Life and Letters of Robert Browning [45]
had arisen
between him and Mr. Browning, and he possibly wrote something
which his editor, Sir Frederick Pollock, as the friend of both,
thought it best to omit. What occurred on this occasion
has been told in some detail by Mr. Gosse, and would not need repeating
if the question were only of re-telling it on the same authority,
in another person's words; but, through the kindness
of Mr. and Mrs. Frank Hill, I am able to give Mr. Browning's
direct statement of the case, as also his expressed judgment upon it.
The statement was made more than forty years later than the events
to which it refers, but will, nevertheless, be best given
in its direct connection with them.
The merits, or demerits, of `A Blot in the 'Scutcheon'
had been freshly brought under discussion by its performance in London
through the action of the Browning Society, and in Washington
by Mr. Laurence Barrett; and it became the subject of a paragraph
in one of the theatrical articles prepared for the `Daily News'.
Mr. Hill was then editor of the paper, and when the article
came to him for revision, he thought it right to submit to Mr. Browning
the passages devoted to his tragedy, which embodied some then prevailing,
but, he strongly suspected, erroneous impressions concerning it.
The results of this kind and courteous proceeding appear
in the following letter.
==
19, Warwick Crescent: December 15, 1884.
My dear Mr. Hill, -- It was kind and considerate of you
to suppress the paragraph which you send me, -- and of which
the publication would have been unpleasant for reasons quite other
than as regarding my own work, -- which exists to defend or accuse itself.
You will judge of the true reasons when I tell you the facts --
so much of them as contradicts the statements of your critic --
who, I suppose, has received a stimulus from the notice, in an American paper
which arrived last week, of Mr. Laurence Barrett's intention
`shortly to produce the play' in New York -- and subsequently in London:
so that `the failure' of forty-one years ago might be duly influential
at present -- or two years hence perhaps. The `mere amateurs'
are no high game.
Macready received and accepted the play, while he was engaged
at the Haymarket, and retained it for Drury Lane, of which I was ignorant
that he was about to become the manager: he accepted it
`at the instigation' of nobody, -- and Charles Dickens was not in England
when he did so: it was read to him after his return, by Forster --
and the glowing letter which contains his opinion of it,
although directed by him to be shown to myself, was never heard of
nor seen by me till printed in Forster's book some thirty years after.
When the Drury Lane season began, Macready informed me
that he should act the play when he had brought out two others --
`The Patrician's Daughter', and `Plighted Troth': having done so,
he wrote to me that the former had been unsuccessful in money-drawing,
and the latter had `smashed his arrangements altogether': but he would
still produce my play. I had -- in my ignorance of certain symptoms
better understood by Macready's professional acquaintances --
I had no notion that it was a proper thing, in such a case,
to `release him from his promise'; on the contrary, I should have fancied
that such a proposal was offensive. Soon after, Macready begged
that I would call on him: he said the play had been read to the actors
the day before, `and laughed at from beginning to end':
on my speaking my mind about this, he explained that the reading had been done
by the Prompter, a grotesque person with a red nose and wooden leg,
ill at ease in the love scenes, and that he would himself make amends
by reading the play next morning -- which he did, and very adequately --
but apprised me that, in consequence of the state of his mind,
harassed by business and various trouble, the principal character
must be taken by Mr. Phelps; and again I failed to understand, --
what Forster subsequently assured me was plain as the sun at
between him and Mr. Browning, and he possibly wrote something
which his editor, Sir Frederick Pollock, as the friend of both,
thought it best to omit. What occurred on this occasion
has been told in some detail by Mr. Gosse, and would not need repeating
if the question were only of re-telling it on the same authority,
in another person's words; but, through the kindness
of Mr. and Mrs. Frank Hill, I am able to give Mr. Browning's
direct statement of the case, as also his expressed judgment upon it.
The statement was made more than forty years later than the events
to which it refers, but will, nevertheless, be best given
in its direct connection with them.
The merits, or demerits, of `A Blot in the 'Scutcheon'
had been freshly brought under discussion by its performance in London
through the action of the Browning Society, and in Washington
by Mr. Laurence Barrett; and it became the subject of a paragraph
in one of the theatrical articles prepared for the `Daily News'.
Mr. Hill was then editor of the paper, and when the article
came to him for revision, he thought it right to submit to Mr. Browning
the passages devoted to his tragedy, which embodied some then prevailing,
but, he strongly suspected, erroneous impressions concerning it.
The results of this kind and courteous proceeding appear
in the following letter.
==
19, Warwick Crescent: December 15, 1884.
My dear Mr. Hill, -- It was kind and considerate of you
to suppress the paragraph which you send me, -- and of which
the publication would have been unpleasant for reasons quite other
than as regarding my own work, -- which exists to defend or accuse itself.
You will judge of the true reasons when I tell you the facts --
so much of them as contradicts the statements of your critic --
who, I suppose, has received a stimulus from the notice, in an American paper
which arrived last week, of Mr. Laurence Barrett's intention
`shortly to produce the play' in New York -- and subsequently in London:
so that `the failure' of forty-one years ago might be duly influential
at present -- or two years hence perhaps. The `mere amateurs'
are no high game.
Macready received and accepted the play, while he was engaged
at the Haymarket, and retained it for Drury Lane, of which I was ignorant
that he was about to become the manager: he accepted it
`at the instigation' of nobody, -- and Charles Dickens was not in England
when he did so: it was read to him after his return, by Forster --
and the glowing letter which contains his opinion of it,
although directed by him to be shown to myself, was never heard of
nor seen by me till printed in Forster's book some thirty years after.
When the Drury Lane season began, Macready informed me
that he should act the play when he had brought out two others --
`The Patrician's Daughter', and `Plighted Troth': having done so,
he wrote to me that the former had been unsuccessful in money-drawing,
and the latter had `smashed his arrangements altogether': but he would
still produce my play. I had -- in my ignorance of certain symptoms
better understood by Macready's professional acquaintances --
I had no notion that it was a proper thing, in such a case,
to `release him from his promise'; on the contrary, I should have fancied
that such a proposal was offensive. Soon after, Macready begged
that I would call on him: he said the play had been read to the actors
the day before, `and laughed at from beginning to end':
on my speaking my mind about this, he explained that the reading had been done
by the Prompter, a grotesque person with a red nose and wooden leg,
ill at ease in the love scenes, and that he would himself make amends
by reading the play next morning -- which he did, and very adequately --
but apprised me that, in consequence of the state of his mind,
harassed by business and various trouble, the principal character
must be taken by Mr. Phelps; and again I failed to understand, --
what Forster subsequently assured me was plain as the sun at