The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-03-18
AUGUSTUS THOMAS, His CASE.
ALSO FRANCIS WILSON, ARTISTIC
AND MOUNTAIN CLIMBER.

III SHAW anu hHOmub HH6 UiuCuity
Of Saying NOthIng-Francis wilson and
Il; Joseph JefrersOn-A Good "Redskin."
The reason why the seven stars are no
moro than seven, though a very pretty
reason, was equally evident to a mad king
and q wise fool. The reason why Augustus
Thomas is no more than Augustus Thomas
Is as pretty and as plain, But there is
this difference, among others, between Mr..
Thomas and the Pleiades, that whereas
they have for a long time refused to be
eight, he has constantly given promise OF
exceeding himself. Once there was a rising
youth Of sixty Of whom it was said that no
man OF his generation had a more brilliant
future behind him.
Mr.. Thomas is still a long way on the
hither side Of the ether zone Of Osleriza-
ton; but none the less a few more years
like the present one of "De Lancey" and
sThe Embassy Ball" will bring his rosy
prom ise to the verge Of au~to-euthanasia.
It II not that these plays are hopeless-that
is the worst Of it. Quite the contrary, they
hold out the same old symbolic anchor
the mud hook Of better things firmly
grounded in the oyster bed Of the future.
It II quite as evident as ever that Mr.. Thomas
has only to work the capstan and the drama
10 bis bivalve, which his pen, 80 much might
Ter than the sword, can open. l.
There is no man now writing for the
American stage who has at his best a keener
eye for the %eccentrioities and foibles Of
human nature and a surer and more vital
touch In the portrayal Of character. When
de Lancey" was produced, it a remarked
that es regards brillianoy Of dialogue it
ranked with MAN and Superman," which
saw the lights OF Broadway a few days later.
The same may be said Of Lawrance
D'Orsay's new vehicle. 1t is probable, in
fact, that a strict account would show
that either Of Mr.. Thomas's pieces, to
use the current phrase, scores a greater
number OF laughs than Mr.. Shaw's. But
the fact remains that with critics and pub
no alike, both pieces are comparative fail
ures; and though neither has met with posi-
tive disaster, 1t Is pretty generally under
stood that both are successes by only a very
narrow margin. Man and Superman,"
meanwhile, ran to larger houses than either,
and for a longer time than both. The COM
parison is suggestive, because the differ
enoe between the two playwrights is, roughly
speaking, the difference between Thomas
as he performs and Thomas as he promises.
This is said with full knowledge of Mr.
Thomas's publicly recorded opinion that
Shaw is shallow and insincere. The opinion
is open to question wide. open; but for the
Of the present argument it is
perhaps as we'll to leave it open. Or rather
let us grant that all Mr.. Thomas has said
OF Mr.. Shaw is true. How account, then,
p. Az coaN chat aAHan A-I v
though less pointed in wit and less sincere in
intention, has been almost universally
admired and applaudedP Two answers
are possible. The first Is that Mr.. Shaw
succeeds in fooling all Of the public all of
the time-a possibility which the deep and
acute mind Of Lincoln discarded. The
second answer is that Mr.. Shaw has qualities
which are denied to Mr. Thomas, or which
denies to himself; and it may not be
impertinent to inquire what these may be.
One salient fact with regard to Man and
is that its author has something
to say. The romantic convention, handed
down from the days Of Goethe, Is that man
the pursuing animal, who strews his way
Of life with the dereliots Of trusting and
womanhood-the euig veibiiche,
which yet in the end somehow manages to
bis soul to the clouds of heavenly
bliss. Fdust has his way with Gretchen.
but when he dies his immortal part" is
dissolved from his immoral part. and is
borne on the heavenly elevator to the high
est summit, where the chastened penitent
Gretchen joyfully welcomes the fruits Of
Der sacrifice, while the chorus Of heavenly
chants
The ever womanly
e Lifts us above.
SRub6ishi" Jays Shaw In effect. SThe fact
u nature Is that woman is the pursuing
snimal, and marks down the man, be he
az l am, as fit sacrifice to her
Of peopling the world" One may
not take what he says very seriously, but
30 ono can deny that he has said something,
md that 1t is characteristic Of our own
lime, as Goethe was Of his.
The eeoond point Of difference is merely
,echnioal, though in effect no less important.
Shaw works out his idea with conscious
mastery In the essential terms Of the drama.
The statement that his mastery Is conscious
d sufficiently upheld by a passage In the
TO Candida: TO distil the
uuintessential drama from Pre-Raphaelism,
Dool0VAl or mOQern, IL uubC % SHOWN In
with the first broken, nervous,
attempts to formulate It's own
revolt against itself as 1t develops into
Iomething higher. . fThe vision for
which MGrehbdnks standsl offered me q
dramatic antagonist for the clear, bold.
ure, eansible, benevolent, salutarily short
Christian Socialist idealism the
embodied In MoreH. Brunetiere's
Illuminating definition Of the conflict Of
wills as the diferentia Of the drama has
never had a better ILLUSTRATION. In Man
md Superman' the dramatic struggle lie
conceived with equal adroitness as between
he life force OF Ann-Shaw's ~personi6oa-
ion Of race morality-and the anArohio
ndividualism Of Tanner. In both plays
/ Ia to be noted this dramatic struggle
centres in an idea. in a generaH2ed concept
II some phase Of life. In other words, the |
Intellectual and the technical concept are
me-. 1t would be interesting to inquire
some such wedlock Of Idea and
,echnique is not to be found in every drama
II the first order. This much, at least, can
70 said, that the two are powerful allies.
They are allies, however, Of which Mr. |
Thomas apparently does not know the ex-
1