The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-10-28
MRS. WHARTON DRAMATIZVS.
SAD BEGINNING AND UNHAPPY
ENDING LILY BART"

..The DyouSe ~ MIrth" A. Novel and
Piay -DramatIsatIOn as Distinguished
From Drama -FutIIty ami Dramatic
Effect Viola Allen and "Cymbciine."
n ever the little gods Of impish fate had
nocasion for diaboliC laughter II was when
Mrs. Wharton unG took to put The House
~ Mirth" upon the stage. No one has
ever stood more firmly for artistic integ-
ritv. No one has poured "A more acid satire
upon the banalitie5 Of the happy ending
81 popul1r art: no one has greeted with
mere biting laughter the apt combination
Of vulaaritv and virtue which makes the
typacql best seller. Then a move Of her
own became popullr-a best seller.
Manifestly this was without provision
or calculation Of any sort. Mrs. Wharf
ton wrote the truth az she saw II,
pitilessly. even with a touch OF mordant
pessimism. That the few who appreciate
finished literary art should like the book
was a foregone conclusion. But who could
have foreseen that the populace Of the
colorful SUNDAY supplement, the hungry
s~cavengers Of social gossip. would deVour
the story Of Lily Bdrt-so drably sordid TO
the superficial view and poignantly tragic
only to the eve Of inner divinations We
know the secret now. Those who had
hlngered and longed from u distance were
delighted. were appeased. TO find that the
grapes were sour. Mrs. Wharton. speak
ing from the very trellis OF the arbor, SAID
80. and preachers everywhere sermonized
this new version Of an antique gospel. by
a sardonic freak Of chance the novelist
had produced the effect Of vulgarity com
bined with virtue.
nh. 49,. % a. nv,n irFnaiGfi hIa lnRlH OF
fate. her novel was slated for dramatization.
How things ever came to this dolorous pass
have no knowledge. Perhaps Mrs. Whar-
ton will some day describe for us in a patho-
logical story the workings of the microbe OF
popularity. What | do know is that she
maintained 10 the bitter end the attitude
of artistic integrity. She nominated in the
bond that there was to be no pandering to
weak prejudice. The austerities of Lily
Rnrts high tragedy we're not to be sacrificed
either to the artifice of the happy ending or
90 the romantic s en timentalitie of a Camille
like death. As she herself expressed 1t. the
result Of her collaboration with Mr.. Fitch
WAS not to be a drama, but a DECENTRALIZATION.
The book, not the play, was the thing.
And 50 it has proved. Human ingenuity
would be bafled in getting more of a book
upon the boards and less of a play. Hence
the universal tears that we're shed at the
first performance here. and the all but uni
versal obiurgations. A lucid, a powerful
novel, instinct with the neutral c~olorings
OF life and inspired by the subtlest and most
poignant tragedy, was turned into a tedious
futilhy.
The printed page and the playhouse, it
should hardly be necessary to point out,
are distinct and separate media-two stools
invitingly placed for a tumble. Any one
who has a philosophic and practical grasp
of this difference may possibly turn some
novels into plays. A story which, centres
in any clear struggle of wills, focusing
naturally into a few crucial scenes, may be
transmitted to the requirements OF the
medium dramatic manifest logic and sharp
positive action. The House of Mirth" is
not such a story. The primary source Of its
power is not in any salient character or
scene, but in a picture of society more
infinitely detailed than the stage admits Of,
and on a broader canvas. That Mrs.
Wharton should be unaware Of the hope
lessness Of her attempt is p~ardonable,
though strange. That Mr.. Fitch should
make such a blunder is nconceivable
The story Of LiIy Bart, in fact, is not merely
undramatic; it is the precise negation OF
drama. The soul of her is, as Mrs. Wharton
has charmingly and explicitly shown us, so
starved and enfeebled by its environment
ss 10 be unaware of itself, or at best dis
mayed at the first feeble cropping of its own
. life. This is the origin of her tragedy, and
the crises of her defeat are a series Of re-
peated utilities, abortions. Now, the one
thing certain about the drama is that II
never has and never can centre in feeblenesS
and futility.
One great example may be cited against
this dogma no less than Hamlet, Primo,
OF Denmark. Ever since the days OF Goethe
and Wilhelm McisteT it has been the custom
to regard Shakespeare's greatest hero a
the victim of weakness and vacillation
A beautiful, pure, noble and most mora
nature, without the strength Of nerve which
makes the hero. sinks beneath a burden
which it can neither bear nor throw of
$50 How he winds, turns, agonizes
advances and r~ecOils, ever reminded, eve
reminding himself, and at last almost lose
his purpose from his thoughts, withou
ever again recovering his peace OF mindl
No account of a dramatic hero was eve
more convincing, or more incomplete
Hamlet is all of this, but only in his mood
Of philosophic dependency. At ever
dramatic crisis OF the play, and 10 pla
was ever more richly furnished with dra
matte crises, he is acutely, even powerfully
active. He is prompt to seek out the spiri
OF his lead father, and when he finds
he lays hands Of violence upon those VIII
seek to prevent him from following an
speaking to it. He wittily Stimulates mad
ness as the means OF disarming SUI
picion; he boldly devises the play With
the play to make manifest his uncle
gyilt. Once assured Of this he draws HI
sword to slay| the murderer at his prayer
and he holds of only to TAXI him at a tim
when hi may render his soul as damne
and black as hell" Finally he, achieves
revenge so complete and so sweeping tha
IN the words OF one Of the commentator
he converts the stage into a slaughter hous
In action he is supreme n ~triumphan
It is only his own soul that suffers defeat
therein lies the greatness Of his TRACED!
Al