Delphi Complete Works of Jerome K. Jerome (Illustrated) (Series Four) (516 page)

Jerome read
The Passing of the Third Floor Back
to Johnson Forbes-Robertson, and the great character of “The Stranger” at once gripped him. He realized that such a part would make no appeal unless he put his whole self — his soul and body as well — into it. He had doubts, however, as to whether it would pay, as the following letter shows:

22,
Bedford Square, W.C.I.

Jan. 19th, 1928.

Dear Sir, I fear I can be of but little help to you, as I saw hardly anything of Mr. Jerome except when I was preparing
The Passing of the Third Floor Back
for the stage. I remember that my wife and I were deeply impressed with the theme of this play when he read it to us in this house; so much so that I decided to produce it, though we both felt sure it would not be a financial success. This, of course, it proved to be from the very start, in spite of the most unfavourable Press notices.

Yours faithfully, J. FORBES-ROBERTSON.

Mr. Alfred Moss.

Miss Sybil Thorndike, a great Christian actress, who has done more to maintain general respect for her profession than any other working actress of her time, has just written a remarkably illuminating book entitled, “Religion and the Stage”. She claims that “the actor’s art is sacramental”. She believes that in the words, “This is My body which is given for you, do this in remembrance of Me”, lies the true meaning of the actor’s function. The present writer read a review of this book before it was published; and, bearing in mind Jerome’s sincerity as an artist, asked Miss Thorndike whether, in her opinion,
The Passing of the Third Floor Back
gave the principal actor an opportunity of making his art sacramental; in other words, whether his body became the outward and visible sign of his inward and spiritual experiences. Here is Miss Thorndike’s reply:

Golders Green Theatre, London, N.W.

March 13th, 1928.

Dear Mr. Moss, In reply to your letter,
The Passing of the Third Floor Back
is certainly an instance of a play which, by the sincerity of the writing, has brought home to thousands of people the author’s message and outlook on the world — but it does not, perhaps, too well illustrate my argument in the little pamphlet, as I think you will agree when you read it. The play seems to me to go further in the direction of actual preaching than is, in my opinion, truly representative of the theatre. Not that the play is any the worse for that in itself, but it is not, I think, the usual or actual function of the Drama.

Yours sincerely, SYBIL THORNDIKE.

Alfred Moss, Esq.

It is difficult to see how the actor’s art can be lifted to a more exalted plane than that to which Miss Thorndike has raised it, unless it can be done by the actor giving not only his body in interpreting a part, but his soul as well.

The Passing of the Third Floor Back
was produced at Harrogate in 1908, with Mr and Mrs. Forbes-Robertson in the cast, but it was not understood by the audience. It had been announced that it was written by the author of
Three Men in a Boat,
and, whilst looking for humour, they missed the central point of the play. It was then performed at Blackpool. There it was understood and loved. A Blackpool lady who was present at the first performance there, writes a letter quoted here in full:

Dear Sir,
The Passing of the Third Floor Back
was played in Blackpool, and my first experience of seeing the play I shall never forget.

I was much struck by the effect the play had upon the audience (myself included). One of the incidents which struck me very forcibly was, as the people were leaving the theatre, instead of the usual push and struggle to get out first, there was a marked difference, a subdued feeling in the air; people made way for each other, and I heard “Can I help you?”; and I saw people help struggling
strangers
on with their coat or wrap.

I also heard remarks as follows: “What a lesson this play is, it makes one realize how selfish one can become in the hurry of life, and it makes one want to be less artificial and better.”

I personally shall never forget it, it made me feel if only each individual would play the part of “The Stranger” in daily life, every problem would be solved, and we should have Heaven on Earth without having to wait for death to attain it.

I have seen “The Passing” played several times since, and it has always had the same good influence on the audience. I saw Sir Johnson Forbes-Robertson in it, I think it was the last time he played it in Blackpool. It was grand. His rendering of
the
Character made one feel that he had spring-cleaned one’s mind.

I do not know if these little experiences will be of any use to your biography, but at any rate I should like to feel that I had paid tribute to Mr. Jerome K. Jerome for his wonderful play.

Yours sincerely, (Mrs.) W. MABEL THOMPSON.

On September 1st in the same year it was performed at St. James’ Theatre, London. The spiritual beauty of the idea and the wonderful acting of Forbes-Robertson in the part of “The Stranger”, and the great charm and sly, gentle humour of Mrs. Forbes-Robertson in the part of the “Slavey”, created a profound impression. Forbes-Robertson infused his subtlest powers into his part. He had the necessary spiritual insight, the sonority of voice, and a fascinating presence. It is as true to say that Forbes-Robertson created “The Stranger” as that Sir Henry Irving created “King Lear”.

In the following November a complimentary dinner was given by the New Vagabond Club in the Hotel Cecil to Mr and Mrs. Forbes-Robertson to celebrate the success of the play. Mr. T. P. O’Connor, M.P. (who later attained the distinction of “Father of the House of Commons”) presided. In the course of his remarks he said: “They would always be glad to honour Mr and Mrs. Forbes-Robertson. They honoured them especially in reference to their success in the very remarkable play in which they were now appearing, a play written by one of the oldest and most respected members of the club, Mr. Jerome K. Jerome. This play marked an epoch, and a glorious epoch, in the history of the stage. It carried on the movement which had been gaining repute and force for the last twenty years. It fulfilled the demand that the drama should not avoid serious and solemn issues and problems of human existence. He failed to see any spirit of irreverence in the dramatic representation of the most beautiful and the most potent personality in the history of the world. If religion was to be a reality, it must be with us in the smallest daily transactions no less than in the supreme moments of our lives, and Mr. Jerome’s play showed it operating in the meanest circumstances among the most sordid human beings. Mr. Jerome was justified in showing that even the commonest details of life could be sanctified and exalted by the symbolism of Christ.”

The Rev. R. J. Campbell said: “He desired to add a brief tribute to the qualities of Mr. Jerome’s play, and the acting of it by Mr and Mrs. Forbes-Robertson. The central idea of the play was one that he had been trying to preach through the whole of his ministry. He urged Mr. Jerome to give them another book, and Mr. Forbes-Robertson to produce another play showing a majestic Christ, who had power to subdue the selfishness of a small man, not only by appealing to his better self, but by showing him the towering, unimaginable influence of Christ himself.”

Mr. Forbes-Robertson, in responding for himself and his wife, said: “He had been very proud to have had the opportunity of producing this play with its beautiful symbolism. The script was read to him and his wife by Mr. Jerome, and they were deeply moved by it. The theme was so great and appealing that he could come to no other conclusion than that it would appeal to the public. Well, it had appealed, and the play had made a great impression. There had been a certain amount of criticism. A member of his company while travelling in an omnibus overheard a conversation about the play. One lady said that the opening of the play was extremely funny until ‘that Forbes-Robertson comes in and converts ’em all, and spoils my evening’.”

“The Passing” in Prison. An experiment, as revolutionary as it was noteworthy, was carried out in 1922 by the Governor of Gloucester Gaol. The prison authorities believed that the policy of trying to reform prisoners rather than merely punishing them was worth trying. With the consent of the Commissioners, the Governor invited an excellent company of players, under the direction of Mr. Hannam-Clark, to perform Jerome’s play before the prisoners. Prior to the performance the Governor told them that he hoped the play would broaden their outlook on life, and enable them after they regained their liberty to take up the battle of life with those ideals before them which made for good citizenship. The prisoners were quick to appreciate the lighter side of the play, and also showed by their breathless silence that they understood the serious episodes of the noble-minded “Stranger”.

The chaplain (the Vicar of St. Mary de Lode) thanked the players for the tears and laughter which they had inspired in the “boys”. The incentive and influence of such a play was, in his opinion, far beyond the lips of any clergyman.

He believed it would have a far-reaching result.

A newspaper report of this unique event was sent to Jerome, who sent the following characteristic acknowledgement:

Ridge End, Marlow Common.

14/2/22.

Dear Mr. Hannam-Clark, Thanks for cutting. It was a kindly thought to give the play to our brother sinners who have been caught. Don’t, of course, send me any fee for this particular performance. All good wishes.

Yours sincerely, JEROME K. JEROME.

“The Passing” was taken to America, and was received with enthusiasm throughout the length and breadth of the land. The impression it created in some places was almost sensational. Stories are told of people waiting many hours after walking many miles to see it. At a New York theatre Salvation Army lasses collected more money from people leaving a performance of this play than they did at all the other theatres put together.

At the Garrick Theatre, Chicago, the play was a great triumph. The demand for seats exceeded all expectations; the utmost capacity of the theatre being taxed at every performance. Chicago people requested Forbes-Robertson to extend the duration of his visit, but the play was definitely booked ahead in a number of cities, and a vacant week, or even night, did not exist. The tour was a phenominally successful one. It included performances in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Milwaukee, Kansas City, St. Louis, Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburg, Cleveland, etc.

In 1928, after twenty years,
The Passing of the Third Floor Back
was revived. The
New York Graphic
wrote of it: “Like a voice from the dead, yet with glorious freshness, Jerome K. Jerome’s classic play,
The Passing of the Third Floor Back,
was revived at the Davenport Theatre last evening.... It is a great story, and a great play; moreover it is great symbolism of the conquering might of spirituality and gentleness. The smug and aggressive will find it something of a stumbling-block, and bad bruises may be the result. But it is reasonably certain that after seeing ‘The Passing’ they will have a truer realization of their actual relation to the world.”

While “The Passing” was still running at St. James’s, London, in 1908, another of Jerome’s plays,
Fanny and the Servant Problem,
was produced on October 14th, at the Aldwych Theatre. It is a story of Fanny Bennett, a pretty music-hall artist, marrying into the aristocracy. Her husband, Lord Bantock, takes her to a fine old hall in Rutlandshire. Lady Bantock has a shock when she recognizes in the butler her own uncle, and all the rest of the servants are her relations, and are all named Bennett.

It appeared that when Lord Bantock inquired about his intended wife’s connections someone invented a bishop and a judge, so that Lord Bantock had no idea of her real origin. Matters became strained, and Lady Bantock writes out a cheque for the wages of the whole gang of servants in lieu of notice, and, after confessing to her husband her relationship to the whole household, she hands the cheque to the housekeeper. All now depends upon the generosity of Lord Bantock. He confesses that had he known exactly the state of the case he would have hesitated before marrying Fanny, but as things are, he is proud of having won her.

In the last act matters are arranged without the butler and the other domestics leaving the service of the family. The butler causes endless merriment, and the play goes with a laugh from beginning to end. “Fanny” has been translated and played in every European country except Portugal. In America it was a big success. To please the Americans, who love a title, the play was called
Lady Bantock.

The Master of Mrs. Chilvers
was produced at the King’s Theatre, Glasgow, in April, 1911. This new comedy had an enthusiastic welcome from a crowded house. It deals with the woman’s franchise question. Geoffrey Chilvers is a rising young Member of Parliament and supports the women’s suffrage movement. His wife is also a prominent figure in the cause. Mr. Chilvers is offered a seat in the Cabinet, which necessitates his being reelected for his constituency. The supporters of Mrs. Chilvers had already decided that she should contest this seat when the next vacancy occurs. Husband and wife therefore fight the same seat. There are many humorous situations, and when it is announced that Mrs. Chilvers heads the poll the defeated candidate decides to go home and look after his wife and children. The play caused much amusement, continuous applause, and loud calls for the author.