New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-11-22
THE PLAY OF CONSTANCE" "
LETTER FROM MR. ROBERT BUCHANAN.


alarye n,riioa of your space to criticism, which
not only trencaant but kindly; and II, wni'e
acknowledging his generosity to my work III g'"-
oral take leave to reply to fcw OF the questions
no puts 10 me by way Of animadversion let IL DC
understood that | do so in his own liberal ana
friendly spirit.
"Whyv he first asks, "shonld Constance Mt once
believe a story preudcial to the man she loves
Why does she not ask him to explain it' WY
sbonld she give him IN even il she believes it "
Why has she lived so long with her grandmotnc.
without perceiving her treacherous character
And why should sh. marry the rich Duke, whom
she loathes y
The answer TO all this is very simple. Constance
believes her grandmother's story because It's 'eri-
smilitnde is complete, because every circumstance
of it comedies with her knOwledg, OF her own iai-
ily history. She knows there has been enmity De-
tween her blood relations aud those OF her couS'n'
aud that her mother has died partly in consequence
She does not ask Frank to explain, because II is
pcrfectIy clear that his knowledge of the facts is
AZ limited as her own. Her grandmother is por-
trayed a a nature warped by family quarreis, pi'
not otherwise gentle 1t is only indeed when she
finds that Constance is going to marry the son oi oi
own mortal enemy that she resorts to treachei
GUS evaporation of the truth. Surely, any sensi'e
girl however deeply in love- would SHRINK iro'h
uniting herself with the of the man who hai rs
she believed caused her mothers DEATH The natura
consequence OF her despair is that Constance Is read
ily hurried into marriage with another suitor' not
because she loves him. but because she feels that
her first love is hopecss-that never, under any
circumstances, can she b. rec to marry the hIl
she really loves. do not defend the weakness of
my heroine simply describe her as acting Is
Young women, under impulses of msconception'
act every day.
A ain. vonr critic writes "Why should the Duke
devise a snare to dishonor his own wif,' Why
should the snare succeed, when simple explanation
would have defeated it! Why, above all, should
the lover having been ruthlessly repslled. come
back again to the woman who had thrown nm
overt Why should his friend let him remain III ig-
norance that Constance is marriedf"
The Duke already tired of his bargain ana
suspicious that she is communicating with her ola
lover desires to bring the two together under sus-
picous circumstances, and test, by the result inc
extent of his wlfe's passion for his rival. No ef
PLANTATION is possible az neither wife nor lover Is,
cognizant of the nature of the device. what tol'
lows is not of the DukSs dcvising, but the acci-
dental result of the situation. The lover returns 10
Constance because long absence and suffering have
deepened his old affection, and made him regret his
100 hasty remuneration. The friend. i'll the excite
ment of his temperance. shrinks from informing
HIM of facts which he knows he must learn inne'
dlatelv from the lips of the person most directly
concerned.
Two other questions of your critic may he an
swcred briefly. The long delayed vengeance OF
Fererdl is the most natural thing IN the Nofld.
Eteal whose wife has been betrayed by the Duke
first plots to hnmiata his master by betraying ms
,rf. through the fundamentally of the old lover
f,,1 10 nlghr1s at
her husband. and adopts q different aud more
deadly scheme of revenge. (2 Frank Hariowe car
riea hs arm IN sling because he Ia suffering from
the wound Of u poisoned asscgni. In the region of
tho left lung aud heart have high surgical al.
thotv for the abatement that such wound would
partially naralyso tho left agn, and that msrcoyof
ihr Ho Of tho nnii arm would be- irritating o. such
"A wound aud dangerous, Asa matter of Himple
fact the patient. while still suffering from tho
body wound ,coaM carry his arm IN n support.
II seems almost childish to offer Theses explann-
lions for IL | have constructed my play properly
they should be quite unnecessary. Doubtless, IN
the excitement of somewhat hasty first production
many points were missed both in dialogue and sit
nation and thus certain points became obscursd
and Others seemed Irrelevant AS for your critic $
general estimate of the play especially far rs It's
literary qualities are concerned, IL in almost too
friendly Constance makes no pretence to being
a lofty work of art Ii ia mclodrama of situation
IN which fine writing is carefully avoided. That
one SO competent as yOur critic, and so admired for
his own poetic gifts should find in 1t any merit as
piece of literature is striking proof OF his en-
deayor to be generous to brother man OF letters.
and a stranger
shoald hardly have troubled him. therefore,
with these explanations if had not desired at the
same time to touah on question which Affects
dramatic art generally. There seems to be a gem
eral impression on the minds of English writing
critics that the drama is a great moral agent ana
that its ethics are to be determined by the wishes
OF a sort of Critical if not Christian, Young Mems
Association More than one writer. in treating of
Constance" is highly indignant that Frank Har-
lore does not exhibit superhuman self-restraint;
that having been entced to the boudOir of his old
sweetheart, he utters any words of passion. Now,
NAV be a very poor dramatist, but endeavor as
far as possible in all my works not to create mere
m.nsters of virtue inst as aim in writing modern
dialogue to avoid those very flights of easy rhet-
oric which the press SO much admires Frank Hdr-
ore and his cousin are yo. 2 man and a young
woman of tolerably common typo; and they act,
think very much as such persons do in real liic
A French dranatIst treating such compile would
have Ovcr-accentuated their passion-and 1t womb
be better to do than to represent them as inpos-
sibly virtuous creatures moving in an atmosphere
Of moral platitudcs
1t is an old cry that the ethics of the English
drama provincial aud commonplace. They VIII
remain 81, contend. long criticism is sterco-
typed and rectangular. The hero of modern play
is exp cted to be mposslbly good, as a contrast 10
the villain. who Is mpossibIy bad; he must be all
hcroism and all sweetness and light, If no Is Z"
utter those beautiful sentiments which tickle the
~ l.. 81. nann
ner heroine must be impOssibly viz
tnous, proof against every species OF temptation
In the days when we had a drama, such IDEAS were
unknown the playwright not ethical, save III
the oftiest sense of the adjective; and dramatists
a,,.out a., dcaIiuy vit yr.,t ,aasious. to