New-York tribune., 1919-03-23
By Haywood Broun

Moeller is certainly dealing IN a
vein hitherto unknown in his work.
His "Moliere" is nothing if not tender.
Sometimes the quality seems to us
genuine, or practically so. and again it
is not quite right. But the factor
which won US over completely to the
new play at the Liberty Theatre was
the splendidly exciting second act.
Here the playwright devised an ex-
cellent dramatic situation and then de-
veloped it for all possible values.
This flair for the dramatic is also a
new quality in the theatrical writing
of Moeller. Hitherto his appeal has
depended almost entirely on his skill
at burlesque. This is an amusing and
important school Of drama, but it is
built over yawning pit. No man ever
wrote burlesque without thinking him
self satirist. And so he may be, but
it does not necessarily follow. In fact
the good burlesquer usually lacks the
satiric touch. We rather think Moeller
lacks it. We found "Mme. Sand" sat
iric only in flashes. 1t was much
broader than that
Generally speaking, "Molicre" is
done with broad strokes, but from an
entirely different point Of view. There
is every evidence Of reverence on the
part of the author for his hero. In
deed, there is perhaps shade too
| JS in, c,h{
rection. Most of the good dramatic por-
traits in the world have been done by
hero worshippers. We can think of no
concrete example, but we incline to the
opinion that violent hatred might be
almost as effective. At any rate, an
enthusiasm of some kind is necessary.
1t is we'll, perhaps, to note an 'eX-
ception. The most successful stage
portrait which we know is Shaw's
Julius Caesar" We have no reason
to think that Shaw viewed the Roman
with either great enthusiasm or great
abhorrence, and yet he has done an
astonishingly convincing study. We
rather think that the explanation lies
in the fact that Shaw has put some
thing of himself into the character
This would account for the enthusiasm
Peculiarly enough, Shaw's Caesar" is
often regarded merely as an excursion
in satire, but this we hold to be a
heresy. 1t seems to us that the satire
is merely incidental.
Some such treatment would be help
full in "Moliere" Certain aspects OF
the man do not come out. He does
not appear to be man Of very humor-
Gus turn in Moellers play. But then
we know little about him. Perhaps
this is accurate. He may have been
one of those men whose sense Of humor
is suppressed and therefore abundant
1t is a species of conservation not un-
known among lesser humorists, at any
rate. One never hears jokes from col
umn conductors, for instance, until
after they have been printed.
However, we are not particularly in
terested whether "Molierc" is an abso-
lutcly accurate portrait. One or two
reviewers seemed disposed to criticise
the play OH the ground that thls OF
that did not actually happen tc
Moliere. This seems to us captious
We don't see why a playwright is
bound to follow the green line of his
hero's history with absolute fidelity
He is generally under an obligation tc
preserve the spirit of the man. That
is all. Even this obligation may be
lightened in certain instances. For in.
stance, any playwright who dealt with
Washington or Lincoln or Wilson
would find a set opinion Of that man
in the minds of his audience, and he