The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1907-03-10

from his past record. Mr.. Faversham
VII surround himself with "A good com
pany, which Mansfield doesn't; and,
though he may not enrich himself. he
undoubtedly will enrich the English
speaking stage.
To return TO ny original text-"The
Plays inc Thil.g''-but not the whole
thing / recently received a very 1atter-'
ign letter from q lady 10 me unknown,
who has Just come from season in
the Inflated New Thcatcr. i'm Chicago,
where dramatic criticism in its true
sense is unknown" 1 want to protest
At once, and vigorously. against that.
II seems TO m there is no city in the
Union where dramatic criticism in a
trueT sense exists There are no more
conscientious critics in America than
James O'Donnou Bennett, OF the Chi
cago Record Herald. W. l.. Hubbard.
Of the Tribune; Burns Mantle, OF the
Inter-OcoaT: Percy HImmondg Of the
Evening Post, etc. etc. There are none
whose opinions read with greater in
tercst and with surer confidence in their
intelligent desire 70 do justice and 20
temper il with kindness. 1 have far
greater respect :Or Jimmie Bennetts
opinion than ! nave for my own, and il
/ ever think MS well Of my own judg-
ment. and my expression of it as 1 do
of his 1 shall be quite disgustinElv SELF
satisfied While i do not always honest
~ agree with his honestly expressed
views-wcll-the chances are I'm wTonS.
And as To- the New Theatcr'' i'm Chi
Cago. its fate was brought about not by
adverse criticism, but by bad manage
mcnt. The Chicago critics were all
kindly inclined 10 the scheme. They did
all they could 10 encourage Il. But as
the playgoers' true frieuds-and that
every dramati. critic aims TO be-they
were forced eventually TO admit that
said playEoeU was more likely To
, get his moneys worth elsewhere than
there II the trustees of the affair met
with bad faith where they had right
to expect loyal service, it was not from
/ the critic.
The scheme was really wrecked ON the
reefs of social jealousies. II IT, hadn't
been it would inevitably have gone
aground on the axiom that THE plays
! the thing" II produced in all twelve
plays: Engaged" 10y w. 5. Gilbert;
! The Great GaIeoto." by Echegaray;
: ''The Spoilers" by Rex Beach: The
Z sooll-lll-l W. Joy a N-A'- A-le-str ~
Pinero; Dora" by Sardou; "Trc Mas
qucradc." by Fulda; Mars CovinEtou.'
: by George AIDE; The Goal, by Henry
Arthur Jones Shades of Night" by
Marshall, and kerry 10y BouCiCault.
To be sure that's rather IniNture-Gil-
bertiau farce. Alaskan melodrama, Ger
man realism. and French comedy. Still,
! there were some whose production
should have aroused more than passing
! interest had the play indeed been the
thing and the whole thing. UHfortu-
( nateIy there were the players Those in
/ tcrcsted in the New ThcateI found il
/ impossible TO hire a really competent
| company. There were some thoroughly
capable members Of it, but with one or
I two exceptions the players We're com
/ parative nObodies.
There were many reasons for the brief
] righteousness Of the New Theater's ca
/ reer. Another day / hope to discuss
I them at greater length. Now. I merely
/ want with all gratitude for the assur-
ances of distinguished consideration OF
my work. to protest against the con-
| dcmnation of my Chicago brethren. and
I To- point out that at least one of the
determining factors in that failure was
/ too fixed faith in the theory that the
plays the thing-to the exclusion of the
players. NJ. Med.