New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-10-09
MR.. HOPKINS REPLIES
He Bitterly Resents the Critics Dis
approval of "Evangeline. "
To the Editor of The Tribune.


Sir: Smothered beneath an avalanche
OF rdicule and abuse. the most significant
theatrical production OF the last decade Is
threatened with a brief life in New YORK
and for an unprejudiced hearing must
take to the road. Were l the only sui-
ferer I would make no protest, but, De-
lieving the theatre of America 70 be more
deeply injured than myself, | am urged
by my regard for il TO come 10 the aid o.
an institution which has so few defenders
and so many assailants.
do not say that my production OF
Longfellow's "Evangeline" is either good
or bad. This is unimportant. l only claim
that the dramatic critics OF New YORK
proved themselves wholly unequal TO
their task when they attempted TO re-
port IL.
I base this claim on the fact that my
production was the first American pro-
duction ever offered in this city which
embodied the ideas Of the modern theatre
as they have been evolved and developer
in the most advanced theatres abroad.
Its entire method was a complete depart-I
ure from all the old school stage methooa
as they have existed with nonotonouS
persistency in the American theatre
brought TO view ideas that have comf
petely routed all the old traditions os
the theatre abroad, and which VIII soonsH
or later accomplish the same In America
On these grounds l reiterate that ina
production was the most significant OF
decade. This phase entirely escaped ever
New York critic. No ono or them ~ss
sufficiently observing or Informed 70 fe'l
alize that he was witnessing an inno'S
ton. Were a reporter IN any other 20.
partment Of a newspaper sent to cover
an important story and he missed 'S
chief point he would be discharged. put
since dramatic criticism In New forA
accounts to no one for either accuracy OF
capability. the critics may blunder "
their graves, and no newspaper editor
seems concerned as 10 the inadeQua'y Oh
that one department, though he Keep
watchful eye over all others. Amohs
newspaper proprietors surely the theau'
has few friends.
The entire attitude OF the critics wavers
between the utmost servility to"@1
one set OF producers and the most po'-
sonous venom toward others. For on'
producer they sit up long nights N a.
vance, scratching their heads for lauuS'
tory adjectives which they did not eA'
haust in their previous grovelllng reviews
Of this same mans former productions
Is there no element OF patriotism aiho"s
the critics? Did no one OF them ieei u'1.
there was something worthy In orihs"'
TO the stage a really American poem o'
beloved American poet?
The attacks on Miss Goodrich and 'h'
cast were Just as venomous and uneh-
lightened. We spent weeks in train'ns
our cast 10 sink all artihciality into suo'
dued suggestion, which seemed TO Us 40
the spirit OF the poem. Some critics wan
ed Evangeline TO be soubrette' othe"
tragedlenne Surely 1t would have oeeh
strange performance that had emp0o'''
their ideas. ~.
Even Longfellow had no standing WIZ
the critics. There has been an lihp'.
sion throughout the world that Lohsie
low was something OF poet anu 'A.'
"Evangellne' was not altogether pO'
boiler. This seems a mistake.
To hnd out just what Lonsle"o"
amounted to he needed only 10 be SUI.
mitted to the dramatic critics OF New
York for few minutes between drihh'
The tragedy of it all! When viii II emu
when will newspaper owners decide tns'
the theatre is a great influence that DC.
serves their help-when will they awaAea
to the fact that the American theatre
years behind the theatres OF Europe.
When will they realize that its greates,
handicap is silly witted. venomous anu
cringing dramatic criticism?
ARTHUR HOPkINa
New York, Oct. T. 1913.