New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-01-20
MIR. HENRY JAMES.
THE TRUE STORY OF THE PRODUCTION
OF GUY DOMvILLE IN LONDON. OF
THE SCENE WHICH OCCURRED ON
THE FIRST NIGHT. AND OF
THE SECOND PERFORMANCE.

way that Mr. Henry Jamess new play, Guy
Domville" produced at the st. James's Theatre
In London. January 5. had been i'll received on
the first night. There had been of those
demonstrations which make a first night what is
called stormy. The author and Mr.. Alexander
the manager had been called before the curtain
at the end of the play. and Kissed at and hooted
The audience. some part of it, was angry and
the whole fortune of the evening, if you believed
the cable story, had been nothing but misfortune.
II seemed little odd. Mr.. James is hardly the
man to offer a wanton provocation to the London
public or to write play which should contain
elements of deep offence. Mr.. Alexander is one
OF the most popular and successful managers in
London. What was the meaning of it all?
Letters arriving from London this morning put
a different coloring the matter The account
by cable was in part accurate but was very
imperfect account | saw only the short general
dispatch There may have been others. but OF
this which / nothing harsher need be salo
than that it was incomplete. and therefore mis-
leading. The truth perhaps. but not the whole
truth. and in the of an author'-aho an
American author-so distinguished as Mr. Henry
Jaues the American public may like to hear the
whole truth as II comes out very clearly in the
private letters brought by the Britannia. and two
at least of the printed accounts Of the first night
those of "The Daily Telegraph and The west
minister Gazette" does some justice both to MI
James and to that portion of the audience which
did its best to wreck his play. But Will quote
chiefly from private accounts.
Let us take first that part of the narrative
which confirms the cable story. will call my
correspondents A. and b. and c. A. writes;
The last act was listened amid boots and
ieers and various insulting remarks from the
gallery and upper boxes and when the curtain
fell there kissing and hooting and grooming
which the applause of the large majority could
not overwhelm.
Perhaps | had better explain that the writers
of the letters use sat. one in the stalls. one in
the pit and one in the upper boxes. Together,
therefore they were in positions to know what
was really going on in all parts Of the house
They will tell each his or her own story and you
will Judge whether they were or not competent
observers They are all Americans. A con-
tinues.-from the upper boxes:
There were some twenty men or more in the
gallery and as many in the upper boXes-the
veriest roughs. who could not possibly nave
paid four shillings for their seats. Each set had
a leader at whose signal they began TO boot. etc
/ watched them the whole evening and even
before the play had begun was sure that some
thing was wrong and before the evening was
over il clear that the row was prearranged
and organized. and with considerable Skill
Drinks seemed to have been served Freely 70
these particular men. They went out between
the acts and came back a little less sober each
time. Besides one or two remarks which they
made among themselves left. think no doubt
az all. The hooting and jeering came only from
these two bodies OF me1
c., writing from the pit. says that in the pit
there was not a sound Of anything but cheering
and enthusiasm except when they called out
'clear the gallery" throw them OUT shame.
etc. But. he adds. "the applause Of the whole
house could not silence the cacalls OF some forty
rowdies." All the disorder. therefore.-for it is
not suggested that the people in the stalls took
any part in it-came from the upper parts of the
house. What called the upper boxes are
really seats in second or third circle The GAL
lery is next to them. and the accomplished tacu-
clans who planned this campaign understood the
value of concentrating their forces and directing
their attack from single point or from two
points close together They understood. also
the value Of contrast b, who was in the stalls
writes:
First there was a little farce which ordinarily
would have attracted very little attention espe-
cially from a night audience. but when the curtain
fell on IT, there was a storm OF applause from
certain part Of the gallery and upper circle, ana
there were continued shouts for the author
which could not be hushed. Finally the author
OF the farce astonished and dazed. came forth
Mrs H. w. who sat with us SAID. / don me
that 1t looks very queer and ominous II gave
you feeling OF uneasiness which increased with
every moment and eliminated at the beginning
of the last act. The whole Of that act was inter-
rupted by the most awful hooting from this same
part Of the gallery. When the curtain fe!l,
though the great volume Of applause drowned
for while the yells the roughs were so deter
mined that the decent majority could not hold
out against them ] think they might have II
they had seen what was meant. but Englishrnen
are never quick enough and did not know what
10 do
The final scene Is thus described by A.:
In to the loud and repeated and pro-
ionged cries for the author. Mr. James came FOR
ward with Mr.. Alexander and then for one mo-
ment think the cheering did manage to get the
upper hand. But the Jeers soon broke out again
People were perfectly amazed. for even had the
play been unsuccessful there was nothing TO boot
At IT was mounted exquisitely and acted by
Alexander and Marion Terry splenddly even for
them. People were all saying that the play itself
was beautiful and dainty; written perhaps with
n subtlety and grace too good for the crowd.
could well imagine that the pit and gallery might
not have cared for all this delicacy of handling
but the insulting remarks were impossible to ex-
plain. All those sitting near me said the same
thing.
Another friend writes that his servants came
back from the theatre with a similar account
Mr. Alexander, | hear. had a sort Of warning;
telegram with best wishes for a complete fall
ure" To this ne paid no attention. though It was
the first Of the kind ne had ever received. Since
then he has had piles Of letters mostly
anonymous. but all hintlng at the same thing.
This is English testimony SO is Mr.. Clement
Scots Mr. Scott is man with much Difference
for the majority and disposed to grant that 1t
may pour out any amount Of derisive execraton
on anybody who fails to please IL. But he calls
this IAN ungenerous storm Of Misrepresentation
the work OF NOISY minority" He protests in
good set terms against the dscOurtesy shown by
this noisy minority to author or Exquisite
tact and rare talent" He contrasts IL with the
treatment English author would have re-
ceived in America. There says Mr.. Scott,
"they do not call out an unsuccessful author To
hiss him. They fold their tents like the Arabs and
silently steal away If they have lost an evening