Chapter VIII: Preface (7)

The period from January to July, 1881, exhibits nothing of particular moment concerning Belasco, though, as usual, he was hard at work throughout it. “Wedded by Fate” gave place to a revival, February 1, of Daly’s version of “Leah the Forsaken,” made to introduce to the Stage a novice, Miss Clara Stuart, who paid for the privilege of appearing and whose money, like that of the extravagant McDowell, was welcome to the distressed Maguire. Beginning on February 9, George Darrell, an actor from Australia,--with whom Belasco had been associated in conjunction with Laura Alberta, at Grey’s Opera House, in 1873,--acted at the Baldwin for several weeks. During McDowell’s season and for several weeks subsequent thereto part of the Baldwin stock company performed in towns of the interior,--Belasco dividing his time between San Francisco, where he assisted Darrell, and the Baldwin company, “on the road.” Darrell opened in “Back from the Grave,” a play dealing with the important, neglected, and often misrepresented subject of spiritualism (that actor was, or, at least, bore the reputation of being, a hypnotist and a student of occult matters). This was followed on the 21st by “Four Fates,” and, on the 25th, by “Transported for Life.” John P. Smith and William A. Mestayer played at the Baldwin for three weeks, beginning April 11, in “The Tourists in a Pullman Palace Car”; Kate Claxton, supported by Charles Stevenson and making her first appearance in San Francisco, presented “The Two Orphans” there for two weeks, opening on May 9; and the company of Jarrett & Rice, in “Fun on the Bristol,” played there from May 30 to June 9, after which date the theatre was closed until July 4. It was then reopened, under the temporary management of J. H. Young, with A. D. Bradley as stage manager, and a few performances of “Emancipation” were given by The Pierreponts. Belasco, however, appears to have been occupied chiefly with his own affairs from April to July.

“LA BELLE RUSSE.”

Even before Belasco had been reinstalled as stage manager at the Baldwin Theatre he had resumed planning another campaign of adventure to gain acceptance and position in New York, and that purpose was ever present in his mind during the year that followed his return from the Eastern venture with the Hernes in “Hearts of Oak.” He had set his heart on a success in the leading theatre of the country, Wallack’s, and he resolutely addressed himself to its achievement. Maguire had come to depend more and more on Belasco, in the labor of keeping the Baldwin Theatre open and solvent, and to him the ambitious dramatist presently turned with his plans for a play to be called “La Belle Russe.” “I felt that I had a play which would suit Wallack’s company,” he said, “and that, if I could get some of his actors to appear in it, Wallack would soon hear of it, and the task of getting a New York hearing would be much simplified. Jeffreys-Lewis

Photographs by Sarony.

MARY JEFFREYS-LEWIS

Belasco’s Collection.

OSMOND TEARLE

About 1881, when they acted in Belasco’s “La Belle Russe”]

was then in San Francisco, and I stipulated with Maguire that he should engage her for me, and also Osmond Tearle and Gerald Eyre, from Wallack’s; John Jennings, from the Union Square, and Clara Walters, who was then acting in Salt Lake City.” Maguire agreed to do this, the engagements were made, and Belasco earnestly addressed himself to the completion of his play, which was accomplished in six weeks. Meantime Tearle ended his engagement in New York (at Wallack’s Theatre, July 2) and, with other members of the Wallack company, went at once to San Francisco, where rehearsals of the new play were immediately begun.

Belasco’s “La Belle Russe” was originally entitled “Violette.” He chanced to read the phrase “la belle Russe” on a wind-blown fragment of newspaper, was pleased by it, and adopted it as a better title. The play is a fabric of theatrically effective but incredible situations, and it is founded on two other plays, well known to him,--both of them having been acted in San Francisco, under his management,--namely, “Forget Me Not,” by Herman Merivale and Charles Groves, and “The New Magdalen,” by Wilkie Collins: the version produced under Belasco’s direction was a piratical one made by James H. LeRoy. _La belle Russe_ is a beautiful but vicious Englishwoman, named _Beatrice Glandore_, daughter of a clergyman. She has sunk, by a facile process of social decline, until she has become a decoy for a gambling house, where, pretending to be a Russian, she is known to its frequenters by the sobriquet which gives the play its name. She has a virtuous twin sister, _Geraldine_, so like her in appearance that they are, practically, indistinguishable. _La belle Russe_ has infatuated a young Englishman, _Captain Brand_ (known at the time by the name of _Captain Jules Clopin_), with whom she has lived, whom she has robbed, abandoned, and finally shot, believing herself to have killed him. _Geraldine_, meantime, has married a young Englishman of great expectations, _Sir Philip Calthorpe_, who is repudiated by his mother and other relatives because of his marriage, whereupon, in financial straits, though represented as loving his wife, _Calthorpe_ deserts her, enlists in the Army, and disappears.

After the lapse of a considerable period, _Calthorpe_ being reported as dead, _Lady Elizabeth Calthorpe_, his mother, experiences a change of heart, and advertises for information about his widow. _Beatrice, la belle Russe_, poor and resident in Italy, hears of this inquiry and, believing her twin sister to be dead, determines to present herself in the assumed person of _Geraldine_, as the widow of _Calthorpe_, and thus to obtain for herself and her young daughter (of whom _Brand_ is the father) a luxurious home and an enviable social station. In this fraud she partially succeeds, being accepted as _Calthorpe’s_ widow by both _Lady Elizabeth_ and her family lawyer, _Monroe Quilton_, who evince a confiding acquiescence singularly characteristic of proud old English aristocrats and their astute legal advisers. Almost in the moment of her success, however, _Sir Philip_ having come from Australia, she finds herself installed not as his widow but as his wife,--and also she finds that _Sir Philip_ is accompanied by her former companion, _Captain Brand_, those wanderers having met in Australian wilds and become close friends. _Philip_ is sure she is his wife and gladly accepts her as such. _Brand_, on the contrary, promptly identifies the spurious _Geraldine_ as _Beatrice_, and, privately, demands that she abandon her fraudulent position. This she refuses to do, defying _Brand_ to oust her from the newly acquired affections of _Calthorpe_ and his mother,--and thus, practically, the situation is created wherein _Stéphanie de Mohrivart_ defies _Sir Horace Welby_, in the play of “Forget Me Not.” _Beatrice_, having made an unsuccessful attempt to poison _Brand_, in order to remove all obstacles and maintain her place, is finally defeated and driven to confession and surrender when that inexorable antagonist reveals to her not an avenging Corsican (the dread apparition which overwhelms _Stéphanie_), but the approaching figure of her twin sister, the true _Geraldine_ and the actual wife of _Calthorpe_,--who, also, is conveniently resurrected for the family reunion.

Aside from the impossibility of most of these occurrences,--a defect which is measurably lessened by Belasco’s deft treatment of them,--and also from the blemish of intricacy in the substructure of the plot, “La Belle Russe” is an effective play, of the society-melodrama order,--the action of it being free and cumulative, the characters well drawn, and the interest sustained. It contains an interesting exposition of monstrous feminine wickedness, and stimulates thought upon the infatuation that can be caused by seductive physical beauty, and it suggests the singular spectacle of baffled depravity stumbling among its attempted self-justifications,--_Beatrice_, of course, entering various verbal pleas in extenuation which, accepted, would establish her as a victim of ruthless society instead of her own unbridled tendencies. The play possesses, likewise, the practical advantages of a small cast, implicating only nine persons and requiring for its display only three simple sets of scenery. The San Francisco production of it was abundantly successful, Miss Jeffreys-Lewis, who had previously won high praise by performances of _Stéphanie de Mohrivart_, and also of the _Countess Zicka_, in “Diplomacy,” being specially commended, one observer declaring that, though her performances of those parts were good examples of the acting required in the tense dramatic situations of a duel of keen wits, “her _Geraldine_ [_Beatrice_] _Glandore_ is more varied, more vivid, more intense, and generally powerful. Her mobile face took on every shade of expression that the human face can wear, and perhaps not the least natural was the open, artless, sunny countenance which quickly won _Sir Philip’s_ love.” Tearle as _Captain Brand_ and Gerald Eyre as _Calthorpe_ were almost equally admired, and the play had a prosperous career of two weeks,--which, in San Francisco at that time, was substantial testimony to its popularity. Belasco writes this account of the production:

“San Francisco, like all other cities, was not over-anxious to
welcome the product of one of her sons. There was much more drawing
power in something of foreign authorship.... Knowing that the
critics would welcome anything from France, and knowing how
hypercritical some of the writers of the press were becoming of my
own efforts, ’La Belle Russe’ was announced as being by a French
author. The programme for the opening announced that the drama was
from the French. However, Maguire had posters ready to placard the
town, were ’La Belle Russe’ a success. This time the name of David
Belasco was blazoned forth in the blackest type. And it all worked
as I had devised. The play met with instant success, and on the
morning after, when the critics had come out in columns of praise
for such technique as the French usually showed, on their downward
travel to the offices they were faced with the startling
announcement that the anonymous author was none other than David
Belasco.”

The first presentment of “La Belle Russe” was made at the Baldwin Theatre, to mark “the inauguration of the regular dramatic season” there, on July 18, 1881. During the rehearsals of it Tearle had several times spoken to Belasco, signifying doubt about the “French origin” of the play and, finally, remarking that Belasco showed an astonishing familiarity with every word and detail of the drama. “Well, whatever you may think,” Belasco assured him, “please believe _you are mistaken_ and say nothing about it--just now.” His wishes were observed: one contemporary comment on the day before its production remarks that “of the play little seems to be known. It is said to resemble ’Forget Me Not.’ The actors say it is strong.” The first announcement I have been able to find of the actual authorship is in a newspaper of July 26, 1881, where it is advertised as “The strongest play of modern times, ’La Belle Russe,’ by D. Belasco, author of ’Hearts of Oak.’” After all question of the acceptance of his play was ended and his authorship acknowledged Belasco asked Tearle to inform Lester Wallack about it, “if he thought well enough of the play to feel justified in doing so.” “Oh,” answered Tearle, “I’ve done that long ago; I telegraphed to him after the first performance: it will be just the thing for Rose Coghlan.” Thus Belasco felt he was in a fair way to accomplish his purpose of securing a New York opening. This was the original cast of “La Belle Russe”:

_Captain Dudley Brand_ Osmond Tearle. _Sir Philip Calthorpe_ Gerald Eyre. _Monroe Quilton, Esq._ John W. Jennings. _Rignold Henderson_ (Supt. of Police) E. H. Holden. _Roberts_ J. McCormack. _Barton_ Edgar Wilton. _Beatrice Glandore_ (_Geraldine_) Jeffreys-Lewis. _Lady Elizabeth Calthorpe_ Jean Clara Walters. _Elise_ Edith Livingston. _Little Beatrice_ Maude Adams.

“THE STRANGLERS OF PARIS.”

“La Belle Russe” received its final performance at the Baldwin Theatre on Saturday evening, July 30. On August 1 “Adolph Challet” was produced there, under Belasco’s direction, and on August 8 a revival of “Diplomacy” was effected, Tearle acting _Henry Beauclerc_, Gerald Eyre _Julian_, and Miss Jeffreys-Lewis the _Countess Zicka_. It had been intended to divide the week between “Diplomacy” and “Camille,” but “to my delight,” Belasco said, “the former was strong enough to fill the whole week and I could give all the time to final preparation of my new play.” That new play was a dramatic epitome of “The Stranglers of Paris” (“Les Étrangleurs de Paris”), by Adolphe Belot, for the production of which much effort had already been made. It was modestly announced by Maguire (who, I surmise, did not thereby greatly distress Belasco) as “The great dramatic event of the nineteenth century,” and it was brought out on August 15. Belasco’s name was not made known as that of the adapter. This play is, in fact, an extravagant and, in some respects, a repulsive sensation melodrama. The story relates some of the experiences of an intellectual pervert named _Jagon_, a huge hunchback, of remarkable muscular strength, especially in the digits, resident in Paris, and gaining a livelihood for himself and a cherished daughter (whom he keeps in ignorance of her actual relationship to himself) by the gentle art of strangling persons in order to rob them. A specially barbarous murder is committed by _Jagon_ and an accomplice named _Lorenz_,--an ex-convict who has ingratiated himself with the daughter, _Mathilde_, and who marries her. _Jagon_ and an innocent man, _Blanchard_, are arrested, tried for this crime, and sentenced to transportation to New Caledonia. The convict-ship bearing them to that destination is wrecked and they escape together upon a raft and return to Paris. _Mathilde_, having discovered the criminality of her husband, frees her mind on that subject with such pungency that _Lorenz_ is moved to practise upon her the professional dexterity learned from her revered father and promptly chokes her to death. _Jagon_ arrives at this juncture, attended by police officers, denounces _Lorenz_ to them as his actual accomplice in the crime for which _Blanchard_ has been convicted with him, and then, in the manner of _Robert Macaire_ in somewhat similar circumstances, being determined to escape the guillotine, leaps through a convenient window, thus giving the police an opportunity, which they improve, of shooting him to death. The play is immensely inferior to the story upon parts of which it is based, but it serves its purpose as a “shocker.” The escape of the two convicts on the raft at sea provides an effective scene, not the less so because of its resemblance to a similar scene in the earlier melodrama of “The World”: the expedient, however, was an old one long before “The World” was produced: it is employed with great skill and effect in Reade’s fine novel of “The Simpleton.” Belasco’s mature opinion of this play of his has been recorded in four words which cover the case: “What buncombe it was!” A notably good performance was given in it by Osmond Tearle as _Jagon_--a part which he expressed himself to the dramatist as delighted to undertake as a relief from acting the repressed “leads” to which he had for some time been restricted. It ran for two weeks. This was the original cast:

_Jagon_ Osmond Tearle. _Joseph Blanchard_ Gerald Eyre. _Robert de Meillant_ Joseph R. Grismer. _Lorenz_ Max Freeman. _Captain Jules Guérin_ Walter Leman. _Mons. Claude_ A. D. Bradley. _Bontout_ John W. Jennings. _Papin_ Charles Norris. _Dr. Fordien_ J. P. Wade. _Mons. Vitel_ George McCormack. _Mons. Xavier_ E. N. Thayer. _Governor of Prison_ George Galloway. _Longstalot_ } { R. G. Marsh. _Grégoire_ } { Logan Paul. _Jacquot_ } { G. L. May. _Cabassa_ } { John Torrence. _Pierre_ } Convicts { G. McCord. _Zalabut_ } { J. Higgins. _Lamazon_ } { Charles Robertson. _Zorges_ } { G. Holden. _Jacques_ } { S. Chapman. _Commander of Prison Ship_ W. T. Day. _First Lieutenant_ E. N. Neuman. _Second Lieutenant_ E. Webster. _First Marine_ J. Sherwood. _Mathilde_ Jeffreys Lewis. _Jeanne Guerin_ Ethel Arden. _Sophie Blanchard_ Jean Clara Walters. _Zoé Lacassade_ Mrs. Elizabeth Saunders. _La Grande Florine_ Eva West.

“The Stranglers” was superbly mounted, it delighted the public for which it was intended, and was played for two weeks, attracting large and enthusiastically demonstrative audiences.

NEW YORK AGAIN.--“LA BELLE RUSSE” AT WALLACK’S.

Maguire, because he had produced Belasco’s play of “La Belle Russe” at the Baldwin and had thereby profited, appears to have considered that also he had thereby acquired a property in it. To this claim the necessitous dramatist assented (making, I suppose, a virtue of necessity), giving Maguire a half-interest. Maguire then decreed that they should go to New York together, in order to place the play with Wallack, if that should prove the most expedient arrangement, or to place it with any other manager from whom it might be possible to exact higher payment. Belasco consented to negotiate with other managers and ascertain what terms might be offered, “even though,” he said, “I had determined that none but Wallack should produce it.” On September 25, 1881, they left San Francisco together and came to New York.

According to Belasco’s statement to me, Augustin Daly wanted the play of “La Belle Russe” for Ada Rehan (to whom the central part would have been peculiarly unfitted), while A. M. Palmer wanted it for Miss Jeffreys-Lewis, at the Union Square, and John Stetson wanted it for Marie Prescott. Belasco had interviews with all of them, and with Wallack. His determination that Wallack should produce his play, if he possibly could arrange to have him do so, was intensified by the kindness of Wallack’s manner toward the young author and by the strong impression made upon him by that actor’s pictorial and winning personality. Maguire, meantime, consorted with Stetson, a person naturally congenial to him, and presently became insistent that the play should be intrusted to that manager. “After I had read the play to Stetson in his office (which I did very unwillingly),” Belasco told me, “the two of them threatened me with all sorts of consequences if I did not turn the manuscript over to Stetson, and I really believe they would have taken it from me by force if I had not buttoned it under my coat and bolted out of the office!” This pair of pilgrims had then been for some time in New York, and Maguire, by agreement, had been paying Belasco’s living expenses; now, by way of practical intimation that his will must prevail and the play be relinquished to Stetson, he stopped doing so. This left Belasco in a familiar but not the less painful plight--stranded--and it also incensed him against Maguire.

At this juncture, when unfortunately he was impecunious, indignant, and excited, he received a visit from Maguire’s nephew, Mr. Frank L. Goodwin, with whom he had already negotiated relative to “La Belle Russe,” and whom he now supposed to have come to him as Wallack’s representative. To this person he imprudently made known his quarrel with Maguire, and hastily inquired, “What will you give me for the play?” “Fifteen hundred dollars, cash,” Goodwin answered, and then, observing that he hesitated, “and a return ticket to San Francisco, and $100 more for your expenses.” “How soon can I have the money?” Belasco rejoined. “In half an hour.” “Then I’ll take it”--and he did, selling his play, outright, not, as he supposed, to Wallack, but to Goodwin, for $1,600 cash and a railroad ticket home! He received the money the same afternoon and left that night for San Francisco. When the play was produced at Wallack’s it was announced as “By arrangement with Mr. F. L. Goodwin, the production of a new and powerful drama by David Belasco, Esq.” Wallack paid Goodwin a high price for the play, which, since then, has been successfully acted throughout the English-speaking world, and, later, when told of the facts of the sale, expressed his profound regret and dissatisfaction that Belasco had not dealt directly with him. Fifty times the amount of money that Belasco received for “La Belle Russe” would have been more like a fair payment for it than the sum he actually received. “I did not particularly care what Maguire might do,” Belasco told me, “when he heard about the matter. I felt that I could get along much better without him than he could without me (I always did for Maguire far more than ever I got paid for!), but he cooled off after he got home, and I resumed work, for a little while, at the Baldwin.”

AN OPINION BY BRONSON HOWARD.--WALLACK IN THE THIRTIETH STREET HOUSE.

Belasco’s published recollections of the circumstances of Wallack’s removal from the Thirteenth Street house and of the importance to that manager of his presentation of “La Belle Russe” require revision to make them accurate. He says:

“The stage history of ’La Belle Russe’ is interesting. Wallack had
opened his theatre with ’Money,’ which had been followed by a play
by Pinero. He had met with failure all along the road, and his
heart began to question whether he was right in forsaking his old
ground on Thirteenth Street and in moving so far up-town. ’La Belle
Russe,’ put on hurriedly, as a last forlorn hope, retrieved his
fortunes. It called a spade a spade and did not show any reticence,
the papers declared, and they flayed it as hard as ever they could.
There was one exception, and that was Edward A. Dithmar, of ’The
New York Times.’ He said it was a new era among plays, and,
although he was not a prophet, he put his finger on the elements
that achieved success, and this was long before the day of ’The
Second Mrs. Tanqueray.’ Bronson Howard, at the height of his
success, declared, in a public lecture, that it was a model of
construction, and confessed that he had already seen it seventeen
times, each evening discovering some new technical excellence in
it. I do not want to appear boastful; the facts of the theatre are
no longer personal after they have been made known to the public.”

Bronson Howard was a man of talent, though his plays conclusively show that it was not of a high order and that his command of technical resource in dramatic construction was not remarkable: he may have required seventeen inspections of the drama in order to perceive its many practical merits as an histrionic vehicle: most experienced observers could, and did, discern them at one view. Belasco’s statements with regard to Wallack, above quoted, are not correct. Wallack did not open his Thirtieth Street theatre with “Money”: he opened it, January 4, 1882, with “The School for Scandal”: “Money” was not acted at that theatre till March 23, 1888,--though a play by A. W. Pinero, entitled “The Money Spinner,” was the second acted there, January 21, 1882. Wallack had not “met with failure all along the road.” He closed his theatre at Thirteenth Street with a presentation, under the management of Samuel Colville, of the English melodrama of “The World,” which ran there from April 11 to July 2, 1881, receiving eighty-four performances, and which gained gross receipts to the extent of about $65,000 (at the time, when prices were about half what they are now, an extraordinary profit): he produced another English melodrama, called “Youth,” at his new theatre, February 20, 1882, and this play ran till May 6: “La Belle Russe” was produced by Wallack on May 8, and it ran till the close of the season, June 28. The presentment of it there was a notably handsome one and was distinctly successful. Rose Coghlan was specially excellent in her evincement of agonizing apprehension beneath a forced assumption of calm, and by the denoted prevalence of an indomitable will over mental terror. This was the cast at Wallack’s:

_Captain Dudley Brand_ Osmond Tearle. _Sir Philip Calthorpe_ Gerald Eyre. _Monroe Quilton, Esq._ John Gilbert. _Roberts_ C. E. Edwin. _Barton_ H. Holliday. _Beatrice_ (_Geraldine_) Rose Coghlan. _Lady Elizabeth Calthorpe_ Mme. Ponisi. _Little Beatrice_ Mabel Stephenson. _Agnes_ Celia Edgerton.

Belasco left New York in the latter part of December, 1881, and he arrived in San Francisco on Christmas Day. “Chispa,” by Clay M. Greene and Slason Thompson, was produced at the Baldwin Theatre on December 26 and it ran there for two weeks,--in the course of which Maguire returned home; the differences between him and Belasco were composed, and the latter was presently reinstalled in his familiar place at the Baldwin. On January 16, 1882, acting _Matthias_, in “The Bells,” W. E. Sheridan began a season there which lasted for seven weeks, during which he revived “Richelieu,” “Othello,” “Hamlet,” and other plays of the legitimate repertory which he had previously presented in San Francisco (November-December, 1800), and also “King John” and “The Fool’s Revenge.” The last-named tragedy was brought out on March 3, the first performance of it being given for the benefit of Belasco’s old friend and teacher, Mrs. “Nelly” Holbrook.

BELASCO AND HIS “THE CURSE OF CAIN.”

Sheridan’s season terminated on March 5, and, on the 7th, occurred the first performance of a new play constructed, while that season lasted, by Belasco in collaboration with the excellent and much respected Peter Robertson (1847-1911), long dramatic critic of “The San Francisco Chronicle.” It was called “The Curse of Cain,” and its more active author has written of it as follows:

“Strange as it may appear, _Cain_ was my hero. _Abel_ had never
appealed to me, any more than his forebears, in the garden of the
bright flaming sword, whence the apple-eating Eve had been so
forcibly, ejected. ’The Curse of Cain’ in embryo was a simple
trifle of an allegory, which afterwards developed into a four-act
drama with prologue and epilogue. And now that I look back upon it
I think it was somewhat remarkable for strange innovations to the
stage of that day. For the first time realistic thunderstorms and
lightning effects were introduced, more naturally than anything
that had gone before. I do not wish to pooh-pooh modern inventions,
double stages, and all the paraphernalia of the latter-day drama,
but I do contend that we could not have been outdone.”

It will not, I think, appear “strange” to most persons that to Belasco, as a dramatist, the character of Cain should be more attractive than that of Abel. It is, I know, sometimes asserted that evil is merely the absence of good and a passive state. But that assertion is untrue. _Why_ evil should exist at all is a mystery. But that it does exist and that, existing, it is a positive, active force which supplies the propulsive dramatic movement of most great representative plays,--of “Othello,” “Hamlet,” “King Richard III.,” and “Macbeth,” for example,--is obvious. Many of the great poets have felt this and exhibited it in their poetry. _Mephistopheles_ is the dominant figure and the animating impulse of Goethe’s “Faust” and of Bailey’s “Festus,” and that is true, likewise, of _Satan_, in Milton’s “Paradise Lost.” Cain is the exponent of evil in the Bible narrative, the active, dramatic figure--and Cain, not Abel, accordingly engaged the attention of Byron, in one of his greatest poems, and of Coleridge, in a fragment on the same subject. Belasco’s declared preference, as a dramatist, seems to me to be an inevitable one. There is not, however, much relevancy in the expression of it as regards his play of “The Curse of Cain.” That fabric does not relate to the Bible narrative: it is a melodrama, of the period in which it was written, which tells, in an artificial but momentarily effective and diverting manner, a conventional tale of good and evil in conflict,--of crime long unpunished and honor much abused; of prosperous villainy and persecuted innocence borne down under a false accusation of murder; of harsh suffering in gypsy camps and prison cells, and, finally, of the vindication of virtue and retributive justice overtaking the transgressor. It was avowedly fashioned on the model of such earlier plays as “The World” (which Belasco had successfully set upon the stage fourteen months before), “The Lights o’ London,” “Mankind” and “Youth,” and it was devised for the purpose of making lavish scenic display and startling theatrical effects, in the hope of winning back public support for the Baldwin. That purpose though not that hope was fulfilled, all contemporary commentators, in effect, agreeing with the published declaration that “never before in San Francisco has there been such a liberal and beautiful display of scenery as that provided for this play.” “The Curse of Cain” was divided into seven acts, all of which were richly framed, and four of which,--Waterloo Bridge, London, during a snowstorm; a Gypsy Camp, in rural England; a Ruined Abbey, and “the Whirlpool Lighthouse,”--were affirmed “marvels of stage painting and effect.” In the scene of the Gypsy Camp Belasco indulged to the full his liking for literalism,--providing for the public edification a braying donkey, neighing horses, cackling hens, crowing cocks, quacking ducks, and a rooting, grunting pig. In the Lighthouse Scene, as one account relates, having assembled his _dramatis personæ_ for the final curtain by the novel yet simple expedient of “washing them all up from the ocean,” after a shipwreck, like flotsam, he introduced a frantic struggle between the villain and the hero, beginning on the wave-beaten rocks, conducted up a spiral stairway within the lighthouse and intermittently visible through the windows thereof, and terminating in the fall of the villain from the pinnacle of that edifice to a watery grave,--with which fitting demise, and the union of lovers, the spectacle drew sweetly to a close. “The critics,” writes Belasco, “had plenty of fun with the absurdities of the piece (which hardly needed to be pointed out), and I had many a good laugh at it myself; but, for all that, it was the most elaborate scenic production of the kind ever made in the West, and the people who came to see it went wild over it. The only trouble was not enough of ’em could be induced to come!”

“The Curse of Cain” was acted from March 7 to 18, except on the evenings of the 8th and 15th, when Frederick Haase acted at the Baldwin. J. B. Dickson, of Brooks & Dickson, who saw the play there, purchased the right to produce it in the East, in English, and Gustav Amberg (then in San Francisco as manager of the Geistinger Opera Company) arranged to bring out a German version of it at the Thalia Theater, New York,--but I have not found that either of those managers ever presented it. A fragmentary record of the original cast, which is all that diligent research has discovered, shows Mrs. Saunders and Ada D’Aves as members of the company and signifies that the chief characters were allotted thus:

_Sir Rupert Treloar_ Joseph R. Grismer. _Ashcroft_ Harry Colton. _Tom Gray_, “_The Idiot_” George Osborne. _Joan Gray_ Jean Clara Walters. _Alice Gray_ Phœbe Davis.

On March 15 Osborne superseded Colton as _Ashcroft_,--his place, as _Tom Gray_, being taken by Joseph W. Francœur.

THE PASSING OF MAGUIRE.

Maguire’s control of the Baldwin Theatre and Belasco’s career in San Francisco were now drawing toward an end. The Geistinger Opera Company came to the Baldwin for a few days, when “The Curse of Cain” was withdrawn: “The Great Divorce Case” was acted there March 30: then came Haase, in “Hamlet,” “The Gamester,” and other old plays, which were performed by him “to a beggarly array of empty benches”: and, on April 11, the Italian tragedian Ernesto Rossi (1829-1896)

Photograph by (Houseman?). Belasco’s Collection.

THOMAS MAGUIRE]

emerged in his supremely repulsive perversion of Shakespeare’s _Othello_: Rossi acted in association with Louise Muldener and he played at the Baldwin for one week,--closing with “Edmund Kean.” Attendance throughout his engagement was paltry--the treasury was empty--neither Baldwin nor anybody else would advance more money to Maguire--and the end had come. To Belasco it came as a relief. “The last year or so at the Baldwin,” he has declared to me, “was a good deal of a nightmare. Although Maguire and I had our differences, I liked him, I pitied him, and I stuck to him till the end. But my salary and my royalties were often unpaid: we had much trouble with our actors, so that sometimes I had to bring in amateurs who wanted experience and would play for nothing, or, sometimes, even pay for an opportunity to go on! I not only was stage manager, but I painted scenery, played parts when we were left in the lurch, helped in the front of the house, attended to the advertising, and even borrowed money for Maguire, whenever I could. But the Rossi engagement was the last straw. Baldwin’s lawyer notified Maguire that the theatre was up for lease--and I was glad when it was all over.”

BELASCO AND GUSTAVE FROHMAN.--THEY REVIVE “THE OCTOROON.”

Nobody, however, seems to have been eager to rush in where so many others had recently failed, and the Baldwin, except for a couple of benefits (the first, a performance of “Chispa,” May 18, given for Phœbe Davis, under direction of J. R. Grismer; the second, given May 27, a revival of “The New Magdalen,” for the public favorite Mrs. Judah), remained closed for about two months. During that period Gustave Frohman, the eldest of three brothers influentially associated with the American Stage, came to San Francisco, as representative of the proprietors of the New York Madison Square Theatre, in charge of a company headed by Charles Walter Couldock and Effie Ellsler, presenting “Hazel Kirke.” With Gustave Frohman Belasco immediately formed a friendly acquaintance which vitally affected his subsequent career. “Hazel Kirke” was brought forward at the California Theatre on May 30--and even before that presentment had been made Belasco had suggested to Frohman another venture. This was a “sensation revival” of the old play of “The Octoroon.” Calender’s Colored Minstrels had just concluded an engagement at Emerson’s Standard Theatre, and it was part of Belasco’s scheme to employ that negro company and make use of it as auxiliary to performance of Boucicault’s play. Gustave Frohman acceded to Belasco’s suggestion, arranged for the proposed appearance of Callender’s Minstrels, leased the Baldwin Theatre, and there revived “The Octoroon,” on June 12, at low prices,--twenty-five to seventy-five cents. This shrewdly conceived enterprise was, because of Belasco’s felicitous treatment of old material and his skilful direction of the players, an instant popular success. A contemporaneous commentator writes about it as follows:

“The present management has engaged the best professional talent
the city affords, and has put it under the direction of a stage
manager who can make the most of it.... Without a single strong
feature in the cast, with possibly the exception of the
_Wah-no-tee_ of George Osborne, there were effects introduced which
give more than their ordinary interest to the performance. The
clever pen of Mr. Belasco had evidently elaborated the auction
scenes, and the scene in which _Salem Scudder_ saves the _Indian_
from the mob....”

This was the cast:

_Jacob McCloskey_ Harry Colton. _Salem Scudder_ Edward Marble. _Wah-no-tee_ George Osborne. _George Peyton_ W. T. Doyle. “_Uncle_” _Pete_ Edward Barrett. _Mr. Sunnyside_ R. G. Marsh. _Lafouche_ Mr. Foster. _Paul_ Kitty Belmour. _Ratts_ Joseph W. Francœur. _Colonel Poindexter_ Thomas Gossman. _Julius Thibodeaux_ Logan Paul. _Judge Caillou_ George Galloway. _Jackson_ George Stevens. _Solon_ Mr. McIntosh. _Zoe_, _the Octoroon_ Mrs. F. M. Bates. _Dora Sunnyside_ Abbie Pierce. _Mrs. Peyton_ Jean Clara Walters. _Grace_ Lillie Owen. _Dido_ Mrs. Weston. _Minnie_ Kate Foust.

In making this revival of “The Octoroon” Belasco employed the “altered and retouched” version of it, prepared by him, which had been acted under his direction at the Baldwin July 8, 1878,--still further varying and expanding several scenes of the original. The most popular variety features, dances, “specialties,” and songs of the minstrel show were deftly interwoven with the fabric of the drama, being utilized with pleasing effect in an elaborate representation of the slave quarters by moonlight, and in the first and fourth scenes of the Last Act: in the latter the slaves were shown, slowly making their way homeward, at evening, through the cotton fields, singing as they went, and the result was extraordinarily picturesque and impressive. More than 150 persons, besides the actors of the chief characters, participated in the performance, and the slave sale and the burning of the river steamboat Magnolia were portrayed with notable semblance of actuality. Writing to me, Belasco says: “I used a panorama, painted on several hundred yards of canvas, and I introduced drops, changing scenes in the twinkling of an eye, showing, alternately and in quick succession, pursued and pursuer,--_Jacob McCloskey_ and the _Indian_,--making their way through the canebrake and swamp, and ending with the life and death struggle and the killing of _McCloskey_. I must say the people were wildly enthusiastic and I was proud of the whole production. _I_ thought the acting very good.”

“AMERICAN BORN.”

“The Octoroon” was played for two weeks and then, June 26, gave place to “Caryswold,” an inconsequential play which Belasco tinkered,--introducing into it a “Fire Scene, showing the destruction of a Mad-House,” suggested by the terrible passage in Reade’s “Hard Cash,” descriptive of the burning of an asylum for the insane and the escape of _Alfred Hardy_. Ada Ward, an English actress, who came from Australia, acted the principal part in it.

Gustave Frohman’s lease of the Baldwin Theatre expired on July 1, and on the 3rd Jay Rial, having hired the house for a week, presented “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” there. On July 10 occurred the last event of the first period of Belasco’s theatrical life,--the presentment at the Baldwin of “American Born.” Edward Marble, an actor who had come to San Francisco as a member of the “Hazel Kirke” company, was advertised as lessee of the theatre and the play was brought out under the auspices of Gustave Frohman. It was a free adaptation by Belasco of “British Born,” by Paul Merritt and Henry Pettitt, and was a wild and whirling, spread-eagle, bugle-blowing melodrama, in which the heroine, at a climax of desperate adventure, saves her lover from being shot to death by Bolivian soldiers by wrapping him in a flag of the United States. Its production was chiefly remarkable for handsome scenic investiture and a really impressive portrayal of a volcano in furious eruption. This was the cast of “American Born”:

_IN THE PROLOGUE._

_Laban Brood_ John W. Jennings. _George Seymour_ Joseph R. Grismer. _Fred Faggles_ John Dillon. _John Hope_ A. D. Bradley. _Captain Jabez Dolman_ M. A. Kennedy. _Constable_ George H. McCormack. _Messenger_ Edgar Wilton.

Photograph by Houseworth, San Francisco.

Original loaned by Mrs. David Belasco.]

_Mary Hope_ Ada Ward. _Nancy Treat_ Ada Gilman.

_IN THE DRAMA._

_Don Andre de Calderone_ George Osborne. _John Hope_ A. D. Bradley. _George Seymour_ Joseph R. Grismer. _Fred Faggles_ John Dillon. _Sylvester (alias Laban Brood)_ John W. Jennings. _Juddle (alias Captain Dolman)_ M. A. Kennedy. _Tom Morris_ Joseph W. Francœur. _Jumbo_ George H. McCormack. _Landro_ Edgar Wilton. _Mary Hope_ Ada Ward. _Nancy Treat_ Ada Gilman.

FIRST MEETING WITH CHARLES FROHMAN.

Belasco was, during one period of his life, closely allied to Charles Frohman. Later, after Frohman had, with others, formed the iniquitous Theatrical Syndicate, he was, for many years, resolutely and rightly, antagonistic to him. Age and change, however, sometimes wear out antagonisms, and those estranged friends were reconciled not long before Frohman’s death in the Lusitania murder: the last production made by Frohman was a revival, at the Empire Theatre, New York, April 7, 1915, in association with Belasco, of “A Celebrated Case.” The first meeting of those managers occurred in San Francisco, while Belasco was rehearsing “American Born.” He has made this record of that significant incident:

“Charles Frohman came to San Francisco at the head of the Haverley
Minstrels. Gustave Frohman told me he thought his brother and I
should meet. The artists of the town had a rendezvous at a
Rathskeller at the corner of Kearny and Sutter streets, where we
were in the habit of gathering after the theatre. Gustave Frohman
and I were at a table, when he exclaimed: ’There’s my brother
Charlie!’ I looked at Charles, our eyes met. We bowed. That was our
introduction. We never had a formal one, Charles Frohman and I; we
just knew each other.... He came to see ’American Born,’ was
favorably impressed by it, and conceived the idea of forming a
company and taking the play East. We selected Chicago as the best
starting point for an Eastern tour and set busily to work to
organize our company and arrange details of the business.”

EASTWARD, HO!

While Belasco was thus busily engaged with preparation for the presentment in Chicago of his drama of “American Born,” a proposal was made to him by Daniel Frohman, business manager of the Madison Square Theatre, New York, through his brother, Gustave Frohman, that he should undertake, on trial, the stage management of that theatre. The opportunity thus offered was alluring, and, having ascertained that he might improve it without detriment to his purposed venture in Chicago, Belasco determined to seek once more for the success in the metropolis of the country which had long been the chief object of his ambition. He accepted the proposal, and likewise he accepted an invitation to work his way eastward as stage manager of the [Gustave] Frohman Dramatic Company. That company, organized in San Francisco, included Ada Ward, “Virgie” Emily, Abbie Pierce, “Rellie” Davis, “Jennie” Lamont, Charles Wheatleigh, M. A. Kennedy, John Dillon, George Osborne, “Harry” Colton, W. F. Doyle, Joseph W. Francœur, Logan Paul, and Hawley Chapman. It left San Francisco, on or about July 18, 1882, to perform in towns and cities of Colorado, and on July 31 began an engagement at Denver, where it played for two weeks during the Industrial and Mining Exposition held in that city. The repertory comprised “The Octoroon,” “East Lynne,” “Mary Warner,” “Our Boys,” “Leah the Forsaken,” “The Woman in Red,” “Arrah-na-Pogue,” and “American Born.”

At, apparently, about the time when Maguire ceased to be potent in San Francisco theatrical affairs Belasco received a personal letter from F. F. Mackaye (himself an excellent stage manager and a severe judge of achievement in that vocation), which,--because it is representative of the advice of several friendly admirers in the same period, and because it had some influence on his decision to accept the Frohman proposals,--may appropriately be printed here:

(_F. F. Mackaye to David Belasco._)

“Hotel, Pike’s Peak, “Colorado (date? 1881-82?).

“My dear Belasco:--

“I fear that I hardly appreciated you fully while under your
direction in San Francisco: but I think I have done so since we
have been here, and my daily toil has placed me under the direction
of Mr. S----. He seems a very clever man. Yet his lack of form, of
constructive direction, is very much felt by one who has had the
pleasure of being under your direction at the Baldwin. I sometimes
wonder _why_ you have stayed so long in the West. I know some
people who have been there all their lives think it the greatest
place in the world, but I am sure that if you were to go to New
York, which is really the centre of art in the United States, your
work would be more fully recognized and appreciated. I feel that a
man of your progressive mood should not be content to remain on the
outside of the world when you could just as well be in the middle
of it. I am sure that your final efforts, or, rather, that your
continuous efforts should be made in the city of New York, where
you would be rightly appreciated.

“I wouldn’t say one word in disparagement of the people of San
Francisco: they have treated me splendidly. But I tell you New York
is the place, and I have had long experience. I began this
profession in 1851, and you are the first director that I have met
in that time and felt that he really loved the work he was
doing--and we know very well that, however much a man may know
about any art,

Photograph by Sarony.

Belasco’s Collection.

F. F. MACKAYE]

Photograph by Bradley & Rulofson, S. F.

Courtesy of Mrs. Frohman Davidson.

GUSTAVE FROHMAN]

unless he loves the work he is doing there is always a lack of
interest which the public is sure to detect. Don’t for one moment
think that I try to flatter you by these remarks. I say these
things because I love the Art of Acting very much, and I have found
your love and sympathy for it so great that I dearly and sincerely
admire your work. Long may you live to continue in the labor which
is always good for the art and instructive for the public!

“With very sincere regards, and hoping to see you again, I am,

“Yours very sincerely,

“F. F. Mackaye.”

* * * * *

A RETROSPECT.

Belasco was only twenty-nine years old when he brought his career in San Francisco to an end and embarked on the venture which was at last to establish him in the Theatre of New York. He had been eleven years on the stage. A brief retrospect and summary of his early achievement will be useful here. Throughout his life he had enjoyed the blessing of family affection, admiration, and sympathy, and he had received respectable schooling. Otherwise, his experience had been one of unremitting, strenuous, often anxious, toil; frequent hardship, injustice, disappointment,--in short, a painfully laborious struggle. He had been, in childhood, a circus rider, a newsboy, a messenger, a willing, helpful drudge, a shopboy in a cigar factory and in a bookstore; then, as he grew older, a scribbler for the newspapers, a salesman of haberdashery, an itinerant peddler, a strolling player, a reader and reciter, a mimic, a theatrical manager, an agent “in advance” of theatrical companies, a teacher of acting, a scene painter, a stage manager, and a playwright. He had seen much of the best acting of his period and had been intimately associated with many leaders of the Stage,--sometimes as student and assistant, sometimes as adviser and director. He had acted, in all sorts of circumstances and in all sorts of places, more than 170 parts,--ranging from mere bits to characters of the highest and most exacting order. He had altered, adapted, rewritten, or written more than 100 plays and he had been the responsible director in the production of more than three times that number. A catalogue is seldom interesting reading; nevertheless, students of the Theatre and of Belasco’s extraordinary career will do well to ponder the following significant though incomplete schedule of the plays set upon the stage under his direction prior to midsummer, 1882:

“Agnes.” “Aladdin No. 2; or, The Wonderful Scamp.” “Alixe.” “Alphonse.” “American Born.” “Amy Robsart.” Apostate,” “The. “Arrah-na-Pogue.” “Article 47.” Assommoir,” “L’. “As You Like It.” “Aurora Floyd.” Ballad Monger,” “The. Belle Russe,” “La. Bells,” “The. “Belphegor.” “Bianca.” “Black-Ey’d Susan.” “Bleak House.” “Blow for Blow.” Bold Stroke for a Husband,” “A. Bull in a China Shop,” “A. “Camille.” “Caste.” Celebrated Case,” “A. “Checkmate.” “Cherry and Fair Star.” Child of the Regiment,” “The. “Clouds and Sunshine.” “Colleen Bawn.” Corsican Brothers,” “The. “Court and Stage.” Cricket on the Hearth,” “The. Curse of Cain,” “The. “Damon and Pythias.” “David Copperfield.” Dead Heart,” “The. “Dearer than Life.” “Diplomacy.” “Divorce.” Doll Master,” “The. “Dombey & Son.” “Don Cæsar de Bazan.” “Donna Diana.” “Dora.” Duke’s Motto,” “The. “East Lynne.” “Edmund Kean.” “Elizabeth, Queen of England.” Enchantress,” “The. “Enoch Arden.” Eviction,” “The. “False Shame.” “Fanchette.” Fast Family,” “A. “Fire-Fly.” Fool of the Family,” “The. Fool’s Revenge,” “The. “Forget Me Not.” Forty Thieves,” “The. French Spy,” “The. “Frou-Frou.” Gamester,” “The. “Green Bushes.” Green Lanes of England,” “The. “Guy Mannering.” “Hamlet.” Happy Pair,” “A. “Hearts of Oak.” Heir-at-Law,” “The. “Henry Dunbar.” “He Would and He Would Not!” Hidden Hand,” “The. “His Last Legs.” “Home.” Honeymoon,” “The. “How She Loves Him.” Hunchback,” “The. “Hunted Down.” Idiot of the Mountains,” “The. “Ingomar.” “Ireland and America.” “Ireland as It Was.” “Jack Sheppard.” “Jane Eyre.” “Jane Shore.” Jealous Wife,” “The. “Jessie Brown; or, The Relief of Lucknow.” Jibbenainosay,” “The. “Jones’ Baby.” “Julius Cæsar.” “King John.” “King Louis XI.” “King Richard III.” “Lady Audley’s Secret.” “Lady Madge.” Lady of Lyons,” “The. “Leah the Forsaken.” Little Detective,” “The. “Little Katy.” “Loan of a Lover.” “London Assurance.” Lone Pine,” “The. “Lost in London.” “Love.” Love Chase,” “The. “Love’s Sacrifice.” “Loyal Till Death.” “Lucretia Borgia.” “Macbeth.” Marble Heart,” “The. “Marie Antoinette.” “Mary Stuart.” “Masks and Faces.” Merchant of Venice,” “The. Millionaire’s Daughter,” “The. “Miss Multon.” “Mr. and Mrs. Peter White.” “Money.” Moonlight Marriage,” “The. “Nan, the Good-for-Nothing.” New Babylon,” “The. New Magdalen,” “The. “Nicholas Nickleby.” “Nita; or, Woman’s Constancy.” “Not Guilty.” “Notre Dame.” Octoroon,” “The. “Oliver Twist.” “Olivia.”

“One Hundred Years Old.” “Othello.” “Ours.” “Out at Sea.” Passion Play,” “The. “Paul Arniff.” Pearl of Savoy,” “The. People’s Lawyer,” “The. Pet of the Petticoats,” “The. “Pique.” “Proof Positive.” “Pygmalion and Galatea.” Regular Fix,” “A. “Richelieu.” “Robert Macaire.” “Romeo and Juliet.” “Rule a Wife and Have a Wife.” “Ruy Blas.” “Sarah’s Young Man.” “School.” School for Scandal,” “The. Scottish Chiefs,” “The. Scrap of Paper,” “A. “Seraphine.” Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing,” “A. “She Stoops to Conquer.” Spectre Bridegroom,” “The. Stranger,” “The. Stranglers of Paris,” “The. Streets of New York,” “The. “Struck Blind.” “Sylvia’s Lovers.” Ticket-of-Leave Man,” “The. Toodles,” “The. “True to the Core.” Two Orphans,” “The. “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” “Under the Gas-Light.” Unequal Match,” “The. Uppercrust,” “The. “Venice Preserved.” Wandering Heir,” “The. “War to the Knife.” Wicked World,” “The. “Wild Oats.” Willing Hand,” “The. Within an Inch of His Life.” Woman in Red,” “The. Woman of the People,” “A. “Won at Last.” Wonder,” “The.

Minute exposition of all the early dramatic works of Belasco is not practicable; a succinct estimate of their quality will suffice here. Crudity is often obvious in them--as it is in the early works of almost all writers--and it sometimes is notably visible in the sentiment and the style. Nevertheless, they display the operation of a mind naturally prone to the dramatic form of expression, frequently animated by the vitality of its own experience, steadily if slowly growing in self-mastery of its faculties, and at once keenly observant of, and quickly sympathetic with, contrasted aspects of life. Along with defects,--namely, perverse preoccupation with non-essential details, occasional verbosity, extravagant premises, and involved construction,--they exhibit expert inventive ability, perspicacious sense of character, acute perception of strong dramatic climax, the faculty of humor, much tenderness of heart, wide knowledge of human misery and human joy, special sympathy with woman, and the skill to tell a story in action. Belasco’s dramatic works, before he left San Francisco, exceed not only in number but in merit and practical utility those of many other writers produced as the whole labor of a long lifetime, and the basis of reputation and respect: at least two of his early plays--“Hearts of Oak” and “La Belle Russe”--were, even before he came to the East, gaining fortunes--for other persons. And for a long, long while afterward other persons were to enjoy the chief profit of his labor: it was not until more than thirteen years later that he was able to launch a successful play,--“The Heart of Maryland,”--and retain personal control of it.

* * * * *

A SECOND VENTURE IN CHICAGO.--THE LAST OF “AMERICAN BORN.”

Gustave Frohman (who left San Francisco on August 8, 1882, to join his brother Charles, in Chicago, relative to a consolidation of Callender’s and Haverley’s minstrel shows) appears to have disbanded his dramatic company in Denver. At any rate, I have found no further record of it, and Belasco’s play of “American Born” was successfully produced at the Grand Opera House, Chicago, apparently under the joint management of Gustave and Charles Frohman, on August 16.

I have not been able to ascertain, independently, whether or not Charles Frohman travelled to the East with his brother’s dramatic company. According to the “Life of Charles Frohman,” that manager left San Francisco as agent for Haverley’s Mastodon Minstrels and relinquished his position in Indianapolis. According to Belasco’s memory, he and Charles Frohman travelled together coming East from San Francisco, in which case the latter, probably, was business agent of his brother’s company. In this biography I have seldom placed reliance on Belasco’s memory, except when I have verified his recollections by records contemporary with the incidents discussed,--because I have found that (as he has several times testified in court) he has “no head for dates.” In this matter, however, I believe that his remembrance is accurate. This is his statement of the facts as he recalls them: