The times., 1899-02-05
IT'S MANY coMrAN1oNs AT THE COLUMBIA

who had known the animal prior to his
demise. but may also serve as a warning
to those who might attempt to work
after the model of their fellow crafts
| man. Accordingly
The most notable trouble with "a Dog in
the Manger,' as was stated in these COL
umns on Tuesday morning, came from
the fact that it was neither one thing nor
! another, and still less between the two.
In commendable effort to get away from
the vaudeville vehicles he had been writ
ing for SO long. Mr.. Hoyt introduced into
his presentation an element of intense Sc
riousness that was not only unseemly, but
| weighty and maudln as we'll. The dra-
matte portions of his comedy contained
none of the real force achieved by men like
Augustus Thomas or of the strength noted
in such works ASIA Fool of Fortune" /"
but rather the strained sensationalism of a
Frank Harvey with the preposterous
grounding familiar to intelligent readers of
such classics as Diamond Dick of the
| Rockies His pure farce, on the other
| hand, was limited in quantity and quality
delegated tosa few brief scenes and par
| taking then of q slap-stick and seltzer-
bottle order. The satire was on a subject
that has been more successfully ironized
| by men like Basil Food. and the specially
| setting afforded by the piece lacked bril-
! lance. With all these elements jumbled
up together, "A Dog in the Manger' was
not the peer Of any one of the Hoytian
triumphs most famous for their possession
| of its chief poiats-of "a Midnight Bell
or "A Texas Steer or "A Bunch of Keys
or "A Milk White Flag
A sadder case of an effort being neither
soup, meat, salad has never been seen
| here The story-of the woman who mar
ried man for his money and who learned
| after his death that he had left her his
fortune only on condition that she remain
single-who was deserted by her suitor
| upon making this discovery. and finally
| espoused the chap with whom her hus-
| band had entrusted the fund as a safeguard
| that she be not welded for it, contained
| all the elements of sensational drama. II
! did not even descend to the serio- comic
| stage marked in "A Temperance Town -
! and was, accordingly. only false and alb
| surd. George Broadhurst and William Gil
! lette turn from power to pathos and back
again to humOr without bad results, but
| Charles Hoyt cannot do this. The scene
| in which the good fellow rescued the wife
| of his friend from uncertain death in a
| calm and gentle appearing cave was SO
ridiculous that one could not be more
| amused when the two followed this incl
| dent with love scene founded on the
| you saved me-e-ee" idea.
| The farccal element was treated in
much better shape. Plenty of opportunity
| for good, wholesome fun lay in the char
| acter of the woman who always hiccoughed
when she was excited. and who had TO he
| scared out of her malady. Most of these
| chances were taken up by the author and
! well handled. although the idea of making
| the sufferers husband kneel down and
! bark like dog in an effort to cure her
was essentially weak for second dact eli
| max. Mr.. Hoyt did not appear at his best
| in his effort to satirize summer hotels,
| patent medicines and other things. The
old vein of Wit and the Dickens-like under
| standing OF what lay under pompous dis
| play-traits that once enabled him to
| mahe audiences laugh at u funeral-were
| altogether missing in any OF his Dog in
| the Manger" attempts at irony. And the
| go-as-y -you-please, don 't-stop- to- think order
of fun that carried his later offerings
from specially to specially was also decid-
| edly lacking.
| Summed up, there was hardly anything
in the piece that could have made it a
| success. Even the omission of three
| fourths of the matter employed and the
| consequent retention of just one form OF
| play would have left that one as were the
| rest-cumbersome and clumsy. None OF
| the stories introduced in the comedy bore
| any possibilities whatever and even the
/
throughout in their disconnected state
proved stupid and, if not conventional, GER
tainly sans merit. What had already been
| a bad tangle was further mixed by the
| looseness of the cords holding these cpi-
sodes TO the main plot and the careless
ness with which the central idea was
| handled Even the lines lacked ut
terly the wit which used to be so notable in
Mr.. Hoyt's offerings. his old-tiIne inge-
nuity in devisiBg lsughable names for his
| characters having been so completely lost
that often one could not find his meanings
until the designations had been distorted
| in pronunciation.
| And so there was every reason for the
passing of "A Dog, in the Manger" and
| none whatever TO expect anything else OF
it. The play brings 10 view another ex-
ample of the fact that the best of men can
come into the ring once too often" It's
too bad, but it's true
The initial production of "a Dog in the
Manger'' on Monday night at the Lafay-