Chapter V: Preface (4)

Soon after that he joined a company, under the management of Frank I. Frayne, known as the “Frayne Troupe,” of which M. B. Curtis, “Harry” M. Brown, E. N. Thayer, Mrs. “Harry” Courtaine, Gertrude Granville, and Miss Fletcher were also members. He joined that company at Humboldt, Oregon, where the opening bill was “The Ticket-of-Leave Man.” Belasco was to play _Melter Moss_, but the actress who was cast for _Mrs. Willoughby_ becoming ill, Belasco (who knew all the other parts as well as his own) volunteered to take her place in that character and did so with such success that Frayne kept him in it: “I was scheduled to play all the first ’old women’ that season,” he writes to me, “and I found it for some time difficult to escape my new ’specialty.’”

A SUBSTANTIAL TRIBUTE.

Belasco left the “Frayne Troupe” about the end of January, 1878, and returned to San Francisco. There I trace him first at the Bush Street Theatre,--where he performed as _James Callin_ and as _Pablo_, in the prologue and drama of “Across the Continent,” then first presented, by

Photograph by Sarony. Author’s Collection.

HELENA MODJESKA

Soon after her first appearance in New York, 1877]

Oliver Doud Byron, in San Francisco,--and, a little later, back again at the Baldwin Theatre. He labored there, with short intermissions, as actor and stage manager, from March 26, 1878, to the latter part of September, 1879. On the former date the New York Union Square Theatre Company emerged at the Baldwin in “Agnes,” in which Belasco played _Rudolphe_. During the engagement of the Union Square Company “One Hundred Years Old,” “Saratoga,” “A Celebrated Case,” and Joaquin Miller’s “The Danites” were presented under Belasco’s direction, and, in each of them, he acted a subsidiary part. His services as director proved so valuable that when the engagement was ended and the company made a tour of Pacific Slope towns an arrangement was effected with Maguire whereby Belasco accompanied it. The tour lasted until the end of May, and it was followed by a brief return season in San Francisco. At its close the company, which included O’Neill, Charles B. Bishop, Rose Wood, and F. F. Mackay, presented to Belasco a purse of $200 in gold “as an expression of appreciation of his services and esteem for himself.” The presentation was made, in presence of the assembled company, on the stage of the Baldwin Theatre, by F. F. Mackay, who, in making it, read the following letter:

(_F. F. Mackay, for the New York Union Square Theatrical Company, to David Belasco._)

“DEAR MR. DAVID BELASCO:--

“In behalf of the members of the Union Square Company, I extend
sincere thanks for your unvarying courtesy and for your able
direction of our efforts. With our thanks are mingled a large
measure of congratulations for your ability. Your quick
apprehension and remarkable analytical ability in discovering and
describing the mental intentions of an author are so superior to
anything we have heretofore experienced that we feel sure that the
position of master dramatic director of the American Stage must
finally fall on you. Personally, I take great pleasure in thus
expressing the feelings and the wishes of the company, and have the
honor to subscribe myself,

“Yours truly, “F. F. MACKAY.”

“OLIVIA” AND “PROOF POSITIVE.”

On July 8 a revival was effected at the Baldwin of Boucicault’s “The Octoroon,” “re-touched and re-arranged” by Belasco. This, and a double bill, comprising Byron’s “Dearer Than Life” and “The Post of Honor,”--brought out on August 5,--filled the summer season, and on September 2 Belasco’s play in five acts entitled “Olivia,”--the first dramatization of Goldsmith’s “The Vicar of Wakefield” to be acted in California,--was produced with the following notable cast:

_Dr. Primrose_ A. D. Bradley. _Squire Thornhill_ Lewis Morrison. _Mr. Burchell_ James O’Neill. _Moses_ William Seymour. _George_ Forrest Robinson. _Jenkinson_ C. B. Bishop. _Olivia_ Rose Wood. _Sophia_ Jean Burnside. _Mrs. Primrose_ Mrs. Farren. _Arabella Wilmot_ Belle Chapman.

Belasco’s dramatic epitome adhered to Goldsmith’s story as closely as is feasible for stage purposes; it was an effective play, it was admirably set upon the stage and acted, and it gained substantial success. “Those were strenuous times for me,” he writes; “every one was thrusting duties on me then which, as I was always a glutton for work, I grasped as opportunities. One lesson I learned at the Baldwin which I have never forgotten--that one of the greatest mistakes a man can make is the mistake of permitting anybody else to do his work for him. I wrote ’Olivia’ between times, as it were, and I was genuinely surprised by its success.”

After the run of “Olivia” J. C. Williamson and his wife, “Maggie” Moore, came to the Baldwin,--opening in “Struck Oil,”--and Belasco, while directing the stage for them, completed an alteration of Wills’ “A Woman of the People,”--which was brought forth October 14,--and a play, made at the request of Rose Wood, which he called “Proof Positive,” based on an old melodrama. This was produced on October 28, and in it James O’Neill gained a notable success in the character of an eccentric, semi-comic _Jew_.

BELASCO’S VERSION OF “NOT GUILTY.”

Clara Morris made her first appearance in San Francisco at the Baldwin, November 4, as _Miss Multon_, and continued to act there for about eight weeks. During that time Belasco was able to bestow some attention and labor on an original play of his called “The Lone Pine,” in which he had acted at Sacramento and a few other “interior places” during a brief starring venture, and which he desired entirely to rewrite. In December, however, he was compelled to lay aside that work and turn again to hack playwrighting for the Baldwin company. His election fell on Watts Phillips’ old spectacle play of “Not Guilty,” which he altered and adapted in less than one week. It was announced as “The Grand Production of the Magnificent Musical, Military, Dramatic, and Spectacular (_sic_) Christmas Piece, which has been given for eight successive Christmas seasons in Philadelphia,” and it was produced for the first time at the Baldwin on December 24, 1878. This was the cast:

_Robert Arnold_ James O’Neill. _Silas Jarrett_ Lewis Morrison. _Jack Snipe_ C. B. Bishop. _Isaac Vider_ J. W. Jennings. _Joe Triggs_ James A. Herne. _Trumble_ A. D. Bradley. _St. Clair_ Forrest Robinson. _Lal Singh_ William Seymour. _Sergeant Wattles_ John N. Long. _Polecat_ King Hedley. _Alice Armitage_ Rose Wood. _Polly Dobbs_ May Hart.

All the work of adaptation and stage management was done by Belasco--and for it he received the munificent payment of $12.50 a performance. Recalling the production, he writes: “A ’stock dramatist’ at that time was obliged to do his work on short notice, and it was taken as a matter of course that I should get a play ready for rehearsal in less than a week, and put it on in less than another week. ’Not Guilty’ was very spectacular (_sic_), and with my customary leaning to warfare I introduced a Battle Scene, with several hundred people in an embarkation, as well as horses and cannon. This embarkation alone used to take ten minutes. It has all been done in many plays since--the booming of guns, the padding of the horses’ hoofs on earth and stone, the moving crowds in sight and larger ones suggested, beyond the range of vision,--but this was the original, and it was wonderfully effective, if I do say it myself.” Belasco’s view agrees with that recorded by all competent observers of the time--one of the most conservative of whom wrote, in “The San Francisco Evening Bulletin,” that “the Battle Scene, in the Fourth Act, was about the most realistic ever produced on the stage.” An operatic chorus of more than eighty voices was employed and “The Cameron Cadets”--a local military organization--participated “in full Highland costume.”

WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BALDWIN.--“THE LONE PINE” AND DENMAN THOMPSON.

Belasco withdrew from the Baldwin Theatre company immediately after the “run” of “Not Guilty.” He was in danger of becoming exhausted by over-work and he was resentful of mean treatment to which he had been subjected. Lewis Morrison, who had suggested Phillips’ old spectacle for alteration, and Frederick Lyster, who had caused the introduction in it of music selected from the opera of “Carmen,” by connivance with Maguire, charged a “royalty” of twelve per cent. against the gross receipts from representations of that play, although Belasco was paid for his service only about one per cent. This injustice, coming to the knowledge of Baldwin, greatly incensed him, and in order to remedy it he gave to Belasco $1,000. With that sum added to his savings he felt at liberty to desist for a time from the exacting requirements of employment under Maguire, but in about two months he had resumed his old position, going back at the earnest request of Herne. In his “Story” he gives the following account of his experience in the interim:

“J. M. Hill, the pioneer of page advertising, brought Denman
Thompson to the Bush Street Theatre in ’Joshua Whitcomb,’ startling
San Francisco by a lavish press work, which had never been heard of
before. ’Young man,’ Hill said to me, ’I want you to see Thompson,
and to study him. If you find him a play, there may be a fortune in
it for you.’ When I met Thompson afterwards and he suggested that
we collaborate, I told him that such a proposition was quite
impossible, but that I had been working on a play not yet finished,
[“The Lone Pine”] and that I would send it to him. I told him and
Hill the gist of the story, and then and there the latter drew up a
contract, giving me a retainer of $1,000 and tempting me with the
proposition that were the piece a success I might get eight hundred
a week out of it. In due course of time I completed two acts and
sent them on to him in New York. Soon I received a message: ’We
like your manuscript. Bring acts three and four yourself. Railroad
fares arranged.’ When I reached New York I went to the Union Square
Hotel and there met Hill and Thompson again. It was like giving a
part of myself when I handed over the Third Act of ’The Lone Pine.’
To my dismay, Thompson began to give suggestions, explaining what
he intended to do, making of his part a youthful _Joshua Whitcomb_,
with a fine sprinkling of slang and curses, and although I knew
that if I could give this man a successful play I could make a
fortune--thirty-two hundred a month, perhaps more!--I could not
bring myself to do it. I went to my hotel and wrote Hill a letter,
explaining the conclusion I had come to, and returning the thousand
dollars retaining fee. But Hill would hear none of this and grew
very angry trying to make me see Thompson’s point of view and
sending back the retainer. To avoid any further discussion, I
boarded a train and left New York, having seen very little of the
city. Hill’s parting message was: ’If I don’t produce that play, no
one shall.’ They never returned my manuscript, and years after,
when I was stage-manager at the Madison Square, I thought that it
would be a fitting successor to my ’May Blossom,’ which I had just
produced. So I went to Dr. Mallory and told him of the
Thompson-Hill episode. He had a streak of the fighter in him, and
suggested that I sue Hill for the recovery of the manuscript. After
some preliminary proceedings we were persuaded that Hill had
actually lost the manuscript, even though he still refused to
release me from my contract. So the suit was withdrawn, for there
was nothing to go upon.

“During the days when Hill was manager of the New York Standard
Theatre we met again, and I did some work for him. It was then that
he returned me my contract. Then, a miracle of miracles happened,
at the time of the razing of the Union Square Hotel. The clerk sent
for Mr. Ryan (who afterwards played in ’Naughty Anthony’), and told
him that in one of the back rooms he had found a bundle of papers
behind some old books. My lost manuscript was at last found! Some
day I may finish it for David Warfield.”

“WITHIN AN INCH OF HIS LIFE.”

Belasco was re-employed by Maguire during the first days of February, 1879, and he at once resumed his multiform labor as stage manager, prompter, and playwright. The Baldwin Theatre was profitably occupied by the Wilson, Primrose & West Minstrel Company and his first work was done at the Grand Opera House, which Maguire had leased, and where, February 17, “the legitimate company from Baldwin’s” appeared in Belasco’s dramatization of Gaboriau’s story of “Within an Inch of His Life.” This melodrama, advertised as “the most powerful play ever acted,” was the product of “a week of strenuous days and sleepless nights,” it was produced as a stopgap, and--so Belasco writes--“the makeshift, like so many accidental productions, was an instant success.” That success was, in large part, due to a striking mechanical effect, devised and introduced by Belasco, representative of a conflagration, described in the newspapers of the day as “the terrific fire spectacle,” about which its inventor has given me this information: “The fire was in the First Act. I did away with the lycopodium boxes and made my ’flames’ by a series of red and yellow strips of silk, fanned from beneath by bellows and lit by colored lights. Some complaint was made of danger to the theatre and the authorities came upon the stage to investigate: they were a good deal nonplussed at finding the ’fire’ nothing but pieces of silk!”

“Within an Inch of His Life” was acted at the Grand Opera House until March 1, when it was withdrawn to make way for “The Passion.” This was the cast of its original production:

_Jules de Dardeville_ James O’Neill. _Dr. Seignebos_ J. W. Jennings. _Count de Clairnot_ James A. Herne. _Falpin_ A. D. Bradley. _Reibolt_ William Seymour. _Gauchey_ John N. Long. _Cocolean_ Lewis Morrison. _Countess de Clairnot_ Rose Wood. _Dionysia Chandore_ Katherine Corcoran.

SALMI MORSE’S “PASSION PLAY.”

At about the beginning of February, 1879, the popular and distinguished actor James O’Neill, now long famous for his performance of _Monte Cristo_, became enthusiastically interested in a spectacle drama by Salmi Morse (1826-1884), called “The Passion Play,” the presentment of which that author had long been earnestly but vainly endeavoring to effect, in San Francisco. O’Neill was desirous of impersonating _Jesus Christ_, a part to which he considered himself peculiarly fitted, and he presently succeeded in persuading Maguire, the manager, to produce Morse’s drama. Baldwin was induced to provide financial support for the enterprise. Belasco was engaged as stage manager, after the preliminary rehearsals had been conducted under direction of Henry Brown, who officiated as prompter. Elaborate and handsome scenery was built and painted. Henry Widmer (1845-1895), in after years long associated with Daly’s Theatre in New York, was employed as leader of the orchestra, and illustrative incidental music for the play was composed by him. Belasco rehearsed the company and superintended the stage. The first representation occurred on March 3, 1879, at the Grand Opera House, and it caused much public interest and controversy. O’Neill’s impersonation of _Jesus_ was fervently admired. Belasco, commenting on it and on its effect on “the poor people” whom he “saw on their knees, praying and sobbing,” wrote that the actor, “with his delicacy, refinement, and grandeur, typified the real Prophet, and, I believe, to himself he _was_ the Prophet.”

NOT THE OBERAMMERGAU DRAMA.

Morse’s play was not the fabric customarily offered at Oberammergau, nor was it in any particular an imitation. In the declared opinion of Morse, an apostate Hebrew, that concoction had been devised and performed for the purpose of arousing and stimulating hostility against the Jews, and he profoundly disapproved of it. His purpose, he avowed, was simply to present an epitome of the life of Jesus, as described in the gospels. He had taken the thrifty precaution to read his play before an assemblage of the Roman Catholic clergy of San Francisco (the Protestant ecclesiastics not accepting his liberal invitation to enjoy that luxury), and it had received their approbation. Several of the holy fathers, indeed, had evinced their approval of it by kissing him on both his cheeks, and Archbishop Allemany, of San Francisco, had not only sanctioned the precious composition but had inserted several passages into the text with his own sacerdotal hand. The play was comprised in ten acts (at least, that was its form when, in 1880, in the vestibule of the Park Theatre, Broadway and Twenty-second Street, New York, I heard half of it read by the author and was permitted to inspect the whole manuscript), and it consisted of a long series of dialogues accompanied by pictures and tableaux. I know not whether the whole ten acts were vouchsafed to the San Francisco audience, but, according to contemporaneous records, the play gave much offence to many persons and was incentive to some public disturbances and breaches of the peace: ignorant Irish who witnessed it were so distempered that, on going forth, some of them, from time to time, assaulted peaceable Jews in the public streets--much in the spirit of the irate mariner who chanced to hear first of the Crucifixion nearly 2,000 years after it occurred. Belasco records that a committee of citizens called on Maguire and “worked upon his credulous nature until he believed that he was marked by the devil for sacrifice and would meet with instant death if he did not withdraw the play,” and that “in a fever of fear he closed the theatre,”--March 11. A little later, however, Maguire’s torrid temperature appears to have abated, and the play was again brought forward, April 15, at the Grand Opera House, but this time it was met by an injunction, issued from the Fourth (Municipal) District Court, Judge Robert Francis Morrison presiding, which, being disregarded, was followed by the arrest of O’Neill (who was imprisoned), April 21, and of his professional associates, all of them, subsequently, being convicted of contempt of court and fined for that offence,--O’Neill $50 and each of the other players $5. Belasco escaped arrest through the kindly interference of the local Sheriff, a friend of his, who forcibly kept him away from the theatre when the other participants in the representation were being taken into police custody. The following notice appeared in “The Alta California,” April 22, 1879:

“GRAND OPERA HOUSE.--The management has the honor to announce that
in deference to public opinion ’The Passion’ will no longer be
presented.”

CONSTITUENTS OF MORSE’S PLAY.

There is nothing in Morse’s play that could exert an immoral influence. There is no irreverence in either its spirit or its incidents. It is merely a goody-goody, tiresome composition, full of moral twaddle, and consisting in about equal degree of platitude and bombast. It purports to be written in blank verse, but it is, in fact, written in nondescript lines of unequal length, halting, irregular, formless, weak, and diffuse. Choruses of rhymed doggerel occur in it, at intervals, sometimes uttered by women, sometimes,--on the contrary,--by angels. Stress is laid on the efforts of _Pontius Pilate_ to save _Jesus_ from the fury of the mob. There is a succession of pictures. In the Temple of Jerusalem many females appear, carrying babes, and a ferocious _Jew_, essaying to kill the infant _Jesus_, falls back astounded and overwhelmed by the aspect of the sacred infant. Later, _Joseph_, _Mary_, and the _Holy Child_ are shown environed and protected by a branching sycamore tree, while, in the mountains all around them, many shrieking women and children are slaughtered by ruffianly soldiers. In a sequent picture _King Herod_, uttering a multiplicity of aphorisms, wrangles with his wife, _Herodias_, and the seductive _Salomé_ dances before them and wins for her mother the head of her enemy, _John the Baptist_, which pleasing trophy, wrapped in a napkin, is brought in on a tray. _Jesus_ and his disciples are then shown at the brook of Kedron. The agony of _Jesus_ in the Garden of Gethsemane is depicted and the betrayal by _Judas_, the latter scene being double, to show, on one side, a lighted room in which is reproduced a semblance of “The Last Supper” according to the admired picture by Leonardo da Vinci, and on the other a gloomy range of plains and hills dimly lighted by the stars. In this scene passages from the New Testament are incorporated into Morse’s play, in the part of _Jesus_. The arraignment of _Jesus_ before _Pilate_ follows, including the wrangle between the furious people and that clement magistrate, and ending with the investiture of _Jesus_ with the Crown of Thorns. The final picture shows Golgotha, under a midnight sky, and the removal of the dead body from the Cross.

AS TO PROPRIETY.

Salmi Morse, in conversation with me and my old comrade Dr. Charles Phelps, at the time of the reading in the vestibule of the Park Theatre, said that he began “The Passion Play” with the intention of writing a poem like Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” but soon discovered that the Byronic style, as evinced in “Cain,” was more consonant than the Miltonic style with his subject and his genius, and accordingly determined to write not like Milton but like Byron; and he added that his drama was really not, at first, intended for the Stage, but for publication in a book. That was a discreet judgment, from which it is a pity that he ever departed. I have not, however, been able at any time to perceive what decisive _moral_ reason there is why “The Passion Play” should not be presented on the stage. Reasons other than moral can readily be assigned: it is a matter of _Taste_, in which it is a gross injustice to employ the police power as a corrective, and a matter of _Public Policy_, in which, with due consideration, the police power can properly be invoked. Familiar treatment of things widely considered sacred is, perhaps, likely to lower them, except with very ignorant persons, in sanctity and dignity, and certainly it does lower them with many persons of fine intelligence and taste. In the end of a church in Heidelberg there is, or was, visible, through a long window, a full-length effigy of Christ on the Cross, which swings to and fro as a pendulum to the clock, and in a church at Mayence there is a life-size figure of the Virgin Mary, seated, with the body of the dead Christ, also life-size, lying across her knees. I remember looking on those objects with aversion. To _see_, in a theatre, a man, impersonating the _Christ_, washing the feet of another man will, generally, give offence. Religious bigotry is a curse to civilization, and nothing should be conceded to it, but certainly the scruples of religious persons should receive reasonable respect.

“THE PASSION PLAY” IN NEW YORK.

After the suppression of his “Passion Play” in California Morse brought it to New York and offered it to Henry E. Abbey, then a prominent speculative manager, who, for a time, entertained the purpose of producing it at Booth’s Theatre. A drop curtain was painted, showing a flight of angels toward Heaven on Easter morning, and the purpose of Morse was made known to remove the statue of Shakespeare from the top of the proscenium arch and to substitute a large cross in its place. Obstacles intervened,--disapproval, voiced in the newspaper press, being one of them, and the destruction of Abbey’s New Park Theatre by fire (October 30, 1882), in which conflagration all the costumes were destroyed, being another,--and that project was abandoned. Prior to that mishap Morse gave a reading of the play, December 3, 1880, at the Cooper Institute; and later, February-April, 1883, ineffectual efforts were made by the author (which brought him before Judge George C. Barrett, of the New York Supreme Court) to present it in a house which he rented and called Salmi Morse’s Temple (afterward known as Proctor’s Twenty-third Street Theatre). His endeavors were finally blocked by an injunction, and the venture was heard of no more. Belasco was in New York at the time of Morse’s attempt to have his “Passion Play” represented there, and Morse wished him to undertake the stage direction of it, but being otherwise employed, and also clearly perceiving the public antipathy to the project, he discreetly declined to participate in the enterprise. On February 22, 1884, the unfortunate Morse met death by drowning, in the Hudson River, near Harlem, and he was thought to have committed suicide.

BELASCO’S SERVICES TO MORSE’S ENTERPRISE.

The successful presentment of Morse’s play in California was due to the sincerity and ability of O’Neill and to the ardent enthusiasm of Belasco, who revelled in the opportunities which he discovered for pictorial display: he explored every accessible source for paintings to be copied and for suggestions as to costume, color, and “atmosphere,” and, particularly, he made use of every expedient of “realistic” effect. Belasco writes of this: “I had seen ’The Passion Play’ in Europe, but, without prejudice, our little far-western town held the honors.” That statement involves a slip of memory. He had, in March, 1879, been as far east as New York, but his first visit to Europe did not occur till 1884. His view of the Oberammergau performance was obtained long after the presentment of Morse’s play in San Francisco. The following reminiscence by Belasco of the California representation of “The Passion Play” is instructive:

“How we scoured San Francisco,--school, church, and theatre,--for
people to put in our cast! Every actor who was out of employment
was sure of finding something to do in our mob scenes. I cannot
conceive, in the history of the Theatre, a more complete or a more
perfect cast.

“We engaged 200 singers; we marshalled 400 men, women, children,
and infants in our _ensembles_. And in the preparation every one
seemed to be inspired.... O’Neill, as the preparations progressed,
grew more and more obsessed. He gave up smoking; all the little
pleasures of life he denied himself. Any man who used a coarse word
during rehearsals was dismissed. He walked the streets of the city
with the expression of a holy man on his face. Whenever he drew
near a hush prevailed such as one does not often find outside a
church. The boards of the stage became Holy Land.

“I also became a veritable monomaniac on the subject; I was never
without a Bible under my arm. I went to the Mercantile Library and
there studied the color effects in the two memorable canvases there
hung, depicting the dance of Salomé and the Lord’s Supper. My life
seemed changed as never before, and once more my thoughts began to
play with monastery life, and I thought of the days spent in
Vancouver with my priest friend.

“The play traced the whole sequence of historical events leading to
the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, and I remember how many
effects we had to evolve for ourselves. In the Massacre of the
Innocents we had a hundred mothers on the stage, with their babes
in their arms. In the scene where _Joseph_ and _Mary_ came down the
mountain side we had a flock of real sheep following in their wake.
The entire performance was given with a simplicity that amounted to
grandeur. All was accomplished by fabrics and stage lighting, and
when O’Neill came up from his dressing room and appeared on the
stage with a halo about him women sank on their knees and prayed,
and when he was stripped and dragged before _Pontius Pilate_,
crowned with a crown of thorns, many fainted.

“I have produced many plays in many parts of the world, but never
have I seen an audience awed as by ’The Passion Play.’ The greatest
performance of a generation was the _Christus_ of James O’Neill.”

“The Passion Play” was succeeded at the Grand Opera House by a melodrama entitled “The New Babylon,” produced under the stage management of Belasco; and, on May 5, at the Baldwin, an adaptation by him of Sardou’s “La Famille Benoiton!” was brought out under the name of “A Fast Family.” This was performed for a fortnight, during which Belasco wrote a play which he called “The Millionaire’s Daughter,” and contrived for its presentment a remarkably handsome and effective scenic investiture.

“THE MILLIONAIRE’S DAUGHTER.”

Bronson Howard’s play of “The Banker’s Daughter” (one act of which was written by A. R. Cazauran) was produced, for the first time, November 30, 1878, at the Union Square Theatre, New York, where it held the stage till April 16, 1879, receiving 137 performances. It was regarded as one of the “sensations” of the time, and Maguire, desiring to secure its presentment at the Baldwin Theatre, began negotiations to that end with Palmer early in 1879. Palmer named terms that Maguire would not, or could not, meet and they were rejected. But a new play was urgently required for the Baldwin, and Maguire turned to Belasco, asking, “Can’t you make something for us on similar lines?” Belasco readily agreed to do this, but presently expressed doubt as to Baldwin’s consent to pay the heavy price of certain novel expedients of stage-setting which he wished to use.

“In my principal scene,” he said to me, “I wanted a striking, new effect,--walls of a delicate pink, hung with rich lace, and I knew it would cost a lot. I went to Baldwin about it, after talking to Maguire, who thought it impossible, and told him the story of my play, and what I wanted to do in the way of settings, and my fear about expenses. Baldwin said, ’I understand Palmer’s coming out here, to the California, with “The Banker’s Daughter.” I think he tried to stick us up on that piece, and I’d like to beat him. We don’t need to go to so much expense as you think, Davy. You say you want laces: well, I’ll let you have some lace, such as nobody has ever seen on a stage!’ And he did. It was real antique stuff, belonging to his daughter and himself, from their home. I designed the scene as I wanted it, had plain set pieces painted (they cost us only a few dollars) in delicate shades of pink, and draped Baldwin’s lace over them. The effect was beautiful,--I’ve never seen anything of the kind as good,--and it _looked_ like the room of ’a millionaire’s daughter.’ But I was glad when the run was over and the stuff safely back in Baldwin’s home: there was over $30,000 worth of it used in that set, and it kept me anxious all the time.”

Belasco’s play of “The Millionaire’s Daughter” was produced at the Baldwin Theatre on May 19, 1879, and it was received with much favor. It tells the story of a woman who marries one man while believing herself to be in love with another, but who comes, through an ordeal of sorrow and suffering, to know the value of her husband and to love him. It is not important, though creditable as a melodramatic specimen of what Augustin Daly used to describe as “plays of contemporaneous human interest.” The chief parts in it were cast as follows:

_Mortimer Rushton_ James O’Neill. _Richard Trevellian_ Lewis Morrison. _Adam Trueman_ A. D. Bradley. _Stephen Snarley_ J. W. Jennings. _Ulysses S. Danripple, N. Y., U. S. A._ James A. Herne. _Timothy Tubbs_ David Belasco. _Ethel Trueman_ Rose Wood. _Mabel St. Everard_ Katherine Corcoran. _Aunt Sophie_ Kate Denin.

Belasco was at once accused of having stolen his play from “The Banker’s Daughter,” but on investigation by Palmer’s representative it promptly appeared that the charge was unwarranted. “The chief real resemblances,” said Belasco, “are the title and the Duel Scene. We did call my play ’The Millionaire’s Daughter’ because of the success of Howard’s piece: the Duel Scene, however, I took from ’The Corsican Brothers.’ Howard, probably, took his from the same source; nobody acquainted with the theatre could very well help knowing that scene!”

The situation alluded to is an old one and it has been often used. The scene is a glade in the woods. The duellists, attended by their seconds, are confronted, each intent on homicide. The time is nightfall. The ground is thinly covered with snow. Each of the combatants is attired in a white shirt, open at the neck, without collar; black trousers and shoes. A faint twilight is diffused over the picture, and the ominous, grisly effect of it is enhanced by low, minor music. Gleaming rapiers are engaged and the combat proceeds to its fatal close: few other situations have been made the occasion of as much ridicule; yet, fashioned with care and treated with sincerity, this one never fails to thrill the spectators,--and probably it never will.

Palmer’s production of “The Banker’s Daughter” was announced for presentment at the California Theatre on June 9, 1879; but the success of Belasco’s play, at the Baldwin, led to the cancellation by Palmer of his engagement in San Francisco, and Howard’s play, in its definitive form, was not acted there until long afterward: it had, however, previously been performed there under the name of “Lillian’s Lost Love.”

DETRACTION OF BELASCO.--EARLY CALIFORNIA INFLUENCES.

Those persons who intellectually and influentially rise above the level of mediocrity almost invariably find their attainments denied, their achievements belittled, their motives impugned, and their characters besmirched. Belasco has had a liberal experience of detraction. One of the most insistent disparagements that have followed him is the charge that, in the course of his long career as a manager in New York, he has never produced any of the plays of Shakespeare, for the reason that he does not possess either the knowledge, taste, training, or ability requisite for their suitable presentment. It is true that Belasco, since becoming a theatrical manager in New York, has not, as yet, produced any play of Shakespeare’s or any of the standard old legitimate dramas. That, doubtless, has been a loss to the public; but deferring, for the moment, scrutiny of reasons that have restrained him from such ventures, it will be pertinent and instructive here to consider the question of his competence to make such revivals,--because such consideration necessarily concerns itself with the theatrical environment in which he grew up and in which he received his early training. As bearing on such an examination a glance at the antecedents of the San Francisco Stage will be helpful. The Circus preceded the Theatre in California, but only by a few weeks. Two circus companies were performing in San Francisco early in 1849. The first dramatic performance given in that city occurred in the same year, in a building called Washington Hall. In the same year, also, the first regular theatre built in the State was opened, in Sacramento: it cost $80,000 and it was called the Eagle. James H. McCabe,--a good friend to Belasco in later years,--was a member of its first company. Other theatres built subsequently in Sacramento were the Tehama, the Pacific, the American, and

From an old photograph. Belasco’s Collection.

BELASCO AS _ARMAND DUVAL_, IN “CAMILLE”]

the Edwin Forrest. The dramatic movement, once started, became vigorous and swift. In 1851, in San Francisco, the Jenny Lind and the American theatres were built, and in 1853 a spacious and handsome playhouse was erected, called the Metropolitan, and also a theatre called the Adelphi was opened, in which performances were given in French. Among the managers who were active and prominent in early California days were Wesley Venua, John S. Potter, Joseph Rowe, Charles Robert Thorne (the Elder), Daniel Wilmarth Waller, George Ryer, Charles A. King, McKean Buchanan, J. B. Booth, Jr., and Samuel Colville,--the latter subsequently so widely known and so popular in New York. Among actors of the period who were local favorites were James Stark, James H. Warwick, William Barry, “Dan” Virgil Gates, John Woodard, Edward N. Thayer, Frank Lawlor, John Dunn (often jocosely styled “Rascal Jack”), Elizabeth Jefferson (Mrs. Thoman, afterwards Mrs. Saunders), Mrs. Emanuel Judah (Marietta Starfield Torrence), Mary Woodard, and Marie Duret,--“the limpet,” once for some time associated with Gustavus Vaughan Brooke (and so called because she “stuck to him” till she had accumulated considerable money and jewelry, and then left him; she seems to have been a great annoyance). Before Belasco’s birth (1853) the Drama had become well established in California, and during his boyhood there and his early professional association with it,--that is, from about 1865 to 1882,--its condition was generally prosperous, often brilliant. Within that period the San Francisco Stage was illumined by actors of every description, some of them being of the highest order as well as of the brightest renown. Belasco’s personal association with the Theatre, as has been shown, began in infancy; his earliest impressions were imbued with histrionic and dramatic influence. Charles Kean, Edwin Forrest, and Julia Dean were figures in his childish mind that he never could forget. Among the notable actors whom he saw, with many of whom at one time or another he was actively associated, and among whom are numbered some men and women whose histrionic genius has not been surpassed, were Catharine Sinclair, Matilda Heron, James E. Murdoch, James William Wallack, the Younger; Charles Wheatleigh, William A. Mestayer, John Wilson, Mrs. Saunders, Kate Denin, John Collins, Mrs. Poole, John E. Owens, Edwin Adams, Walter Montgomery, James Stark, Edward A. Sothern, Frank Mayo, Barry Sullivan, Edwin Booth, James O’Neill, Lewis Morrison, Eben Plympton, John Brougham, James A. Herne, Frank S. Chanfrau, James F. Cathcart, William H. Crane, (Charles) Barton Hill, W. J. Florence and Mrs. Florence, Barney Williams and Mrs. Williams, Benedict De Bar, George Rignold, George Fawcett Rowe, Charles F. Coghlan, W. E. Sheridan, Mrs. D. P. Bowers, Adelaide Neilson, William Horace Lingard and Mrs. Lingard (Alice Dunning), Lotta (Charlotte Crabtree), Charlotte Thompson, Carlotta Leclercq, Neil Warner, Daniel E. Bandmann, Minnie Palmer, Jean Davenport Lander, Mrs. F. M. Bates, Sallie A. Hinckley, Dion Boucicault, Katharine Rodgers, Helena Modjeska, and Rose Coghlan. Those, and many more, were not mere _names_ to Belasco: they were the vital, active personification of all that he most loved and desired--the Stage. The environment of his youth, allowing for all the trials and hardships to which incidentally he was subjected, must, obviously, have been conducive to the opening and enlightenment of his mind, the direction of his efforts into the theatrical field, the development of his latent powers, his education as actor, dramatist, and stage manager, and the building of his character. He was a sensitive, highly impressionable youth, possessed of an artistic temperament, romantic disposition, innate histrionic and dramatic faculties, ardent ambition to excel, eager interest in life, abundant capability of enjoyment, an almost abnormal power of observation,--that “clutching eye” which has been well ascribed to Dickens,--and a kindness of heart that made him instantly and eagerly sympathetic with every form of human trial and suffering. Such a youth could not fail to respond to some, at least, of the improving influences to which he was exposed. In the ministrations of such men and women as I have named he saw the rapid and splendid growth of the Theatre in California, the swift accession to the number of fine playhouses,--the building of Maguire’s Opera House (afterward the Bush Street Theatre), the California Theatre, Shiels’ Opera House, Maguire’s New Theatre, and Baldwin’s Academy of Music,--and with all of them, and with others, he became, at one time or another and in one way or another, connected. He was given exceptional and invaluable opportunities of studying the respective styles and learning the divergent methods of every class of actor and stage manager. He saw the thorough devotion, the patient endeavor, the astonishing variety, and the first splendid successes of John McCullough, who went to San Francisco with Edwin Forrest, in 1866, and there laid the foundation of his renown. He saw the intensely earnest, highly intellectual, incessantly laborious, passionately devoted and indomitable Lawrence Barrett, who made his first appearance in San Francisco, February 13, 1868, at Maguire’s Opera House, as _Hamlet_, and he saw many of the great plays, finely produced and nobly acted, which were given at the California Theatre, in the season when it was opened, January 11, 1869, under the joint management of Barrett and McCullough. Observance of such a dramatic company as those managers then assembled was in itself an education for any young enthusiast and student of the art of acting, and it is reasonable to believe that this youth profited by it. The company, certainly, was such a one as could not anywhere be assembled now, because most of the actors of that strain have passed away. Barrett held the first position, dividing some of the leading business with McCullough. William H. Sedley-Smith was the stage manager. Other members of the company were Henry Edwards, John T. Raymond, “Willie” Edouin, Claude Burroughs, John Torrence, J. E. Marble, John Wilson, Edward J. Buckley, W. Caldwell, Frederick Franks, W. F. Burroughs, H. King, Henry Atkinson, E. B. Holmes, Emilie Melville, Annette Ince, Marie Gordon, Mrs. E. J. Buckley, Mrs. F. Franks, Mrs. Charles R. Saunders, and Mrs. Judah. The plays presented were of all kinds and generally of the highest order. Belasco was fortunate in possessing the special favor of the stage manager, and he was permitted many chances of seeing those players. The special idols of his boyish admiration were John McCullough, Walter Montgomery, and Mrs. Bowers. As to Shakespeare--his mother was a lover of the dramatist and a careful student of him, and she early began to instruct her boy in the study of his characters and in the acting of scenes from the plays: one of the first books he ever owned was a large single volume edition of Shakespeare, which, to gratify his childish longing, was sent to him, “from New York,” because he believed nothing could be as fine as what came from that place. “I read it,” he told me, “from the title-page to the last word, with a dictionary and a glossary.” He saw many of the plays of Shakespeare set upon the stage, by some of the most accomplished, conscientious, and scholarly actors and stage managers that have served the art--men and women the capabilities and achievements of any one of whom, in the stage production of Shakespeare, would shame the abilities of all Belasco’s detractors combined,--and he participated, not only as actor but as stage manager, in the representation of those plays. The works of Shakespeare which were thus made

IN “JULIUS CAESAR”

“_I will not do them wrong; I rather choose_
_To wrong the dead, to wrong myself and you,_
_Than I will wrong such honorable men!_”
--Act III, sc. 2

Photograph by Bradley, San Francisco.

Original loaned by Mrs. David Belasco.]

familiar to him, in their technical aspect, are “King Richard III.” (Cibber’s version), “Hamlet,” “Othello,” “Romeo and Juliet,” “Julius Cæsar,” “Macbeth,” “King John,” “King Lear,” “Coriolanus,” “Cymbeline,” “Measure for Measure,” “The Comedy of Errors,” “Much Ado About Nothing,” “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” “The Merchant of Venice,” “Katharine and Petruchio” (Garrick’s version), “Twelfth Night,” and “As You Like It.” He played all sorts of parts in Shakespeare, from the slightest to some of the greatest: in San Francisco he would play anything,--the _Salanios_, _Guildensterns_, _First Messengers_, _Citizens_, etc., and frequently go on as a super,--merely to gain opportunity to be on the stage with the leaders of his profession, in order that he might observe them. Fired with emulous ambition, he would then obtain employment in any travelling or barnstorming company in which he could play some of the greater parts, and in that way,--acting, of course, at first in imitation of various distinguished players whose performances he had witnessed, but also, more and more as his experience grew, along experimental lines of his own contrivance,--he played, among other parts, _Mercutio_, _Marc Antony_, _Friar Lawrence_ and _Hamlet_. He also sometimes acted women;--in Shakespeare, notably, the _Nurse_, in “Romeo and Juliet,” and _Queen Gertrude_, in “Hamlet.” In short, the truth, respecting Belasco and his qualification for producing Shakespeare’s dramas, is that he is better qualified to present them than any other stage manager in America. His abstention from that field has been due to a variety of causes, chief among them being that, at first, while he was fighting his way to a position in which he could produce _anything_, and immediately after his achievement of that independence, the field of Shakespearean acting was almost exclusively occupied by famous, popular, and prosperous stars, who did not need his services, having their own, and with whom he must have vainly contended in an unequal rivalry; and, later, that there was an almost complete dearth of qualified Shakespearean performers. That dearth might not be so nearly complete now if Belasco had earlier turned his attention to the production of Shakespeare: on the other hand, he had to _win_ his place before he could fill it,--and the carpers who censure him for what he has not done would, in most instances, have been as vigorous in censure if he had brought out plays of Shakespeare as they have been because he has not: what they actually seek for is any ground for fault-finding. Belasco’s sound sense and good judgment were well shown in a recent conversation with me, relative to David Warfield’s ambition to play _Shylock_: “Warfield,” he said, “is wild to play _Shylock_, and is at me every little while to bring out ’The Merchant.’ I’d like to do it, but it isn’t practical just now, and so I tell him, ’Wait, wait,’--though he doesn’t want to _wait_! But it would be foolish at present: to-day ’Dave’ Warfield is one of the most prosperous of actors: he can play ’The Music Master,’ and ’The Auctioneer,’ and make a fortune--just as Jefferson did with ’Rip’ and ’The Rivals.’ But what will happen if I bring him out as _Shylock_, at once, in New York, or close to it? A lot of the paltry scribblers who don’t know anything about ’The Merchant’ will have their knives into him up to the hilt--and the next morning, whether he’s good, bad, or indifferent, he’ll be the best ’roasted’ actor on the stage--the venture will be no good, and when he goes back to ’The Music Master’ his standing will have been hurt. _Nobody_ can give a great performance of _Shylock_ the first time. When we are ready, I’ll take a modest little company out into the backwoods somewhere, so far away from New York that nobody here knows there are such places, and let Warfield play _Shylock_ for three months or so. Then, when he’s found himself and can show what he can really do, if it’s no good we’ll drop it, and if (as I expect) it turns out great, I’ll bring him into New York and give them such a production as they haven’t seen since Irving played the piece.” That is the clear, right, prescient insight of an authentic theatrical manager, who understands that a vital part of the management of the Theatre consists in management of the People.

BELASCO’S REPERTORY AS AN ACTOR.

A complete list of the characters that Belasco assumed, while he remained an actor, is not obtainable, but the subjoined partial list, which I have carefully made by consulting newspaper advertisements and other sources of authentic information, is sufficiently suggestive of his ample experience in the vocation of acting. The student of his career should needfully bear in mind, moreover, that he has, first and last, set on the stage every one of the plays here named (and many others), besides acting in them:

Photograph by Falk. The Albert Davis Collection.

BELASCO, ABOUT 1880]

PART. PLAY.

(A)

_Alfred Evelyn_ “Money.” _Antonio_ “The Merchant of Venice.” _Apothecary_ “Romeo and Juliet.” _Archibald Carlyle_ “East Lynne.” _Armand Duval_ “Camille.” _Avica, the Spirit of Avarice_ “A Storm of Thoughts.”

(B)

_Baldwin_ “Ireland and America.” _Benvolio_ “Romeo and Juliet.” _Bernardo_ “Hamlet.” _Biondello_ “Katharine and Petruchio.” _Black Donald_ “The Hidden Hand.” _Bleeding Sergeant_ “Macbeth.” _Bloater_ “Maum Cre.” _Bob_ “The Black Hand.” _Bob Brierly_ “The Ticket-of-Leave Man.” _Bob Rackett_ “Help.” _Box_ “Box and Cox.” _Buddicombe_ “Our American Cousin.” _Butler_ “Man and Wife.”

(C)

_Captain Blenham_ “The Rough Diamond.” _Captain Crosstree_ “Black-Ey’d Susan.” _Charles Oakley_ “The Jealous Wife.” _Château-Renaud_ “The Corsican Brothers.” _Claude Melnotte_ “The Lady of Lyons.” _Clifford_ “The Hunchback.” _Colonel Dent_ “The Governess.” _Conner O’Kennedy_ “Green Bushes.” _Cool_ “London Assurance.” _Cox_ “Box and Cox.” _Craven Lenoir_ “The Hidden Hand.”

(D)

_Dan_ “The Streets of New York.” _Danny Mann_ “The Colleen Bawn.” _Darley_ “Dark Deeds.” _Dauphin_ “King Louis XI.” _De Mauprat_ “Richelieu.” _DeWilt_ “Under the Gas-Light.” _Dickory_ “The Spectre Bridegroom.” _Doctor of Hospital_ “The Two Orphans.” _Dolly Spanker_ “London Assurance.” _Don Cæsar_ “Donna Diana.” _Duke of Burgundy_ “King Lear.”

(E)

_Earl of Oxford_ “King Richard III.”

(F)

_Fagin_ “Oliver Twist.” _First Citizen_ “Julius Cæsar.” _First Dwarf_ “Rip Van Winkle.” _First Fury_ “Pluto.” _First Grave-Digger_ “Hamlet.” _First Officer_ “Macbeth.” _First Policeman_ “Little Don Giovanni.” _Fournechet, Minister of Finance_ “A Life’s Revenge.” _Francesco_ “Hamlet.” _Frank Breezly_ “Katy.” _Friar Lawrence_ “Romeo and Juliet.” _Furnace, the Cook_ “A New Way to Pay Old Debts.”

(G)

_Galeas_ “The Enchantress.” _Gaspard_ “The Lady of Lyons.” _Gaston_ “Camille.” _Genius of the Ring_ “The Wonderful Scamp, or Aladdin No. 2.” _George Sheldon_ “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” _Gilbert Gates_ “The Dawn of Freedom.” _Gringoire_ “The Ballad Monger.” _Guildenstern_ “Hamlet.” _Gyp_ “Saratoga.”

(H)

_Hamlet_ “Hamlet.” _Harvey_ “Out at Sea.” _Heinrich Vedder_ “Rip Van Winkle.” _Hon. Bob Penley_ “Fritz in a Madhouse.”

(I)

_Idiot, the_ “The Idiot of the Mountain.”

(J)

_James Callin_ “Across the Continent.” (Prologue.) _Jasper Pidgeon_ “Meg’s Diversion.” _Job Armroyd_ “Lost in London.” _John O’Bibs_ “The Long Strike.” _Johnson_ “The Lancashire Lass.” _Joseph Surface_ “The School for Scandal.”

(K)

_King Louis the Eleventh_ “King Louis XI.”

(L)

_Laertes_ “Hamlet.” _Lawyer Marks_ “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” _Lawyer Tripper_ “Solon Shingle” (“The People’s Lawyer.”) _Lieutenant_ “Don Cæsar de Bazan.” _Lieutenant Victor_ “The Lion of Nubia.” _Le Beau_ “As You Like It.” _Lorenzo_ “The Wife.” _Louis_ “One Hundred Years Old.”

(M)

_Maffeo Orsini_ “Lucretia Borgia.” _Major Hershner_ “Twice Saved.” _Malcolm_ “Macbeth.” _Mandeville_ “The Young Widow.” _Marc Antony_ “Julius Cæsar.” _Marco_ “The Wife.” _Mark_ “The Prodigal’s Return.” _Mark Meddle_ “London Assurance.” _Marquis_ “The Pearl of Savoy.” _Master Walter_ “The Hunchback.” _Mateo, the Landlord_ “The Beauty and the Brigands.” _Melter Moss_ “The Ticket-of-Leave Man.” _Mercutio_ “Romeo and Juliet.” _Mr. Ellingham_ “Hearts of Oak.” _Mr. Honeyton_ “A Happy Pair.” _Mr. Trimeo_ “The Mysterious Inn.” _Mr. Toodle_ “The Toodles.” _Mrs. Cornelia_ “East Lynne.” _Mrs. Willoughby_ “The Ticket-of-Leave Man.” _Modus_ “The Hunchback.” _Mons. Deschapelles_ “The Lady of Lyons.” _Moses_ “The School for Scandal.” _Mother Frochard_ “The Two Orphans.”

(N)

_Nathan_ “Leah the Forsaken.”
_Nick o’ the Woods_
(_the Jibbenainosay_,
_The Avenger_,
_Reginald Ashburn_,
_Bloody Nathan_,
and _The Spirit of The Water_) “The Jibbenainosay.”
_Nick Vedder_ “Rip Van Winkle.”
_Nurse_ “Romeo and Juliet.”

(O)

_Our Guest_ “Our Mysterious Boarding House.”

(P)

_Pablo, the Harpist_ “Across the Continent.” _Page_ “Mary Stuart.” _Paris_ “Romeo and Juliet.” _Pedro_ “A Yankee in Cuba.” _Peter_ “Deborah.” _Peter Bowbells_ “The Illustrious Stranger.” _Peter True_ “The Statue Lover.” _Peter White_ “Mr. and Mrs. Peter White.” _Phil Bouncer_ “The Persecuted Traveller.” _Philip Ray_ “Enoch Arden.” _Pierre_ “Robert Macaire.” _Pietre_ “The Enchantress.” (Prologue.) _Player Queen_ “Hamlet.” _Polonius_ “Hamlet.” _Polydor_ “Ingomar.” _Prince Saucilita_ “The Gold Demon.” _Pumpernickel_ “The Child of the Regiment.”

(Q)

_Queen Gertrude_ “Hamlet.”

(R)

_Ralph_ “The Lighthouse Cliff.” _Raphael_ (and _Phidias_) “The Marble Heart.” _Ratcliff_ “King Richard III.” _Reuben_ “Schermerhorn’s Boy.” _Richard Hare_ “East Lynne.” _Richmond_ “King Richard III.” _Robert Landry_ “The Dead Heart.” _Robert Macaire_ “Robert Macaire.” _Rory O’More_ “Rory O’More.” _Rosencrantz_ “Hamlet.” _Ruby Darrell_ “Hearts of Oak.” _Rudolph_ “Leah the Forsaken.” _Rudolphe_ “Agnes.”

(S)

_Salanio_ “The Merchant of Venice.” _Sambo_ “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” _Santo_ “Gaspardo.” _Secretary_ “Richelieu.” _Second Player_ “Hamlet.” _Selim_ “The Forty Thieves.” _Signor Mateo_ “The Miser’s Daughter.” _Simon Lullaby_ “A Conjugal Lesson.” _Simon Legree_ “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” _Simon, the Cobbler_ “Marie Antoinette.” _Sir Francis Leveson_ “East Lynne.” _Slave_ “Pygmalion and Galatea.” _Spada_ “The Woman in Red.” _Stuttering Tailor_ “Katharine and Petruchio.” _Strale_ “Checkmate.” _Sylvius_ “As You Like It.”

(T)

_Terry Dennison_ “Hearts of Oak.” _The Destroyer_ “The Haunted Man.” _Tim Bolus_ “My Turn Next.” _Timothy Tubbs_ “The Millionaire’s Daughter.” _Tony Lumpkin_ “She Stoops to Conquer.” _Topsy_ “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” _Trip_ “The School for Scandal.” _Tubal_ “The Merchant of Venice.”

Photograph by Bradley & Rulofson, San Francisco.

Original loaned by Mrs. David Belasco.]

(U)

_Uncle Tom_ “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”

(V)

_Valentine_ “Faust.” (Abridgment of). _Vasquez_ “The Wonder.”

(W)

_Waiter_ “The Gamester.” _Waiter_ (_Negro_) “Fritz in a Madhouse.”

(Y)

_Young Marlowe_ “She Stoops to Conquer.”

Other plays in which Belasco has performed,--as I have ascertained
from newspaper advertisements or notices and from miscellaneous
records, without, however, finding specification of the parts in
them which he acted,--include “A Bull in a China Shop,” “Damon and
Pythias,” “The French Spy,” “A Hard Struggle,” “The Lone Pine,”
“Mazeppa,” “Medea,” “Mimi,” “Nobody’s Child,” “Pizarro,” and “The
Red Pocketbook.” I have no doubt that he made unrecorded and now
unremembered appearances in many other plays besides these.

To the catalogue previously given of readings and recitations
frequently employed by Belasco should be added “Tell Me Not in
Mournful Numbers,” “The Maiden’s Prayer,” “Little Jim, the
Collier’s Lad,” “Scenes from ’King Louis XI.,’” “Shamus O’Brien,”
“The Little Hero,” “No One to Love Him,” “The Trial Scene, from
’The Merchant of Venice,’” “Selections from ’Oliver Twist’” (the
scene on London Bridge, scene wherein _Fagin_ causes _Sikes_ to
murder _Nancy_, and _Fagin_ awaiting execution), “The Country
Bumpkin’s Courtship,” “Eliza,” “The Dream of Eugene Aram,” and “Jim
Bludso.”

BELASCO’S “THE STORY OF MY LIFE.”