CELEBRATING SHAW'S CHICAGO CENTURY AND BEYOND
2012; Penn State University Press; Volume: 32; Linguagem: Inglês
10.5325/shaw.32.1.0151
ISSN1529-1480
Autores Tópico(s)Sustainable Development and Policies
ResumoBroadly speaking, the geography of Shaw's dramatic career has been determined to a large degree by major metropolitan centers in Europe and North America and the cultural experiments and avant-garde movements they generated. Moreover, as the historical record shows, the reception of Shaw's plays in these culture capitals has produced responses ranging from horrified to indifferent to enthusiastic. Yet while scholars have examined at length Shaw's reception in cities such as Paris, Berlin, Vienna, and New York, they have yet to explore fully the importance of Chicago, a city whose long-standing importance to Shaw's career challenges more traditional approaches to the dramatist's life and work.1 In diverse ways, Chicago has displayed its love affair with GBS for more than a century; indeed, according to bibliographer Sidney Kramer, it was “from Chicago that Shaw conquered America.”2 In the most interesting ways, Shaw's literary and professional relationship with Chicago cuts across the encounter of publishers, artists, and intellectuals with a metropolis that not only engendered but also supported and enhanced a revolution in the arts equal to both its American and European counterparts. At one level, the significance of Shaw's relationship with Chicago—or “Shaw-cago” as we might term it—provides us with an opportunity to consider a counter-reading of the dramatist's relationship with America; at the same time, the points of contact between Shaw and the “Windy City” speak to an alternative sense of literary history, one that connects the Irish dramatist to American cultural and political life from the late Victorian period through our own postmillennium moment.3By contrast, a sense of ambivalence characterizes the reception of Shaw's works in the city of his birth and early years, Dublin. After commissioning John Bull's Other Island in 1904, the Abbey Theatre refused to put it on, citing difficulties in finding adequate actors with whom to cast the roles, among other matters.4 But the Abbey made up for it and rose to the occasion when the theater presented the world premiere of The Shewing-up of Blanco Posnet three years later in 1909. The British censor in London had refused to grant the play a license and Dublin was the only city in the British Empire not subject to the censor's reach.5 In contrast, while presenting various Shaw plays in subsequent years (including John Bull's Other Island, which appeared in 1912), it has taken the Abbey almost a century to produce Pygmalion, arguably Shaw's most popular play, which was presented for the first time only in 2011.From the succès de scandale of Widowers' Houses in 1892 to the banning of Mrs Warren's Profession, which lasted until 1925, London had a difficult time in coming to terms with both Shaw and his plays. The hilarious audience triumph of Arms and the Man in 1894 was followed by the refusal of the Haymarket Theatre to put on You Never Can Tell in 1898. Henry Irving meanwhile refused to put on any play by Shaw at all. By the same token, Shaw's triumphant years at the Court Theatre from 1904 to 1907, when his genius began to be recognized more widely, were followed by the refusal of a license for The Shewing-up of Blanco Posnet in 1909. It seems therefore that London's ambivalence toward Shaw proved even greater in certain respects than that of Dublin.By contrast, it was in regional cities like Manchester and Birmingham that theater directors such as Annie Horniman (who was also active at the Abbey Theatre) and Barry Jackson, respectively, created alternate venues for the appreciation of Shaw's work beyond the capital. In Jackson's case, he not only presented the British premiere of Back to Methuselah in Birmingham in 1923, but he also created a new space for the appreciation of Shaw's plays during the 1920s through his “British Bayreuth” at Malvern, an English country town situated far from metropolitan London. Carrying on the Malvern tradition post–World War II has been Canada's Shaw Festival in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, likewise appreciably distant from large urban centers such as Toronto and Buffalo.Moving beyond the British Isles, when we think of responses to Shaw's drama in the cities of continental Europe, we find that Paris is also quite problematic. Michel W. Pharand, for example, has dealt at length with Shaw's interaction with and reception among the French.6 Despite some early French appreciators of Shaw's work in the persons of Charles Cestre7 and Augustin and Henriette Hamon, Shaw's official translators,8 it was not until the appearance of Saint Joan, where Shaw deals with a specifically French subject, and thanks to director Georges Pitoëff and his actress wife Ludmilla (as Joan), that more cordial relations developed.9 The French priest and writer Ernest Dimnet despaired of Shaw ever getting a proper presentation of his plays in Paris or a proper evaluation of his genius: “Between bad translations and ignorant critics the case seems hopeless.”10 Huntly Carter's comments on the French premiere of Mrs Warren's Profession accurately record the tenor of contemporary French responses to Shaw's work. According to Carter, Parisian theatergoers felt that the play dealt with outdated themes and ideas long abandoned on the French stage; moreover, whereas Shaw typically shocked English audiences, the Irishman's dramatic works often bemused French theatergoers. In the case of Mrs Warren's Profession, theatergoers were left wondering how Vivie could possibly live without a lover: either she or the author who conceived her was a damned fool.11 To compound the problem, The Daily Telegraph, in its survey of responses by Parisian critics to a production of You Never Can Tell, remarked that reviewers were unanimous in finding the play incomprehensible.12While at one level the general air of incomprehension on the part of Parisians to Shaw can be attributed to differences in language and culture, for much of the twentieth century there was also widespread dissatisfaction with the inadequacy of the Hamon translations.13 From the 1950s onward, productions of Shaw's works in “La Ville-Lumière” have consequently required the intercession of an adapter of the original Hamon texts to make them stageworthy. When The Doctor's Dilemma was presented at the Théâtre des Bouffes-Parisiens in 1950 as “Le Cas Dobedatt,” the Hamons's original translation had to undergo an “adaptation française” by one Jacques Deval from the Hamons's “version française.”14 It should be noted, however, that even Siegfried Trebitsch's German translations of Shaw's work were not above criticism. Reporting from Berlin in November 1913 on a new production of Pygmalion, one Manchester Guardian critic noted that his “German friends” felt the translation was inadequate and needed to be revised. That Doolittle was described as “unrespectable” rather than “undeserving” was representative of a number of mistranslations of the work.15Unlike Paris, cities such as Berlin and Vienna proved better locales for the enthusiastic reception of Shaw's plays, a tendency that was often highlighted by the London press. The Observer, for example, in an article entitled “Mr. Shaw's New Play—Why it has been produced Abroad—English Critics and Foreign Managers,” dated 2 November 1913, recorded Shaw's precious retort to the British theatrical establishment as to why he felt better off financially and in terms of his reputation in presenting his plays in Germany or Austria rather than in London. For Shaw, London critics typically declared his newest play vastly inferior to his previous one, which was now generally accepted as excellent; whereas when it was premiered it too was called vastly inferior. True to form, Shaw suggested that critics reverse the process, calling his older plays poor but the latest one a marked improvement.16 No doubt anti-British sentiment on the part of the ambitious Germanic nations fueled their glee at seeing their imperial rival, Great Britain, poked fun at by the irreverent Irishman. At the same time, Oskar A. H. Schmitz perhaps overstates the case in his book The Land without Music [England] when he declares, “The difference between the two countries shows itself in the fact that Bernard Shaw is hardly performed in England but here [Germany] we perform him to exaggeration.”17 It was certainly through the efforts of Trebitsch, director Max Reinhardt, and others that Shaw's place in the German theater reached its apogee with the success of Pygmalion, in response to which The Daily Chronicle declared, “Pygmalion will occupy the German stage permanently.”18Elsewhere in Europe, sensitive—and accurate—translations of Shaw's plays paved the way for the Irishman's work in cities such as Madrid, where Mrs Warrens's Profession (in a translation by Julio Brouta) at the Independent Theater was well received by both audiences and critics alike.19 In Italy, the actress Emma Gramatica (1874–1965) proved a vigorous pioneer in Shaw's cause, raising the curtain on her long career in Italian films when she acquired the rights to produce Mrs Warren's Profession in Venice in 1913.20 Although young ladies were cautioned to stay away from all performances, the play was a “tremendous success,” garnering “16 curtain calls.”21 Meanwhile, from Amsterdam, came similar approval, with the Morning Post reporting in April 1914 that Androcles and the Lion was not only “capitally played” but also “well received.”22 In contrast, audiences in St. Petersburg were not so thrilled with Shaw's treatment of Russian history in Great Catherine, dismissing him as a “vulgar buffoon.”23In terms of the dramatist's transatlantic connections, when we think of Shaw and America, our thoughts are drawn immediately to New York City. It was there that the actor Richard Mansfield presented Arms and the Man just six months after its London premiere in 1894; he later went on to present The Devil's Disciple in 1897, the royalties from which enabled Shaw to feel free to marry Charlotte Payne Townshend in 1898. In New York, the publishing house Brentano's pirated Shaw's novels, only later to become the dramatist's official U.S. publisher in 1906, to be succeeded eventually by Dodd, Mead in 1933. There in New York, Elizabeth Marbury became Shaw's American literary agent. In the same city, the actor Robert Loraine caused a sensation in Man and Superman, likewise presenting it to New Yorkers a few months after its London premiere in 1905. Loraine's subsequent nationwide tour of the play was particularly notable for the white railroad car emblazoned with the words “Man and Superman” that advertised the production. Likewise in New York in 1905, Mrs Warren's Profession was shut down by the police, just as it had been banned in London, but fortunately only temporarily. And there in New York, Lawrence Langner and the Theater Guild presented world and American premieres of still more Shaw plays.But before there was New York's Brentano's, there was Shaw's first official American publisher, the Chicago firm of Herbert S. Stone.24 How did Herbert Stuart Stone (1871–1915), a young man only in his twenties, manage to lure this London playwrighting lion, George Bernard Shaw, and bring him back to the young publisher's home lair, Chicago? Stone came from a distinguished journalistic family. His father, Melville E. Stone, was founder and editor of The Chicago Daily News, an influential newspaper founded in 1876. Herbert Stone began his own publishing ventures with a partner, Hannibal Ingalls Kimball, in 1893 while they were both undergraduates at Harvard and working on the student newspaper, The Harvard Crimson. Stone was twenty-two and Kimball nineteen. Stone could be considered a nineteenth-century version of his fellow Harvardian of 110 years later, Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder of the social networking website Facebook; though working in quite different fields and separated in time, the pioneering brilliance of these two Harvard undergraduates is comparable with regard to their respective entrepreneurial genius and media expertise. Stone & Kimball's first publication was entitled Popular Guide to the World's Fair and Exposition, which took place in Chicago in 1893. The two boy publishers then moved their operations to Chicago in 1894. But Kimball went on to New York in 1896, leaving the Chicago operation in Stone's hands and sole name, Herbert S. Stone & Co., Chicago and New York, a business that operated between the years 1896 and 1905.Stone's firm was part of the Chicago Renaissance, that flowering of literary, artistic, architectural, and political activity that coalesced during the opening decades of the twentieth century. Among the many figures associated with this period are the architects Dankmar Adler, Louis Sullivan, and Frank Lloyd Wright; authors and journalists Frank Norris, Eugene Field, Carl Sandburg, Upton Sinclair, Hamlin Garland, and Floyd Dell; social reformer Jane Addams; composer Reginald DeKoven; and educator Anna Morgan. Considered alongside the impact of Chicago-based avant-garde little magazines such as The Dial, these artists, planners, and public intellectuals remind us of the importance of Chicago as central to a larger American cultural front. In 1889, the spectacular Auditorium Theatre, the brainchild of Adler and Sullivan, was constructed, and it continues to present significant Chicago stage events to this day. In 1898, the old Studebaker showroom, built in 1885, was converted into the Fine Arts Building located at 410 South Michigan Avenue, and many musical and arts establishments, studios, and bookstores remain active in this building. Just as Adler, Sullivan, and Wright revolutionized the architecture of the modern city, so did Shaw revolutionize theater the world over. And as Frank Norris and Upton Sinclair muckraked the city of Chicago, so did Shaw muckrake London and British society in his first three “unpleasant plays” at the close of the nineteenth century. Before Stone's association with Shaw ended, he had published the first American editions of Plays Pleasant and Unpleasant in 1898 and The Perfect Wagnerite in 1899, the first authorized edition of Shaw's third novel, Love Among the Artists in 1900, and Three Plays for Puritans in 1901; moreover, in that same year, Stone published a further revision of Shaw's fourth and much pirated novel, Cashel Byron's Profession, along with its transmogrification into a play, The Admirable Bashville, plus some sundry new writings all included in one volume decorated by a sketch of a boxer on its cover.Of equal Shavian significance was the founding of the literary magazine The Chap-Book in 1894 by Stone, Kimball, and the Canadian poet Bliss Carman (1861–1929) while the latter was likewise a student at Harvard. Shortly after The Chap-Book's founding, Stone and Kimball moved the whole publishing operation to Chicago even before their respective graduations from Harvard. In 1896, Stone persuaded Clarence Rook (1863–1915), the British journalist, novelist, and writer of short, witty sketches of Edwardian London and its inhabitants, to interview Shaw in London for The Chap-Book.Shaw was among several prominent British and American authors the Chicago firm had been interested in publishing. In addition to publishing the work of GBS, Stone and Kimball, or just Stone, published in America writers such as George Santayana, Carman, W. B. Yeats, Edmund Gosse, Robert Louis Stevenson, Kenneth Grahame, Hamlin Garland, Maurice Maeterlinck, H. G. Wells, Henrik Ibsen (in William Archer's translations), Gabriele d'Annunzio, Henry James, Kate Chopin, and George Moore. Quite a distinguished list! Obviously Stone was interested in bringing the most advanced intellectual and artistic ideals and products to his native Chicago and, by extension, to America at large. Just as he recognized Shaw's leadership in his special field of playwriting—well before Archibald Henderson, Shaw's eventual biographer, discovered Shaw in Chicago in 1903—so too did he recognize and attempt to promote the work of other contemporary writers and intellectuals working in diverse fields.In 1895 and then again in 1897, Stone traveled to London, where he made the acquaintance of, among other literary personalities, Shaw's official London publisher, Grant Richards (1872–1948), another ambitious young man. It was to Richards that Stone in 1897 made his proposal to become Shaw's official American publisher. This was even during the time that Shaw and Richards were thrashing out the details of a collaboration that would eventually lead to the publication in 1898 of Plays Pleasant and Unpleasant. According to a letter dated 26 August 1897, Richards recalls describing Stone's offer to Shaw in a letter of 9 April of the same year. Traces of Shaw's emerging connections with Chicago can also be found in the Irishman's letters to Richards dated 7 and 26 August 1897, respectively. In considering Stone & Kimball's offer in the first letter, Shaw writes that, “Stone and Kimball's offer is good enough as such business goes.”25 In a letter to Richards of 21 May 1897, Shaw also refers to “the American business,” probably alluding to Stone's previous offer.26 And in the subsequent letter to Richards of 26 August, Shaw accepts Stone's offer. After describing his royalty terms, Shaw declares, “A princely affluence will accrue to S. & K. on these terms; but I desire to make the fortune of one American publisher in order that I may spend the rest of my life in plundering all the others.”27 Shaw had indeed been much pirated in America already.In the last line of this same letter, Shaw also describes his unusual terms for licensing the rights to his works for five years rather than selling his copyrights outright. This provision became the cause of a Shaw-initiated lawsuit when in 1906 Stone finally sold his book publishing business to the New York publisher Fox, Duffield & Co. so as to devote more time to directing his new magazine, House Beautiful, still a nationally distributed publication to this day. According to Shaw, Fox, Duffield had no right to his licenses, which he had transferred to Stone only and which he had revoked in 1905, and thus demanded they be returned. Stone, however, had not returned Shaw's copyrights but rather had assigned them to Duffield. Duffield agreed and gave Shaw the copyrights back in December 1906. But Shaw alleged in his suit that by not having his own copyrights between March and December of 1906 he had suffered damages of $200 a day or a total of $58,400. The appeals court agreed that he might have a case and requested a bill of particulars as to the alleged damages. But as this bill of particulars never showed up, Shaw suffered a legal defeat reminiscent of Dickens's Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce in Bleak House, as Sidney Kramer notes, quoting Richards.28 Once Shaw retransferred his returned copyrights to his new official publisher, Brentano's, that part of the case became moot. Shaw never collected any of his so-called damages, and Herbert Stone's involvement with the playwright came to an end.Stone was to meet a tragic fate at the age of forty-four when, along with the Spanish composer Enrique Granados, he was one of the victims of the sinking of the Lusitania, torpedoed by a German U-Boat on 7 May 1915 off the southern coast of Ireland. It is reported that Stone sacrificed his own life in order to see others saved.29 Thus both he and Clarence Rook died in that same year. It is the unique nature of the Shaw–Stone relationship that Kramer astutely alludes to when he emphasizes Chicago's importance with regard to the production and reception of the playwright's work. In the course of his remarks, Kramer cites not only the publication of the plays but also refers to Rook's interview in The Chap-Book in 1896, which introduced Shaw for the first time to the American public as a literary personality.30 Also, while he remained Shaw's authorized American publisher, Stone's approval was therefore necessary to acquire by anyone seeking to produce a Shaw play, whether in New York or anywhere else in the continental United States.One of the most important American theater composers of the twentieth century who escaped Stone's fate by oversleeping on the day he was scheduled to depart for England on the Lusitania was Jerome Kern, soon to figure in matters Shavian as well. The Chap-Book had enjoyed a parallel and successful life to the book-publishing side of the business. Long after Rook's interview with Shaw had been published in 1896, Kern, along with publishing figure Christopher Morley, republished the Rook interview privately for a few friends in 1923 under the title Nine Answers. On 31 January 1924, Blanche Patch, Shaw's secretary, wrote to Morley concerning Nine Answers in no uncertain terms: “The flat piracy mentioned in your letter took Mr. Shaw aback considerably; and if it had been sold to the public he would have been obliged to take proceedings.”31The Chap-Book/Nine Answers interview was reprinted yet again, in revised form, in Shaw's autobiographical Sixteen Self Sketches (1949). Many years later, in 1988, Bucknell University republished Nine Answers, this time with the full approval of the Shaw estate.32 The Nine Answers version, described as copied from a holograph manuscript, differs interestingly from Rook's interview in The Chap-Book, defined in the reprinted edition of 1923 as a recasting into an interview from a written questionnaire, with Rook's original page of questions being interpolated one by one into Shaw's originally continuous reply.33Nine Answers (1923 and 1988) reproduces without interruption Shaw's written reply to Rook's questionnaire.On 30 April 1898, Rook interviewed Shaw once again, this time for the British magazine The Academy.34 But, oddly enough, in the Nine Answers version, Shaw himself refers to still another mysterious Rook interview about Candida. In the Bucknell reprint of Nine Answers, Shaw describes his first six plays, which, he adds, if he hadn't already written them by age forty he had better stop. When he gets to Candida, he says, “Candida, about which you interviewed me in the P.M. Budget.”35 There is no reference to the Pall Mall Budget or this interview under Rook's name in either Laurence's bibliography or Wearing's bibliography of secondary Shaviana.36The Chap-Book version, in contrast, says at this point, “‘Candida,’ a sort of religious play with an East End clergyman and so forth.”37 There is also no reference to an interview in the Pall Mall Budget.However, there is a self-drafted interview, as Laurence terms it, entitled “An Extraordinary Ordinary Play [Candida]” that was reprinted in The Bodley Head Bernard Shaw: Collected Plays with Their Prefaces, as an appendix to Candida.38 Laurence catalogues this interview in his bibliography under the date 4 April 1895, with the title “Mr. Bernard Shaw and his New Play,” and declares its source of publication to be a magazine called New Budget.39 Perhaps Shaw misremembered the name of the magazine when he referred to the interview by Rook. If so, then a previously so-called self-drafted interview may turn out to be an actual interview of Shaw by Clarence Rook for which he received no credit from Dan Laurence. In contrast, Rook has received full credit from A. M. Gibbs, who describes the New Budget interview as definitely by Rook.40 Nor did Laurence give Rook credit for this article in his updating of the bibliography in 2000.41 In reading both The Chap-Book and Budget interviews, one notes that Rook's hallmark breezy style is discernible in both. As mentioned, in a final revision of The Chap-Book/Nine Answers series, Shaw included a greatly abridged and revised version of this interview in Sixteen Self Sketches.42 The details discussed here concerning the Candida interview were omitted entirely from this revision.Yet again there is a fourth interview of Shaw by Rook dated 2 February 1907 in a magazine entitled The Reader, almost a decade after the first three interviews, that has never been catalogued or noted by Laurence, Wearing, Gibbs, or anyone else as far as I know. Perhaps it is in the Union List of Serials or its British equivalent. But if you travel to the Wilson Library at the University of North Carolina and request the second scrapbook of Shaviana, of the seventy-six compiled by Archibald Henderson, and turn to page 80, you will find it, as I did during research into this treasure trove of little-known Shaviana.43 Henderson's usual identification notation is missing here, which makes it difficult to determine where The Reader Magazine was published. A different Wearing item from 1904 citing an article by Henderson himself locates the magazine in Indianapolis, a highly unlikely venue for a Rook interview. There must have been an English magazine with the same title; indeed, an item in Henderson's third scrapbook, dated 20 July 1907, contains another article on Shaw from The Reader, identified as being published in London.44To return to The Chap-Book and Nine Answers, The Chap-Book version of 1896 remarks that “‘The Man of Destiny’ has just been accepted by Sir Henry Irving.”45 There is no mention made of Sir Henry Irving in the Nine Answers version of 1923, so perhaps Rook interpolated this observation on his own.46 Of course Irving never did produce that play. Although it is claimed that the Nine Answers version is based on an original holograph manuscript, this document does not show up in the census of manuscripts listed by Laurence under category J in his bibliography. Perhaps it is still privately owned by the Kern heirs and as yet uncatalogued.47 Whichever the case, The Chap-Book was discontinued in 1898 and merged into The Dial. Selections from The Chap-Book are now available in facsimile reprint published by BiblioLife publishers.48Not the least important item with regard to Shaw's connection with Chicago is the fact that it was there, at the first American performance of You Never Can Tell, in February 1903, that Shaw's longest-lasting and most important American biographer, Archibald Henderson, first became “electrified” by the Irishman both as a playwright and as a personality. Indeed Henderson was so taken with Shaw that he determined to become his chief biographer, which he remained for nearly fifty years.49You Never Can Tell had been put on by the Chicago Musical College School of Acting under the direction of Hart Conway, who, according to Henderson, cut the long speeches severely.50 Henderson actually reproduced the very program from that performance in his second biography of Shaw, Playboy and Prophet (1932).51Still another Shavian tie to the “Windy City” was the Chicago educator Anna Morgan (1851–1936).52 After a career in Chicago dedicated to performing the plays of Ibsen and Maeterlinck, Morgan established her own studio in the city's Fine Arts Building in 1900, shortly after it had been opened for such purposes. Her all-female student body was educated by further study and performances of the modern drama. According to Kramer and Henderson, Morgan and her students gave the very first performance of Candida in America in 1899, though with one male actor, Taylor Holmes, in the role of Marchbanks.53 This was one year after Stone (in Chicago) and Grant Richards (in London) had published Plays Pleasant and Unpleasant in 1898. It is important to note that Richard Mansfield had turned down the opportunity to present his American premiere of Candida in New York, thus giving both Morgan's students and Chicago an opportunity to upstage their Manhattan counterparts.When the Morgan ensemble repeated their performance of Candida in 1900, one of those productions was seen and favorably commented on by none other than the serendipitous visitor to Chicago, and probably Shaw's closest friend, William Archer. Writing to Shaw, Archer proclaimed the production “the best performance of a play he had seen in America.”54 Archer's rave letter prompted Shaw to invite Morgan to visit the Shaws in England. Morgan did not mention the 1899 performance in her autobiography, My Chicago (1918), but only the performances of 1900.55 When Morgan visited the Shaws in Hazlemere (the Shaws had not yet moved to Ayot St. Lawrence), Shaw read to her portions of Captain Brassbound's Conversion, which he was in the process of writing. Morgan included a photograph of Shaw reading the play to her in My Chicago.56 She does not mention the date of this visit, but since Brassbound was published the following year, in 1901, both in London and Chicago, the visit must have been in the summer of 1900 shortly after the Candida productions and Archer's subsequent letter. Morgan recounts how she received the forwarded letter of invitation in Carlsbad, Germany, where she had traveled for the summer.57 She also reveals that James Carew was a former pupil of hers,58 presumably in Chicago; and Shaw, having seen Carew perform in England with Gertrude Elliott, picked Carew to play opposite Ellen Terry in Brassbound on tour, Sir Henry Irving having died in 1905.59 No doubt the Indiana-born Carew, with his presumably authentic American accent, would have fit very well into the Brassbound production.More important, in time Shaw gave Morgan permission to perform any of his plays she wished. When she subsequently informed him that she was going to stage the very first performance in America of Caesar and Cleopatra, newly published by Stone & Co. in Chicago in 1901, Morgan received the following letter from Shaw: “My Dear Miss Morgan: —Great Heavens! Is my Julius Caesar going to be created at last by a Chicago young lady! Oh Anna, Anna, how can I show my face in Chicago after this? Yours Stupended. G. BERNARD SHAW.”60Caesar and Cleopatra had been given a copyright performance in England in 1899, but for its American premiere, Mander and Mitchenson, in their hi
Referência(s)