The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-09-09
PLAYS BY PINERu AND JONES.
am AN INTEREsTTNG COMEDY
NJ 4 YOUNG AMERICAN.

" r., up-ta .asa
MAs'ers-Ine ~, -,
A'o !" ""'"'
The two plays. by Pinero and Jones,
which nave signalized the opening Of the
dramatic season are an obvious example
to COMPUTE the often repeated statement
that the school OF English drama is on the
deEIine. vet. without pushing subtlety to
M lan0th oS sophistrv. thew NAV be held
10 confirm il. Both treat themes Of large
caiibre and high order adequately, and with
technical mastery or something approach
inx n. and both are signal popular successes.
Va both. and eepeciaIly Mr.. Jones's THE
Hypocrites," bark back at times 20 the
manner Of the early and immature days
Of the school, and both are q retrogression
from thei r authors previous best.
- ,
from the days Of Saints and Sinners"
Mr. Jones has delighted to hold up to scorn
the puritanic and stodgy self
Righteousness OF the British public; and his
fa1orite toll IL the fate Of an uncommonly
innocent and large hearted girl who has
been betrayed. Sometimes, az in the pres
ont play, his attitude toward those who
Condemn her utterly has been passionateiy
setious and bitterly satirical. Sometimes,
notably in Withdrawing Julia he has
masked his seriousness in the comedians
arpor Of laughter. It may be, as has often
BEEN alleged, that the serious and moral
Mr.. Jones is the real Mr.. Jones; but l
cannot help thinking hat he is at his best
asa playwright when he detaches his per-
sopality n wells 1t behind the gau1e OF
light hearted laughter. -- o.,
After all, is the maiden betrayed and
-LL-1---l 1870 -A-AA -..-L 49,
pathetic, earnest and prolonged regards'
Matthew Arnold, speaking OF that very
play OF Saint and Sinners ventured to
say tina she was not-in the very face OF
Fcusfs Margaret, whom he cited. Only
afew years ago Bronson Howard proclaimed
q similar opinion with delicious directness
n conviction, though he did not venture
to call Goethe to book. To his mind the be-
trsyed girl was a @fool girl" who might
appeal to sentimental sympathies, but
who was, one gathered, a sort OF infants
food OF the drama, insuficiently nourish-
ing to the sinews OF the intellect. Mr.. How
ard added that the clipping wife was only
the more recent incarnation Of the fool girl.
With one and the same blast Arnold swept
of the boards the dramatic masterpiece
Of the beginning Of the nineteenth century
ana dOWAI0 the Cllet SIOCk IN LTAu6 Oh I06
drama OF its close.
That is a large order; but 1t may be re-
membered that dramatists of this terres-
trial sphere had got along pretty well with
out enlisting sympathy for the fool girl,
married or single, through t~wenty-four
centuries. Old Eschylus gave us OIytem-
Hsstyd, the adulteress and murdsress, but as
a villainess. not as q heroine. Euripides,
A. n.- al sA-
gave us Phedrd, prey to desires at ono
adulterous and i~ncestuous, but made her
sin one Of the mind alone, and visited upon
IL the full penalty Of the moral law. Goethe
would apparently rave IN believe that
OpAelid wa a sort OF earlier MdrOGret;
but Goethe was clearly wrong. There is
no evidence that Hamlet shared the weak
ness of Faust, and much that he did not.
That very song about Saint Valentines
Day, the last stanza Of which chaste modern
actors cut. shows the elder attitude toward
lovely woman when she stoops to folly.
To the hero OF the song, and doubtless, also;
to the author OF it. and to Shakespeare. the
heroine had quite properly lost her look
IN at the matrimonial stakes. A very strong
case can be made out against those Who
seek to enlist approvfnxneympathy for the
TOOL RlEl. i GU uOuDLltsS ATDDlu ana DEOn-
son Howard were wrong, like most trainers
of. the al!uring universal negative. Their
dicta sweep from the board at a single
stroke human frailty and human passion.
IL one must lay down thelaw in generalities
the saying OF Terence is more TO the pur-
pose. As long az we are men nothing human
f. alien to us, in life or on the stage.
Ii MAY still be true, however, that Mr..
Jones is on tirmer ground when he makes
the fool girl the subject, not OF emotional
drama, even though IL has a s~atirical bent,
but of purely intellectual comedy. Tho
matter Of Judas m~organatic marriage and
her duff box are unexplained because they
are unexplainsble, and her whitewashing
IL a mere RIoriication Of the Ia quoQue.
Her linen energies clean by comparison
With that Of her accusers, which she shows
to be blacker. One sympathizes With her,
but more with the sympathy Of the intel
lect than OF the heart. In the world OF fool
ciris and fool men-the Comedians world
she Is charming. Pc
Charming. Rachel NeeUe IL not, and, what
ia more to the purpose, she is not, or 40 IL
seems to me. a figure Of any deep emotional