehas been probably indulging,
that of gratifying, and for the last time, his spite
and revenge. Töthat end he begs the doctor to
bring him his old friend Weihgart, an eminent
and successful poet. Years ago they quarrelled
and parted, and now Rademacher’s one wish is to
humiliate him by telling him to his face that he
has been his wife’s lover, that heandshe have often
discussed him disparagingly together, and that
Weihgart's wife is as fully convinced of bis
complete nullity as his old friend Rademacher.
The scene is acted before us in a sort of dress
rehearsal of it with Schubart, a young actor dying
also in the hospital of consumption; yet when
Weihgart comes something touches Rademacher,
and he feels he can no longer do it. What that
something is is conveyed to us with extreme
delicacy and subtlety by Mr. Beveridge. It is
not exactly pity for Weihgart andthe confessionhe
makes of the insecurity of his position owing to the
persistency with which the new generation are
knockingathis door. Ibis, one feels, a combination of
elements, and chief among them the recollection
of the day when they were friends, and the desire
of dying with some purer feeling in his heart than
that of gratified revenge. So Weihgart goes, with
his belief in his wife intact, and Rademacher dies,
a better man than probably he ever lived. Acted
asit was, by Mr. George Trollope as Schubart and
by Mr. Rudge Harding as Weihgart, “ In the
Hospital! created a considerable impression and
is very well worth seeing.
Ins“ How He Lied ta ### ## ar
in the case of bounty-fed sugar, and he considers the
results tobe admirable. We may conclude that, if he got
the mandate he desires at the coming election, he would
proceed next to practisc on steel-billets which are sup¬
posed to be sold below cost price here because they
are tariff-protected abroad. The Providence which watches
over Free Trade has happily, in the interval, enabled us to
gauge the probable results from practical experience.
We are not the least surprised that in these circum¬
stances Mr. Bazrouk’s party should be very restive about
the Fiscal question or that Mr. Bauroun himself should be
endeavouring by all possible means to change the issue.
Nevertheless, the letter in which he tells the Unionist
candidate for Buteshire that the issue at the next election
will be—not Fiscal Reform, but—Home Rule is really
atrifle too audacious. The MacDonnell incident is not
yet a weck old, and the public do not forget that
the suspected Home Ruler is still Permanent Under¬
Secretary for lreland, and that the Ministers who have
flirted with “projects of Home Rule,' as Mr. Batrouk
himself called them, are still members of the Govern¬
ment. It is not for us to say whether Mr. Bazrouk is
wise or otherwise in thus condoning this incident, but, if
he decides to do so, his efforts to beat up prejudice against
his opponents on the Irish question will simply exeife
laughter. But this, like everything else, is perfectly well
understood by his own partv as another piece of his
peculiar strategy against the Chamberlainites. Vesterday
brought the letter from the Chief Conservative Whip.
oronouncing the Fiscal question to be no test of Unionist
oyalty; to-day brings a letter from Mr. Bauroun declar¬
ng that the Irish question and no other is to beithe test
it the next election. This concerns Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
nuch more than it concerns the Liberal Party, and we
are not surprised to learn that these final proceedings
have angered the Chamberlainites without allaying the
suspicions ofthe Free Traders. Mr. Baxroun will probably
make a bolt back into the Chamberlain camp next week,
but surely it is time for the Unionist Party to take the.
matter into its own hands and to save its dignity by.
accepting the inevitable appeal to the country.
A TRIPLE BILL AT THE COURT THEATRE.
It is one of the mysteries of Theatre-land that the great success
of the original“ triple bill'' of modern times produced a very
small crop of imitations. Speaking as a person of experience in
theatrical matters, 1 shouid say that no entertainment would have
so great a chance of success in the present troubled times as a
triple bill. The new programme of the Scart Theatre consists
of three interesting pieces, nonc, I tear, quite of sufficient import¬
ance to produce any very great success. Certainly we spent a
very agreeable afternoon —agreeable with mixed pleasures. The
affair began with Mr. Veats’s play“ A Pot of Broth,“’ given not
long agb at the Royalty Theatre. It is entirely anecdotal, and
very diverting on a first hearing; by way of reminder, one may
mention that it tells of a trick played by a hungry tramp upon
the uncharitable wite of a small farmer. Mr. Robert Pateman,
a versatile actor of great ability, too rarely seen of late in London,
gave an admirable humorous performance as the tramp, and if it
must be hinted that he acted a little too much to the audience tliere
is a fair excuse in the fact that he had to begin with a long
soliloquy.“ In a Hospital, by Arthur Schnitzler, translated by
Christopher Horne—item No. 2—is a curious, rather audacious
experiment in play-making. It is difficult exactly to point out in
what it is novel; perhaps, indecd, its only novelty lies in the fact
that the author has attempted to give subtleties and fine shades
beyond the range of drama. As the title suggests, the play passes
in the ward of a hospital. The central figure is Rademacher, an
elderly journalist, dying of something with an unmentioned Latin
name, ### bad luck and failure, Asort of friendship exists
betwcen him and Florian Schubart, a consumptive actor, wio,
though within eight days of death, has the typical optimism of
the consumptive and is making eager plans for the future.
Rademacher is sitting in a chair facing the audience throughout
the play, and to me perhaps the chief interest in the matter lay
in the cxtraordinary play of light and shadow upon the rugged
face of Mr. Beveridge, the actor, who presented some superh
studies. The dying journalist has an intense longing to see
Weihgart, a successful rival of whom he is hideously jealons.
His repulsive dying wish is to humiliate tlie man who has done
him no wrong by telling him that his wife has been faithless;
mn
ran
S
10