The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-11-25
DIVORCE and The DRAMA.
EaRNEsTNESs AND ARTIFICE IN
"THE NEW IORht IDEA"
Tas D~aushtegs Of Neo'' UnItes Labor and
CapitaI-.A riay OG Uneven Quality. but
sincere aud strong Charles Klein
AGAIN an OpIImIst RccOnciIcr.

Y aNN
AGAIN an OptimIst N
II is n curious fact that those who recog-
nized most generously the brilliancy Ut
The New York Ides--Laugdon Mitchelrs
new vehicle for Mrs. Fiske almost without
exception described il as cynical n
vulgar II IL curious-and perhaps not
without significance. In contending. as L
feel obliged 10. that this satire on divorce
IL least Of all cynical and vulgar, ! certainly
have an Interior meaning as will presently
| hope, appear.
Mr.. Mitchell is chastiSinG morals with "A
jeer-or sundry Latin a. that effect. II
he did not see his subject with a hard
eye for truth. a mind stripped Of any illusion
of sweetness in II no would cease TO be u
~satirist. II is precisely in order not to
he cynical and vulgar-prsy pardon the
harmless. necessary p~latitude-that be IL
Obliged 70 handle his divorced folk without
cloves; and it is merely amazing that any
one could fail to recognize as the essence
II his sparkling lines and his drolieries OF
situation the keen II subtle fangs OF moral
~reprobatiou. What other explanation for
this characterization of tho American
woman as a shallow, vain and brilliant
pea-hen? Whence the eulogies OF the
vomanly woman, the homely home, the
family of five?
IL the play sins. IL is not against whole
some decency but against art.
The trouble is not merely that hailed IN
that u~nacoountsble region, the road, as a
brilliant comedy which placed its author
among the foremost of modern American
playwrights. IL turned out TO be rather
showroom and farcical-even fantastic TO
the verge Of burlesque. Mr.. Mitchell him.
self describes il not as a comedy. but AZ "a
play." Farce and fantasy have their legit-
innate sphere in the drama, but by the
same token they have their necessary re
Iations TO the essential truths of
existence. The real trouble Is that a a
rppresentation Of life, whether in comedy,
farce or extravaganza, or all by turns, the
whole thing 10 not only untrue, but deub-
erately, wilfully false-false to Its general
uiIieu. and false in its individual charac-
teri ations.
WHY is divorce called the New York idea?
Almost a generation ago in Catholic France
Sarlou 81 covered il as a theme for ~tarcical
satire in "Divorcons," and quite lately he
returned TO IL in the play which we call
THE Love Letter. Even in America
divorce is not limited TO OF especially char
acteristic of any one city or section. | am
no statistician, but it happens TO be true
that Chicago leads the metropolis in this
matter and Massachusetts, the Empire
state. In point of fact, there is only one
state in which the divorce laws are more
strict thar in Now York, and the States
are very few where they are anywhere
- -. RI 1885 .nwaVa .htph
contained the accounts of Mr.. Mitchells
play contained also the reports of the doings
OF the convention of the Episcopal diocese
OF Albany, in which Bishop Doane declared
Il quote a ~headline-that Divorced Who
Wed Again Flaunt Sim" while columns
we're tillel with the protests OF metropolitan
c,ergymen against Mrs. ParSons's little
book on The Family recommending ex-
perimental marriages. or all the churches
In New York, The Little Church Around the
Corner has the reputation OF the most
genuine catholicity in marriages, but its
rule against remarrying divorced people
ia rigid and unsltersble. Any one who did
not know Mr.. Mitchell would be likely 10
conclude that his title was a bit of fashy
meretricious advertising. In this day of
social scandal mongering the idea Of New
York ia an idea to c~onjure with.
Doubtless Mr.. Mitchell would retort that
the justification Of his title lies in the very
prominence Of exclusive New York society
and the much advertised matrimonial shifts
Of some Of its most eminent eXemplars.
Let us grant the fact. To justify the de-
duction from it it is necessary that the play
shall be a faithful transcript Of the general
conditions in the limited set il deals with
faithful at least in the way Of farce and
fantasy. But what of this clergyman who
has Just preached a sermon in favor Of
divorce? There is nothing final in life.
he says and as he believes in the immortal
Ivy Of the soul IL follows that there is nothing
final in death. If in the works Of the Crea-
tor there is nothing final, why should there
be in matrimony. which is a human ~institu-
zion? / confess TO even less interest in
sermons than in statistics. but in view Of
the recent and formal announcements Of
the Episcopal authorities such a doctrine,
issuing from black wsistcoat and choker.
is not only unit, ely but impossible. The
play is as false to New Y crk in particular
as il is in general.
Throughout there is this same lsxity
in the drawing of character. Sir WHfred,
TeCentls ldnueui IBllS IN lONe at elRnJ WIN
both DIVORCES. and proposes to both while
they are in the same room, not troubling
TO keep si' her in the dark as TO his addresses
to the other. or even as to which of the two
be prefers. Granted the touch Of ex-
aggeration. 1t is funny enough; but what
is one to say when SIR Wafred intersperses
his lovemaking with a eulogy Of the Eng
tsh pre- collection for five children? The
sapposed prediction, that is; for in point
of fact England has fallen in line with
france and America in this matter of race
suicide. As the imposslbly advanced
clergyman became the impossible vehicIe
OF MT. Mitch, lis satire so the impossibly
amorous baronet becomes the mouthpiece
Of his morality. All thought OF the in
tegr.ty Of character is thrown 10 the winds.
ar 1 with II, Of course, all vitality-even
the lesser vitality requisite for farce.
Il IS N a sIbtler manner that the heroine.
Cynthia (sirs. FlsSei lacks truth and vi
tally, but the effect is none the less dam.
aging The vh,le action OF the plsv de-
penis upon the sJppostion that ~he j.
sinceTely in love with her husband: vet
sue he iivorced him after seven months