xt741n7xm16p https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt741n7xm16p/data/mets.xml Walker, Stuart, d. 1941. 1919  books b96-5-34068448 English Stewart & Kidd, : Cincinnati : Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Bierstadt, Edward Hale, 1891- More portmanteau plays  / by Stuart Walker ; edited, and with an introduction, by Edward Hale Bierstadt. text More portmanteau plays  / by Stuart Walker ; edited, and with an introduction, by Edward Hale Bierstadt. 1919 2002 true xt741n7xm16p section xt741n7xm16p 




STEWART & KIDD DRAMATIC SERIES



The Portmanteau Plays
   By Stuart Walker
Edited and with an Introduction by
   Edward Hale Bierstadt

VOL. 1-Portmanteau Plays
         Introduction
         The Trimplet
         Nevertheless
         Six Who Pass While the Lintels
         Boil
         Medicine Show

VOL 2-More Portmanteau Plays
        Introduction
        The Lady of the Weeping Wil-
          low Tree
        The Very Naked Boy
        Jonathan Makes a Wish

VOL 3-Portmanteau Adapta-
           tions
        Introduction
        Gammer Gurton's Needle
        The Birthday of the Infanta
        "Seventeen"
Each of the abote three volumes handsomely,
bound and iliustratitd. PTr tolnume net 1.75



STEWART & KIDD CO., PUBLISHERS

 
This page in the original text is blank.

  

            MORE

PORTMANTEAU PLAYS



                BY
      STUART WALKER
        Author of Portmanteau Plays



Edited, and with an Introduction by
EDWARD HALE BIERSTADT






        ILLUSTRATED






        CINCINNATI
 STEWART & KIDD COMPANY
         1919

 
This page in the original text is blank.

 








           ILLUSTRATIONS


STUART WALKER WITH THE WORKING MODEL OF
   His PORTMANTEAU THEATRE . . . Frontispiece
                                     FACING
                                     PAGE
THE LADY OF THE WEEPING WILLOW TREE, ACT
   III  . .  .  . .  . .  .  . .  . .  34

THE LADY OF THE WEEPING WILLOW TREE, ACT
   III  .  . .  . .  .  . .  . .  .  . 63

THE VERY NAKED BoY . . . . . . . . 8o

JONATHAN MAKES A WISH, ACT I.         I30

JONATHAN MAKES A WISH, ACT II .149

 
This page in the original text is blank.

 
INTRODUCTION



              INTRODUCTION
   During the period which has elapsed between
the publication of Portmianteau Plays, and that of
the present volume our country entered upon the
greatest war in history, and emerged victorious.
t is far too early to estimate what effect that war
has had or may have upon all art in general, and
upon the dramatic and theatric arts in particular,
but there is every indication that the curtain is
about to rise on the great romantic revival which
we have watched and waited for, and of which
Stuart Walker has been one of the major prophets.
  During the actual period of the war many
of the creative and interpretative artists of the
theater were engaged either directly in army work
or in one of its auxiliary branches. It is amusing
to recall that the present writer met Schuyler
Ladd serving as Mess Sergeant for a Base Hos-
pital in France, Alexander Wollcott, late dramatic
critic of the New York Times, attached to the
Stars and Stripes in Paris, and Douglas Stuart,
the London producer, in an English hospital at
Etretat, the while he himself was serving as an en-
listed man on the staff of the same hospital.
These are minor instances, but when they have
been multiplied several hundred times one begins
to see how closely the actor, the critic, and the
producer were involved in the struggle. Again
the problem of providing proper entertainment
for the troops was, and still is, a serious one. In
the great number of cases it seems highly prob-
                      V

 
              INTRODUCTION

able that the entertainment along such lines done
by the men themselves was far more effective
than that provided by outside organizations.
More than once, however, it appeared to the
writer that here was a field especially suited to the
Portrnanteau Theater and to its repertory. The
question of transportation, always a crucial point
with such a venture, was no more difficult than
that presented by many companies already in the
field, and doing immensely inferior work. My
return to America put me in possession of the
facts of the matter, and without desiring in any
way to cast blame, much less to indict, or to em-
phasize unduly a relatively unimportant point, it
seems only fitting that there should be included in
this record the reasons for what has seemed to
many of us a lost opportunity. They are at least
much more brief than the apologia which precedes
them.
  The Portmanteau Theater, its repertory of
forty-eight plays, and its trained company, was
offered for war purposes under the following con-
ditions: no royalty was to be paid for any of the
plays, no salary was to be paid Mr. Walker; the
company was to go wherever sent, whether in or
out of shell fire, in France or in England; the
only stipulation being that the members of the
company should be remunerated at the same rate
paid an enlisted man in the United States army,
and that the principal members should receive the
pay of subalterns. On the whole an arrangement
so generous that it is almost absurd. To this
offer the Y. MI. C. A. turned a deaf ear. Their
attention was concentrated on vaudeville at the
                      vi

 
              INTRODUCTION

moment, and with one hand they covered their
eyes while with the other they clutched their purse
strings. The War Camp Community Service
could see no way in which the Theater could func-
tion for the men either at home or abroad. The
Portmarnteau was, in a word, too " high-brow " a
venture for them. The reader is referred to the
Appendix of this volume showing the repertory
in use at that time. Another official contented
himself with the statement that the problem of
transportation involved rendered the project im-
practicable. The matter is too lengthy to discuss
here, but the writer, who was able to observe the
situation at first hand, knows this to be an error.
The navy then asked for plans and estimates so
that a number of Portmanteau Theaters might be
constructed aboard the ships. MIr. Walker of-
fered to put all his patents at the complete dis-
posal of the Navy Department, and himself was
ready to draw plans and make suggestions. The
navy approved the idea, and with sublime assur-
ance requested Mr. \Walker to proceed with the
work of construction -at his own expense. It
was impossible; the money could not be afforded,
and the venture was abandoned. It is therefore
very evident that there was an opportunity, and
that that opportunity was lost; but it was not the
Portmanteau which lost it. At any rate we are
left free to take up the history of Mr. WValker's
theater and his plays at the point where we left
off in the first book of the series.
  The close of the highly successful season at the
Princess Theater in New York, the winter of
i1i5-ii6, was followed by twelve weeks on the
                     vii

 
              INTRODUCTION

road, three of which were spent in Chicago, and
then by thirteen weeks in Indianapolis.  It was
in this last city that the production of the adapta-
tion of Booth Tarkington's book, " Seventeen,"
changed all plans by its instant popularity. On
the way East, a stop was made in Chicago, and
before that city had time to do much more than
voice its enthusiasm, the company left for New
York.  During the fall of Iq I 7 ScOWenteen was
played regularly, with the addition of some spe-
cial performances of the repertory. Se-;' ent-en
was played in New York for two hundred and
fifty-eight performances (Chicago had already
had one hundred), arid the special performances
of The Book of Job were renewed in the spring.
It was during the next fall, that of i9i8, that a
second Seventeen company was sent out on the
road.  That company is still out, the total pl.,N-
ing time for the w-ork since its production be"rIg
(April, i919) just one hundred and four weekss.
The next summer,    9 18, included a riepertory
season of thirteen weeks, again at Indianapois,
and four in Cincinnati, while the following winter,
just past, claimed ten weeks of repertory at teic
Punch and Judy Theater in NeN York. To sum
up in brief then - Mr. Walker has, beinning
in the spring of i916 and ending in the spring of
19 19, played seventy-six weeks of repertory, in
which he has produced forty-eight plans. This
does not include the Se;'entecn run which, as I
have said, totals one hundred and four weeks to
date.  It is safe to claim that this represents as
successful repertory work as has been done in the
                      VWii

 
              INTRODUCTION

United States so far.  WVe shall, however, return
to that presently.
   In the fall of I917, so important to the Part-
manteau company, a change of management was
instituted, by which the following staff came into
control: Stage Director -Gregory Kelly: Stage
Manager-    Morgan Farley: MIusical Director
-Michel Bernstein: I'vIanager- Harold Hol-
stein: Press Representative-Alta May Cole-
man:   Treasurer - Walter   Herzbrun. The
changes were excellent, and were thoroughly jus-
tified in their results. An arrangement was made
with the Shuberts, whereby booking was greatly
facilitated, and with its structure thus reinforced,
the Theater was in an excellent position to " carry
on."
  It may be remembered by those who read the
first book of the Portmanteau Series that in my
introduction I placed the greater portion of my
emphasis on the theatrical side; that is, the Port-
manteau as a portable theater rather than as a
repertory company. It is my intention here to
reverse the process, and this for two reasons.
First: Mr. Walker has in the last two years by
no means confined himself to the Portmanteau
stage. The recent run at the Punch and Judy
Theater in New York was upon a full size stage,
and this was not at all an exception. The Port-
manteau was, and is, an idea, but that idea has
no very definite connection with repertory as such.
There is no longer the need, in this particular
instance, that there once was, for the invariable
use of the Portmanteau, except as convenience re-
                      ix

 
              INTRODUCTION

quires. At the very beginning, when the company
often played for private persons, the portable
stage was indispensable. But so thoroughly did
the Portmanteau idea justify itself that from be-
ing a crutch it grew into a handy staff, always
valuable, but no longer essential. All that has
been said of it, and of its possibilities, is quite as
true today as ever it was, but now having proved
his original thesis, if so it may be called, Mr.
WValker may well be content to work out the future
gradually and in his own way. Second: the reper-
tory idea is certainly of infinitely more importance
than any theatrical device or contrivance, however
interesting and valuable such a departure may be
in itself. As to any difference in the acting ne-
cessitated by the change from a small to a large
stage that amounts to little. It is entirely a dif-
ference in quality, an ability to temper the inter-
pretation to the surroundings, and as such would
apply as readily to the staging and setting of a
play as to the acting itself. On a large stage one
might take three steps to convey an impression
where on a small stage one step would produce
the same effect. An arch or pylon wouId obvi-
ously have to be of greater proportions on a large
stage than on a small one. Yet in both these in-
stances the ultimate effect is precisely the same.
Let us turn then to a consideration of the Port-
manteau, not as a theater, but as a repertory com-
pany.
  There is certainly no space here, and just as
certainly no necessity, for dwelling long upon the
prime importance of repertory. Several excellent
books have been written on that absorbing subject,
                       x

 
              INTRODUCTION

and we may surely take for granted that which
we know beyond all doubt to be the truth, namely,
that repertory as opposed to the " long run " and
to the " star" system is the ultimate solution of
a most vexatious and perplexing problem - how
to change the modern theater from an industry to
an art. The disadvantages of the present mode
of procedure are too evident to call for recapitu-
lation; witness the results obtained. On the other
hand there can be no question that there is a prac-
ticable and simple panacea in repertory; see what
has been done by the Abbey company in Dublin,
by Miss Horniman's players in Manchester, by
the Scottish Repertory Theater, on a smaller scale,
in Glasgow, by John Drinkwater's repertory thea-
ter in Birmingham, concerning which I have, un-
fortunately, no exact data, but which I understand
is doing remarkable work with distinct success,
and by the Portmanteau company in the United
States. It would be well also to include Charles
Frohman's season at the Duke of York's Reper-
tory Theater in London; in fact the inclusion of
this seventeen weeks' season would be inevitable.
Where the experiment has failed it has failed
for reasons which did not, in any way, shape or
manner, invalidate the principle at stake. Thus,
to cite the great example on our own side of the
water, the New Theater was doomed to failure
from the very start in the fact that it was born
crippled.  It may be restated to advantage, just
here, that from the spring of i9i6 to the spring
of 1919, a period of three years, Mr. Walker
has produced forty-eight plays, has given seventy-
six weeks of repertory, and has had a nearly un-
                      xi

 

              INTRODUCTION

broken run of one hundred and four weeks with
one play which has been commercially successful
beyond the others. Of the forty-eight plays pro-
duced during this time eighteen had never been
seen before on any stage; four were entirely new
to America (except for a possible itinerant ama-
teur performance) ; and twenty-six were revivals,
modern, semi-modern, and classical. It is my
belief that this record will take a creditable
position in the historv of American repertory.
Abroad, however, its place is less secure, but
even here the Porintanteau is by no means snowed
under.
  In the other great English speaking country
there are four outstanding examples of repertory
work, as has already been stated. On the Conti-
nent the situation is entirely different; there is
no " problem " there, for the repertory theater
has long been an established fact.  France, in the
Comcdic-Francaise, and Germany, in several of
her theaters before the war, merely provide us
with a criterion.  In Great Britain, however, and
in America, we are in the process of building and
adiusting, so that the examples of one will rea-
sorably affect the other. At the risk of being
misunderstood we shall pause long enough to call
attention to the Irvi'ng Place Theatre,' of New
York, a German house supporting German plavs,
and attended very Iargrelv by a German clientele,
but notxvithstandinf all this a repertorv theater of
standing, and of some distinction, from which we
might learn several useful lessons.  However, it
  Since America's entrance in the War given over to the
  movies."
                      xii

 

               INTRODUCTION

 is with the Anglo-American stage that we have to
 do at the moment.
   Doubtless, first in importance comes the Abbey
Theater Company of Dublin. From December,
i go, to I)ecember, 1912, there were produced
at the -ibbey Theater (I am unfortunately unable
to include the several important tours made)
seventy-four plays, of which seven were transla-
tions. Of the rest but few were revivals, as the
history of the Irish literary movement will show.
They were plays written especially for the theater,
for particular audiences, and to achieve definite
purpose as propaganda.   Moreover, when the
Jbbey was tottering on the brink of failure, Miss
florniman came to the rescue with a substantial
subsidy which enabled the theater not only to pro-
ceed, but finally to establish itself on a sound run-
nin(g basis.  \r. Walker's company has had to
fight its own way from the very start.
  In Manchester, Miss Horniman's own reper-
tory company at the Midland Theater and finally
at the Gaiety has been distinctly and brilliantly
successful. In a period of a little more than two
years there were produced fifty-five plays; twenty-
eight new, seventeen revivals of modern English
plays, five modern translations, and five classics.
This is a repertory as well balanced as it is wide.
In 1910, however, there was inaugurated the
practise of producing each play for a run of one
week, so that from that time on the theater was
open to the criticism of being not a repertory in
the fullest sense of the term, but a short run
theater.  But for that matter, I do not think that
there is a repertory theater either in England or in
                      xiii

 

               INTRODUCTION

America which fulfills the ideal conditions set
down bv William Archer who had in mind, as he
wrote, the repertory theater of the Continenit.
   W Nhen we speak of a repertory, we mean a
number of plays always ready for performance,
with nothing more than a ' run through ' rehearsal,
which, therefore, can be, and are, acted in such
alternation that three, four or five different plays
may be given in the course of a week. New
plays are from time to time added to the repertory,
and those of them which succeed may be per-
formed fifty, seventy, a hundred times, or even
more, in the course of one season; but no play
is ever performed more than two or three times
in uninterrupted succession." I
  This applies exactly to the ComediJ-Francaise,
which, in the year i909, presented one hundred
and fifteen plays, eighteen of which were per-
   Mr. John Palmer, in his book, "The Future of the Theater,"
gives the following as the programme for the then, 1913, pro-
jected National Theater. The war intervened, however, and
the venture has been lost sight of for the moment. This state-
ment is ever, more reasonable than that of Mr. Archer, for this
is intended for practical use in England while his was merely
taken from France.
       it seems desirable to state that a repertory theater
should be held to mean a theater able to present at least two
different plays of full length at evening performances in each
completed week during the annual season, and at least three
different plays at evening performances and matinees taken to-
gevher . . . and the number of plays presented in a year should
not be less than twenty-five. A play of full length means a play
occupying at least two-thirds of the whole time of any perform-
ance. But two tNo-act playt, or three one-act plays, composing
a single programme, should, for the purposes of this statute, be
reckoned as equivalent to a play of full length."
As Mr. Palmer remarks " this statute is both elastic and water-
tight."
                                             E. H. B.
                         xIv

 

              INTRODUCTION

formed for the first time, the remainder being a
part of the regular body of the repertory of that
theater.  In the first decade of the present cen-
tury there were no less than two hundred and
eighty-two plays added to the repertory of the
Cornedi6.  It may be of service to remember,
however, that the CoinediW-Francaise was estab-
lished by royal decree in i68o.  If the Globe
Theater of Shakespeare's day had lived and pros-
pered up to the present we might have an example
to match that of France.
  It is probable that if one were to use the phrase
" repertory in America " the wise ones of the
theater would raise their eye-brows stiffly and
remark, " There is none." That would be nearly
true, but not altogether so. It is my desire here
to sketch in brief the early beginnings of what has
been termed the " independent theater " move-
ment,' from which repertory in this country un-
questionably grew, up to the time of the estab-
lishment of the " little theaters " which now dot
the country, and into which movement that of the
"independent theater " eventually merged.
  In 1887 there was inaugurated by A. M. Pal-
mer at the Aladisonl Square T/eater, of which he
was manager at that time, a series of " author's
matinees " which appear to have been in some
sense trv-outs for a possible repertory season.
Only three plays were produced, however, before
Mr. Palmer decided against the scheme as im-
practicable.  It is interesting to note that these
three plays were all by American authors - How-
ells, Matthews, and Lathrop. The attempt was
1 See Appendix for complete repertories.
                      xv

 

              IN'TRODUCTION

actually not repertory in the strict sense, but it un-
doubtedly marks a tendency, slight, but evident,
to incline in the right direction.
  Some four years later, in the fall of I89I, a
NMr. MIcDowell, son of General McDowell of
Civil 'War fame, started the Theater of Arts and
Letters with the idea of bringing literature and the
drama into closer relationship.  Five plays were
produced, and among the names of the authors
(again they were all natives) one finds several
which have since become famous.  Commercially,
the venture was a total failure, and the authors
did not even collect their full royalties.  A short
tour was made with several of the more successful
plays, one by Clyde Fitch (a one-act which was
afterwards expanded into The Moth and the
Flame) , one by Richard Harding Davis, and one
by Brander Matthews.   All three of these were
one-act. American authors were willing enough
to write plays, but they apparently could not suc-
ceed, except in isolated instances, in writing good
ones.  There was evidently an utter dearth of
suitable material.  Nevertheless, when foreign
plays were put on no better fortune ensued, un-
less they represented the old school of pseudo
melodrama, and farce adapted from the French
and German, such as Augustin Daly delighted
in. Daly too had discovered that to encourage
the American playwright was to court disaster.
  In 1897 The Criterion, a New York review of
rather eccentric merit, endeavored to establish the
Criterion Independent Theater modeled on the
Th&atre-Libre of Antoine. A company was re-
cruited, headed by E. J. Henley, and performances
                      Xvi

 

              INTRODUCTION

were given at first the Madison Square Theater,
and then the Berkeley Lycnum. It was frankly in-
tended that the appeal should be to a small, select
audience, and, in spite of the jeers of the press,
five plays were produced - one Norwegian, one
Italian, one French, one Spanish, and one Amer-
ican. A glance through the list shows us that
the American play, by Augustus Thomas, is the
only one which has not since entered into the
permanent literature of the stage.  Internal dif-
ferences, and imperfect rehearsals combined to
overthrow the venture which, after one season,
was abandoned.  The success of the last produc-
tion, however, El Gran Galeoto, inspired Mr.
John Blair to produce Ibsen's Ghosts with Miss
Mary Shaw at the Carnegie LyCeum     in 1899.
From this sprang The InJdtpendcnt Theater, gen-
erously backed financially by Mr. George Peabody
FustIsS of \Washington.
  The list of the patrons of this theater reads like
a chapter from " Who's Who."    Many of the
men associated with the plan gave their services
free or at a nominal cost. The three persons
more directly responsible for the artistic side of
the wvork were Charles Henry Meltzer, John
Blair, and V\autghan Kester, while among the pa-
trorns were WV. 1). Howells, Bronson Howard, E.
C. Stedman, E. H. Sothern, Charles and Daniel
Frohman, and Sir Henry Irving.  Six plays were
given, this time none of them of American origin.
The press and critics were most bitter in their
denunciation of these foreign importations, as
they had been on the previous occasion.  There
was, however, on the part of the audiences a defi-
                     xvii

 

             INTRODUCTION

nite tendency to let drop the scales from their
eyes, and to awake to the new forces in the drama
and the theater as represented by Ibsen, Hervieu,
the Thcatre-Libre, and the Independetnt Theater.
But in spite of all this, one season's work saw the
conclusion of the project. A part of the reper-
tory was given in other cities, notably Boston and
Washington, but, though a very real interest was
aroused, it was not sufficient to permit the com-
pany to continue.  Xbout two thousand dollars
represented the deficit at the end of the season;
by no means a discreditable balance, albeit on the
wrong side of the ledger, when one considers the
circumstances. The actual results of the work
are summed up in a privately printed pamphlet
written by Mr. Meltzer than whom no one was
more closely in touch with the whole independent
movement.
  " What have the American ' Independents'
achieved by their efforts
  " They have succeeded, thanks to Mr. George
Peabody Eustis, the general manager of the
scheme, in giving twenty-two performances of
plays recognized everywhere abroad as charac-
teristic, interesting, and literary.
  " They have extended the ' Independent ' move-
ment from New York to Boston and Washington.
  " They have encouraged at least one ' regular '
manager to announce the production next season
of an Ibsen play.
  " They have revived discussion of the general
tendencies of modern drama.
  " They  have   interested, and  occasionally
charmed, an intelligent minority of playgoers,
                    Xviii

 
              INTRODUCTION

who have grown weary of the rank insipidity, vul-
garity, and improbability of current drama.
   " They have bored, angered, and distressed a
less intelligent majority of playgoers and critics.
   " They have discovered at least one new actress
of unusual worth.
  " They have prepared the way, at a by no means
inconsiderable cost of time, thought, and money,
for future, and perhaps, more prosperous move-
ments aiming at the reform of the American
stage. "
  Coming at the time it did, sponsored bythe best
minds in America, and worked to its conclusion by
whole hearted enthusiasts, The Independent Thzea-
ter did, beyond all doubt, have a very vitalizing
effect on both the stage and the drama of this
country. The next step, perhaps the climactic one
of the series, was longer in coming ( i909).
  The New Theater has been our greatest at-
tempt and our greatest failure. The details of
these two seasons have been placed before the
public so many times that there is no necessity for
doing more here than suggesting a broad outline.
If the enterprise had, from its very inception,
been in the hands of capable men who knew their
work, instead of being handicapped by wealth y
amateurs the history of a failure might never-
have been written.  In its first season The New
Theater presented thirteen plays at intervals of a
fortnight.  Of these, four were classics, three
were original works by native authors, and two
by contemporary British dramatists.  During the
second season, at the end of which the idea was
given up and the New Theater abandoned, eleven
                      xix

 

             IN-TRODUCTION

plays were produced; six of these were of British
origin, semi-modern; one was a classic; three were
Belgian, and one was American. I have counted
in this season, two plays produced the season be-
fore, the only revivals. Altogether then, twenty-
two plays were given, only five of which can be
considered as home products.   Mr. Ames, the
Director, was balked at every turn by the com-
bined forces of Fifth Avenue and Wall Street,
while the outrageous and impossible construction
of the theater itself proved an insurmountable
handicap.  In addition it was now found almost
impossible to induce the American dramatist to
turn from the great profits of the long run Broad-
way theaters to the acceptance of one hundred and
fifty dollars a performance at the New Theater.
There was something to be said on both sides.
The iNewz: Theater was a splendid and costly at-
tempt, and it taught us several invaluable lessons,
chief among them the occasional unimportance of
money.
  Probably next in order comes the short reper-
tory of \Iiss Grace George at the Playhouse in
19I5 and 19I7. This lasted for about one sea-
son and a half, and, while there was promise of
continuation, the project was finally abandoned.
It is only fair to s  that Miss George worked
under the peculiar disadvantage of entire lack of
sympathy, and indeed, open antagonism as well,
on the part of several of her most important
confr6res. The real trouble seemed to be one
of those that affected the New Theater, that is,
Miss George was totally unable to secure Amer-
ican plays for her purposes.  In the period of
                     xx

 

               INTRODUCTION

 her project she produced seven plays; five the
 first year, and two the next.  Of these, five were
 modern British plays, one was a translation from
 the French, and one was semi-modern American.
 Again it will be observed that American plays
 were simply not forthcoming, a condition widely
 different from that obtaining during the nineties
 when the Theater of Arts and Letters, and the
 Criterion Independent held their short sway.
 MNliss George's effort was distinctly worth while,
 but in the end there was added only another grave-
 stone to the cemetery of buried hopes.'
   \Vith the advent of the " little theater " move-
ment, from about i9(o_, there are many small
companies and theaters which can, in a broad
sense, fairly be termed repertory.   To discuss
any number of them would require a book in it-
self, and the reader is referred to " The Insurgent
Theater" by Professor Dickenson as the work
most nearly fulfilling this need.  Probably the
Wf'aihington Square Players of New    York are
typical, more or less, of them all, and their reper-
tory for twt o years is giv etn in the Appendix.
Aside from the natural condjtions resulting from
the war, one reason of their failure seems to
have been their pernicious desire to be " differ-
ent " at any cost. In spite of their excellent work
they ultimately found that cost to he prohibitive,
but the discovery was made too late.2   The ma-
]ority of the little theaters are, however, too en-
1 Announcement has jUst been made that Miss George will
continue her repertory during the season of 919g-1920.
2 They only failed for 3000, however: the rent of a Broad-
way theater for a week.
                       xxi

 
              INTRODUCTION

tirely provincial in their appeal to warrant an
assumption of any great influence, in spite of their
vital and unquestionable importance.1
   It will be observed that in speaking of Stuart
Walker's work I have used the phrase repertory
company, not, repertory theater.    That is, of
course, part of the secret.  A theater anchored
to one spot is obviously at a disadvantage.   It
cannot seek its audience, but must sit with what
patience and capital it has at its disposal, and wait
for the audience to come to it.  With a touring
company the odds are more even.    An unsuccess-
ful month in one city may be made up by a suc-
cessful one in another.  The type of play that
captivates the west may not go at all in the east,
and the other way about.   There are plays now
on the road, and which have been there literally
for years, doing excellent business, which have
never ventured to storm   the very rocky coast
bounding New York.    And there are plays which
have had crowded houses in the metropolis which
have slumped, and deservedly so, most dismally
when they were taken out where audiences were
possessed of a clearer vision.  Hence it is easy
to see that Mr. Walker, playing in both the east
and the west, in small cities and in large ones,
can do what the New Theater and the PlayhousC
could not do.  True, they could send their com-
panies out on tour, but the New Theater with its
huge stage and panoramic scenery could find but
I This statement hardly applies to The Neigthborhzood Thea-
ter, or to that successor to The Wr ashington Square Players, The
Theater Guild, the work of which at the Garrick Theater, New
York, during, the first part of i919 has been excellent in the
very highest degree.
                      xxii

 
              INTRODUCTION

few theaters which could house it, and the whole
idea of both that and Miss George's company
was a fixed repertory theater. Indeed in both of
them the faults of the " star " system were never
wholly absent.
  The facts that I have been able to give here
seem to point to but one conclusion. That is,
that Stuart Walker's repertory company stands
numerically on a par with anything