FRIENDS I LIBRARY R8ITYOT CALIFORNIA SAN 01EGO \ presented to the MBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIFGO by FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY WITH MY FRIENDS By THE SAME AUTHOR: THE THEATRES OF PARIS. FRENCH DRAMATISTS OK THE IQTH CENTURY. A FAMILY TREE, AND OTHER STORIES. THE LAST MEETING : A Story. I A SECRET OF THE SEA, AND OTHER STORIES. PKN AND INK : Papers on Subjects of More or Less Importance. WITH MY FRIENDS TALES TOLD IN PARTNERSHIP BRANDER MATTHEWS WITH AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY ON The Art and Mystery of Collaboration NEW YORK LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO, 15 EAST SIXTEENTH STREET 1891 COPYRIGHT, 1891, BY BRANDER MATTHEWS. TO THE FRIENDS WHO WROTE THESE CTORIES WITH ME I INSCRIBE THEM. B. M. New York, October, 1891. CONTENTS PAGE THE ART AND MYSTERY OF COLLABORATION, . i I. THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE, . . . .31 (With H. C. Bunner.) II. SEVEN CONVERSATIONS OF DEAR JONES AND BABY VAN RENSSELAER 85 (With H. C. B tinner.) III. EDGED TOOLS: A TALE IN Two CHAPTERS, . 119 (With Walter Herries Pollock.} IV. MATED BY MAGIC: A STORY WITH A POSTSCRIPT, 161 ( With Walter Herries Pollock.} V. ONE STORY is GOOD TILL ANOTHER is TOLD, . 197 ( With George II. Jessop.) VI. THREE WISHES, 233 (With F. Anstcy.) THE ART AND MYSTERY OF COLLABORATION. IT may be said that curiosity is the only useful vice, since without it there would be neither dis covery nor invention ; and curiosity it is which lends interest to many a book written in collaboration, the reader being less concerned about the merits of the work than he is with guessing at the respective shares of the associated authors. To many of us a novel by two writers is merely a puzzle, and we seek to solve the enigma of its double authorship, accepting it as a nut to crack even when the kernel is little likely to be more digestible than the shell. Before a play of Beaumont and Fletcher or a novel of MM. Erckmann-Chatrian not a few find them selves asking a double question. First, " what was the part of each partner in the writing of the book ? " And, second, " how is it possible for two men to be concerned in the making of one work ? " The answer to the first question can hardly ever be given ; even the collaborators themselves are at 2 ART A.\D M YSTEKY OF CQLLAKORA 7Y0/V. a loss to specify their own contributions. When two men have worked together honestly and heart ily in the inventing, the developing, the construct ing, the writing, and the revising of a book or a play, it is often impossible for either partner to pick out his own share; certain things he may recognize as his own, and certain other things he may credit frankly to his ally ; but the rest was the result of the collaboration itself, contributed by both parties together and not by either separately. To explain this more in detail calls for an answer to the second question, and requires a careful consideration of the principle of collaboration, and a tentative explana tion of the manner in which two men may write one book. I confine myself to a discussion of literary pa'rt- nerships, because in literature collaboration is more complete, more intimate than it is in the other arts. When an architect aids a sculptor, when Mr. Stam ford White, for instance, plans the mounting of the ' Lincoln ' or the ' Farragut ' of Mr. Saint Gaudens, the respective shares of each artist may be deter mined with precision. So it is also when we find Rubens painting the figures in a landscape of Sny- ders. Nor are we under any doubt as to the con tribution of each collaborator when we hear an ART AND MYSTERY OF COLLABORA TIOX. 3 operetta by Mr. Gilbert and Sir Arthur Sullivan ; we know that one wrote the words and the other the music, and the division of labor does not seem unnatural, although it is not necessary; Wagner, for example, composed the score to his own book. But no one is puzzled by the White-Saint Gaudens com bination, the Rubens-Snyders, or the Gilbert and Sullivan, as most of us are, for example, by the alli ance of Charles Dickens and Wilkie Collins in the writing of ' No Thoroughfare.' If the doubt is great before a novellette com posed by two authors of individualities as distinct as those of Dickens and of Collins, how much greater may it be before books written by more than two partners. Not long ago, four clever American story-tellers co-operated in Writing a satirical tale, ' The King's Men ; ' and years before four brilliant French writers, Mme. de Girardin, Gautier, Sandeau and Mery, had set them the example by composing that epistolary romance, ' La Croix de Berny.' There is an English story in six chapters by six authors, among whom were the younger Hood, the late T. W. Robertson, and Mr. W. S. Gilbert; and there is an American story happily entitled, ' Six of One, by Half-a-dozen of the Other' Mrs. Stowe being among the half-dozen. 4 A A' T A ND M YS TER Y OF COLLABORA TIOX. Six authors for a single story, or even four, may seem to some a woeful waste of effort, and so, no doubt, it is; but I have found recorded cases of more extravagant prodigality. In France, an as sociation of three or four in the authorship of a farce is not at all uncommon ; and it is there that collaboration has been carried to its most absurd extreme. M. Jules Goizet, in his curious ' Histoire Anecdotique de la Collaboration au Theatre ' (Paris, 1867), mentions a one-act play which was performed in Paris in 1811, and which was the work of twenty- four dramatists; and he records the production in 1834, and also in Paris, of another one-act play, which was prepared for a benefit of the Dramatic Authors' Society, and which had no fewer than thirty-six authors. This suggests an intellectual poverty as barren as that once satirized by Cham- fort in Prussia, when, after he had said a good thing, he saw the others talking it over at the end of the table; "See those Germans," he cried, " clubbing together to take a joke." For the most part these combination ventures are mere curiosities of literature. Nothing of real value is likely to be manufactured by a joint stock com pany of unlimited authorship. The literary part nerships whose paper sells on 'Change at par have . ART AND MYSTERY OF COLLABORA TION. 5 but two members. It is this association of two, and of two only, to which \ve refer generally when we speak of collaboration. In fact, literary collabora tion might be defined, fairly enough, as "the union of two writers for the production of one book." This is, of a truth, the only collaboration worthy of serious criticism, the only one really pregnant and vital. Like any other partnership, a collaboration is un satisfactory and unsuccessful unless it is founded on mutual esteem. The partners must have sympathy for each other, and respect. Each must be tolerant of the other's opinions. Each must be ready to yield a point when need be. In all associations there must be concessions from one to the other. These are the negative qualities of a good collabora tor; and chief among the positive necessities is the willingness of each to do his full share of the work. A French wit has declared that the happiest mar riages are those in which one is loved and the other lets himself (or herself) be loved. Collaboration is a sort of marriage, but the witticism does not here hold true, although Mr. Andrew Lang recently de clared that in most collaborations one man did all the work while the other man looked on. No doubt this happens now and again, but a partnership of 6 A K T AND M YSTER Y OF COLLABORA T1ON. . this kind is not likely to last long. Mr. Lang has also quoted from the ' Souvenirs Dramatiques ' of the elder Dumas an opinion of that most delightful of romancers, to the effect that when two men are at work together " one is always the dupe, and he is the man of talent." It is pleasant to be able to controvert the testi mony of the great Dumas by the exhibits in his own case. Of all the mighty mass of Dumas's work, what survives now, a score of years after his death, and what bids fair to survive at least three score and ten years longer, are two or three cycles of brilliant and exciting narratives: ' Monte Cristo,' the 'Three Musketeers,' with its sequels, the stories of which Chicot is the hero ; and of these every one was written in collaboration with M. Auguste Maquet. Scribe is perhaps the only contemporary author who rivalled Dumas in fecundity and in popularity; and Scribe's evidence contradicts Dumas's, although both were persistent collaborators. Of all the hun dred of Scribe's plays, scarce half a dozen were written by him unaided. When he collected his writings into a uniform edition, he dedicated this to his many collaborators; and he declared that while the few works he had composed alone were hard ART AND MYSTERY OF COLLABORATION. 7 labor, those which he had done in partnership were a pleasure. And we know from M. Legouve, one of Scribe's associates, that Scribe generally pre ferred to do all the mere writing himself. The late Eugene Labiche, almost as prolific a playwright as Scribe and quite as popular, did nothing except with a partner ; and he, so we are told by M. Augier, who once composed a comedy with him, also liked to do all the actual writing. In a genuine collaboration, when the joint work is a true chemical union and not a mere mechanical mixture, it matters little who holds the pen. The main advantage of a literary partnership is in the thorough discussion of the central idea and of its presentation in every possible aspect. Art and genius, so Voltaire asserted, consist in finding all that is in one's subject, and in not seeking outside of it. When a situation has been talked over thor oughly and traced out to its logical conclusion, and when a character has been considered from every angle and developed to its inevitable end, nine- tenths of the task is accomplished. The putting down on paper of the situation and the character is but the clothing of a babe already alive and kicking. Perhaps the unity of impression which we get from some books written in partnership is due to 8 ART AND M YSTEK Y OF COLLABORA TION. the fact that the writing was always the work of the same partner. Scribe, for example, was not an author of salient individuality, but the plays which bear his name are unmistakably his handiwork. Labiche also, like Scribe, was ready to collaborate with anybody and everybody; but his trade-mark is woven into the texture of every play that bears his name. It is understood that the tales of MM. Erckmann-Chatrian are written out by M. Erckmann and revised by M. Chatrian. I have heard, on what authority I cannot say, that of the long series of stories bearing the names of Besant and Rice, all that the late James Rice actually wrote with his own pen was the first chapter or two of their first book, ' Ready Money Mortiboy.' This assertion, whether well founded or not, gains color of truth from the striking similarity of style, not to call it identity, of the Besant and Rice novels with the novels of the surviving member of the partnership. Yet, if one may judge by the preface he has prefixed to the library edition of ' Ready Money Mortiboy,' Mr. Besant would be the last one to deny that Mr. Rice was a full partner in the firm, bearing an equal share in the burden and heat of the day. Comparing the novels of dual authorship with those of the survivor alone, it is perhaps possible to ascribe to Mr. Rice ART AND MYSTER Y OF COLLABORA TION. 9 a fancy for foreign characters and a faculty of ren dering them vigorously, a curious scent for actual oddity, a bolder handling than Mr. Besant's, and a stronger fondness for dramatic incident, not to say melodramatic. The joint novels have a certain kin ship to the virile tales of Charles Reade ; but little trace of this family likeness is to be found in the later works of Mr. Besant alone, whose manner is gentler and more caressing, with a more delicate humor and a subtler flavor of irony. But any endeavor to sift out the contribution of one collaborator from that of his fellow is futile if the union has been a true marriage. It leads to the splitting of hairs and to the building of more than one hypothesis on the point of a single needle surely as idle a task as any ever attempted by a Shakespearian commentator. I doubt, indeed, if this effort "to go behind the returns" to use an Amer icanism as expressive as an Americanism ought to be is even permissible, except possibly after the partnership is dissolved. Under the most favorable circumstances the inquiry is little likely to be profit able. Who shall declare whether the father or the mother is the real parent of a child? It is interesting, no doubt, and often instructive to note the influence of two authors on each other; io ART AND M YSTER Y OF COLLABORA TION. to consider the effect of the combination of their diverse talents and temperaments; to discover how the genius of one conflicts with that of the other or complements it ; to observe how at one point the strength of A reinforces the weakness of B, and how at another point the finer taste of B adroitly curbs the more exuberant energy of A; and to remark how the conjunction of two men of like minds and of equally ardent convictions sometimes will result in a work harsher and more strenuous than either would produce alone. For curious investigation of this sort there is no lack of material, since collaboration has been at tractive to not a few of the foremost figures in the history of literature. The list includes not only Beaumont and Fletcher among the mighty Eliza bethans, but Shakespeare and almost every one of his fellow-dramatists not only Corneille, Moliere, and Racine, but almost every other notable name in the history of the French theatre. Cervantes and Calderon and Lope de Vega took partners in Spain ; and in Germany Schiller and Goethe worked together. In Great Britain Addison and Steele united in the Spectator, and in the United States Irving and Paulding combined in ' Salmagundi,' as did Drake and Halleck in the 'Croakers.' ART AND MYSTER Y OF COLLABORA TION. 1 1 The list might be extended almost indefinitely, but it is long enough to allow of one observation an observation sufficiently obvious. It is that no great poem has ever been written by two men to gether, nor any really great novel. Collaboration has served the cause of periodical literature. But it has been most frequent and most fertile among dramatists. We ask why this is and the answer is ready. It is because a play calls primarily for fore thought, ingenuity, construction, and compression, in the attaining of which two heads are indubitably better than one. And here we are nigh to laying hold on the root of the matter. Here we have ready to hand what may help towards a definition of the possibilities and of the limitations of literary part nership. Collaboration fails to satisfy when there is need of profound meditation, of solemn self-interrogation, or of lofty imagination lifting itself freely towards the twin-peaks of Parnassus. Where there may be a joy in the power of unexpected expansion, and where there may be a charm of veiled beauty, vague and fleeting, visible at a glimpse only and intangible always, two men would be each in the other's way. In the effort to fix these fugitive graces they would but trip over each other's heels. A task of this 12 ART AND M YSTER Y OF COLLABORA TION. delicacy belongs of right to the lonely student in the silent watches of the night, or in solitary walks under the greenwood tree and far from the madding crowd. Collaboration succeeds most abundantly where clearness is needed, where precision, skill, and logic are looked for, where we expect simplicity of mo tive, sharpness of outline, ingenuity of construction, and cleverness of effect. Collaboration may be a potent coadjutor wherever technic is a pleasure for its own sake : and the sense of art is dull in a time or in a place which does not delight in sound work manship, and in the adroit devices of a loving crafts man. Perhaps, indeed, collaboration may tend or, at least, it may be tempted now and again to sac rifice matter to manner. Those enamored of technic may consider rather the excellence of the form than the value of the fact upon which their art is to be exercised. Yet it may be doubted whether there is any real danger to literature in a craving for the utmost technical skill. In much of Byron's work Matthew Arnold found " neither deliberate scientific construction, nor yet the instinctive artistic creation of poetic wholes." Accidental excellence, an intuitive attaining of the ideal, the instinctive artistic creation of poetic ART A ND M YS TER Y OF COLLABORA TION. 1 3 wholes, is not to be expected from a partnership indeed, is hardly possible to it. But a partnership is likely to attempt deliberate scientific construction owing to the mutual criticism of the joint authors; and by collaboration the principles of scientific con struction are conveyed from one to another to the advancement of the art itself and to the unmistaka ble improvement of the mere journeyman work of the average man of letters. For example, many even of the best English novels seem formless when compared with the masterly structure of any good French story; and perhaps the habit of collabora tion which obtains in France is partly to be praised for this. All things have the defect of their qualities as well as the quality of their defects. Collaboration maybe considered as a labor-saving device; and, like other labor-saving devices, it sometimes results in a loss of individuality. One is inclined to suspect a lack of spontaneity in the works which two authors have written together, and in which we are likely to find polish, finish, and perfection of mechanism. To call the result of collaboration often over-labored, or to condemn it as cut and dried, would be to ex press with unduly brutal frankness the criticism it is best merely to suggest. By the very fact of a 14 ART A ND M YSTER Y OF COLLA BORA TION. partnership with its talking over, its searching dis cussion, its untiring pursuit of the idea into the most remote fastnesses, there may be an over-sharpness of outline, a deprivation of that vagueness of con tour not seldom strangely fascinating. No doubt in the work of two men there is a loss of the unexpected, and the story must of necessity move straight forward by the shortest road, not lingering by the wayside in hope of wind-falls. There is less chance of unforeseen developments suggest ing themselves as the pen speeds on its way across the paper and every writer knows how the pen often runs away with him. " across country " and over many a five-barred gate which he had never intended to take: but as there is less chance of the unforeseen, so is there also less chance that the unforeseen will be worth having. Above all is there far less likelihood of the writer's suddenly finding himself up a blind-alley with a sign of No Thor oughfare staring him in the face. It has been ob jected that in books prepared in partnership even the writing is hard and arid, as though each writer were working on a foreign suggestion and lacking the freedom with which a man may treat his own invention. If a writer feels thus, the partnership is unprofitable and unnatural, and he had best get a ART AXD MYSTER Y OF COLLABORA TION. 15 divorce as soon as may be. In a genuine collabora tion each of the parties thereto ought to have so far contributed to the story that he can consider every incident to be his, and his the whole work when it is completed. As it happens there is one department of litera ture in which the defect of collaboration almost be comes a quality. For a drama deliberate scientific construction is absolutely essential. In play-making an author must know the last word before he sets down the first. From the rigid limitations of time and space there is no room on the stage for unex pected development. Voltaire tells us that there were misers before the invention of money; and no doubt there were literary partnerships before the first playhouse was built. But the value of collab oration to the playwright has been instinctively rec ognized whenever and wherever the theatre has flourished most abundantly; and as soon as the dramas of a country are of domestic manufacture, and cease to be mainly imported from abroad, the playmakers take to collaboration intuitively. In Spain, when Lope de Vega and Calderon and Cervantes were writing for the stage, they had part ners and pupils. In England there was scarce one of all the marvellous company of the Elizabethan 1 6 ART A ND M YS 77; A' Y OF COLLABORA T1ON. dramatists who did not join hands in the making of plays. Fletcher, for example, wrote with Massinger even while Beaumont was alive. Chapman had for associates Marston, and Shirley, and Ben Jonson. Dekker worked in partnership with Ford, Webster, Massinger, and Middleton ; while Middleton com bined with Dekker, Fletcher, Rowley, and Ben Jonson. In France, a country where the true principles of the play-maker's art are most thoroughly under stood, Rotrou and Corneille worked together with three others on five-act tragedies barely outlined by Cardinal Richelieu. Corneille and Quinault aided Moliere in the writing of ' Psyche.' Boileau and La Fontaine and other friends helped Racine to complete the ' Plaideurs.' In the present century, when the supremacy of the French drama is again indisputable, many of the best plays are due to col laboration. Scribe and M. Legouv6 wrote together 'Adrienne Lecouvreur ' and the ' Bataille des Dames.' MM. Meilhac and Halevy were joint authors of ' Frou-frou ' (that poignant picture of the disadvan tages of self-sacrifice) and of the ' Grand Duchess of Gerolstein ' (that bold and brilliant satire of imperial misrule). Emile Augier, to my mind the most wholesome and the most manly dramatist of our ART AND MYSTER Y OF COLLABORA TION. 17 day, joined Jules Sandeau in composing the ' Gendre de M. Poirier,' the strongest comedy of the century. Scribe and Augier and Sandeau, M. Legouve, M. Meilhac and M. Halevy, are all men of fine talents and of varied accomplishments in letters; they are individually the authors of many another drama; but no one of these other pieces attains the stature of the co-operative plays or even approaches the standard thus set. Nothing else of Scribe's is as human and as pathetic as 'Adrienne Lecouvreur,' and nothing else of M. Legouve's is as skilful. Since the dissolution of the partnership of MM. Meilhac and Halevy they have each written alone; M. Halevy 's 'Abbe Constantin' is a charming idyll, and M. Meilhac's ' Decore ' fs delicately humorous; but where is the underlying strength which sustains 1 Frou-frou ' ? where is the exuberant comic force of ' Tricoche et Cacolet ' ? where is the disintegrating irony of the ' Belle Helena ' ? Here collaboration has proved itself. Here union has produced work finer and higher than was apparently possible to either author alone. More often than not collaboration seems accidental, and its results are not the works by which we rank either of its writers. We do not think of Charles Dickens chiefly as the author of ' No Thoroughfare,' nor is ' No Thoroughfare ' the 1 8 ART A ND M YS TER V OF COLL A BORA TION. book by which we judge Wilkie Collins. But 'Adri- enne Lecouvreur ' is the finest play on the list of either Scribe's works or of M. Legouv's, and ' Frou frou ' is the one comedy of MM. Meilhac and Halevy likely to survive. France is the country with the most vigorous dramatic literature, and France is the country where collaboration is the most frequent. The two facts are to be set down together, without a forced sug gestion that either is a consequence of the other. But it is to be noted again that in any country where there is a revival of the drama collaboration is likely to become common at once. In Germany just now, for example, there is a promising school of comedy writers and they are combining one with another. In Great Britain and in the United States there are signs of dramatic growth ; and very obviously there has been an enormous improvement in the past few years. A comparison of the original plays written in our language twenty-five years ago with those now so written is most encouraging. It may seem a little like that circular argument which is as dangerous as a circular saw but I venture to suggest that one of the causes of immediate hopefulness for the drama in our language is the prevalence of col laboration in England and in America for by such ART AND M YSTER Y OF COLLATOR A TION. 19 partnerships the principles of play-making are spread abroad. " We learn of our contemporaries," said Emerson, " what they know, without effort, and almost through the pores of the skin." Now, a col laborator must needs be the closest of contempo raries. With Charles Reade, Tom Taylor composed ' Masks and Faces,' an artificial comedy of undenia ble effect; and with Mr. A. W. Dubourg he wrote ' New Men and Old Acres,' a comedy also artificial, but more closely akin to modern life. With Pal- grave Simpson, Mr. Herman Merivale prepared a moving romantic drama, 'All for Her,' and with Mr. F. C. Grove he wrote a brilliant comedy, ' Forget- Me-Not.' To collaboration again is due the ' Silver King,' the best of recent English dramas. And collaboration, alas ! is also to be credited with the most of the latest machine-made British melodramas, plays which may bear the signatures of any two of half a dozen contemporary playwrights which re veal a most extraordinary likeness, one to the other, as though they had each been cut from the same roll of goods in lengths to suit the purchaser and in which the pattern is always a variation of a single theme, the revengeful pursuit of an exemplary good man by an indefatigable bad man. 2o ART A ND M YS TER Y F COLL A />' OKA TION. In America there is also an evident tendency towards co-operation, as there has been a distinct improvement in the technic of play-writing. Mr. Bronson Howard has told us that he had a silent partner in revising his ' Banker's Daughter,' known in England as the ' Old Love and the New.' To the novice in the theatre the aid of the expert is in valuable. When Mrs. Hodgson Burnett desired to make a play out of her little tale of ' Esmeralda,' she consulted counsel learned in the law of dramatic construction, Mr. William Gillette, by whose aid the comedy was written. If the poetic drama has any future on our stage, it must owe this in a measure to collaboration, for the technic of the theatre is nowadays very elaborate, and few bards are likely to master it satisfactorily. But if the poet will frankly join hands with the practical playwright, there is a hopeful possibility of success. Had Browning taken advice before he finally fixed on his action, and while the form was yet fluid, 'A Blot in the Scutcheon' might have been made a great acting play. It is while a drama is still mal leable that the aid of the expert is invaluable. The assistance which Dumas received from his frequent associates was not of this kind ; it was not the co-operation of an expert partner but rather A R T AND M YSTER Y OF COLLABORA 7'fOJV. 2 1 that of a useful apprentice. The chief of these col laborators was the late Auguste Maquet, with whom Dumas would block out the plot, and to whom he would intrust all the toilsome detail of investiga tion and verification. Edmond About once caught Dumas red-handed in the very act of collaboration, and from his account it appears that Maquet had set down in black and white the outline of the story as they had developed it together, incorporating, doubtless, his own suggestions and the result of his historic research. This outline was contained on little squares of paper, and each of these little squares Dumas was amplifying into a large sheet of manuscript in his own fine handwriting. Thackeray answered the accusation that Dumas did not write all his own works by asking, " Does not the chief cook have aides under him? Did not Rubens's pupils paint on his canvases ? " Then it is in one of the most delightful passages of the always delightful ' Roundabout Papers' he declares that he himself would like a competent, respectable, and rapid clerk, to whom he might say, " Mr. Jones, if you please, the archbishop must die this morning in about five pages. Turn to article ' Dropsy ' (or what you will) in Encyclopaedia. Take care there are no medical blunders in his death. Group his 22 ART AND MYSTER V OF CO1.I.ABORA 77O.V. daughters, physicians, and chaplains round him. In Wales's ' London,' letter B, third shelf, you will find an account of Lambeth, and some prints of the place. Color in with local coloring. The daughter will come down and speak to her lover in his wherry at Lambeth Stairs." "Jones (an intelligent young man) examines the medical, historical, topographi cal books necessary; his chief points out to him in Jeremy Taylor (fol. London, MDCLV.) a few re marks, such as might befit a dear old archbishop de parting this life. When I come back to dress for dinner the archbishop is dead on my table in five pages; medicine, topography, theology, all right, and Jones has gone home to his family some hours." This was Thackeray's whimsical suggestion ; but if he had ventured to adopt it himself, I fear we should have been able to distinguish the 'prentice hand from the fine round sweep of the master. This paper is, perhaps, rather a consideration of the principle of collaboration than an explanation of its methods. To point out the departments of lit erature in which collaboration maybe of advantage and to indicate its more apparent limitations have been my objects, and I have postponed as long as I could any attempt to 'explain " how it is done." Such an explanation is at best but a doubtful possibility. AR T AND M YSTER Y OF 'COLLABORA TION. 23 Perhaps the first requisite is a sympathy between the two partners not sufficient to make them survey life from the same point of view, but yet enough to make them respect each other's suggestions and be prepared to accept them. There is needed in both openness of mind as well as alertness, an ability to take as well as to give, a willingness to put your self in his place and to look at the world from his standpoint. Probably it is best that the two authors shall not be too much alike in temperament. Ed- mond and Jules de Goncourt, for example, although not twins, thought alike on most subjects; and so close was their identity of cerebration that, when they were sitting at the same table at work on the same book, they sometimes wrote almost the same sentence at the same moment. This is collabora tion carried to an abnormal and unwholesome ex treme; and there is much that is morbid and much that is forced in the books the Goncourts composed together. Collaboration may once more be likened to matri mony, and we may consider MM. 'Erckmann-Cha- trian and Messrs. Besant and Rice as monogamists, while Scribe and Labiche, who were ready to col laborate at large, are polygamists. In marriage husband and wife are one, and that is not a happy 24 ART AXD MYSTERY OF COLLAROKA TIOX. union when either inquires as to which one it is : the unity should be so complete that the will of each is merged in that of the other. So it should be in a literary partnership. Respect for each other, mutual esteem, is, perhaps, the first requisite for collaboration as for matrimony; and good temper is assuredly the second. In discussing the practice of collaboration with that past master of the art Mr. Walter Besant, he declared to me that it was absolutely essential that one of the two partners should be the head of the firm. He did not tell me who was the head of the firm of Besant and Rice, and I have no direct testi mony to offer in support of my belief that the domi nant member was Mr. Besant himself; but there is a plenty of circumstantial evidence to that effect, and, as Thoreau says, " some circumstantial evidence is very strong as when you find a trout in the milk." What Mr. Besant meant, I take it, was that there must be a unity of impulse so that the resulting product shall seem the outcome of a single control ling mind. This may be attained by the domina tion of one partner, no doubt, as when Dumas availed himself of the aid of Maquet ; but it can be the result also of an harmonious equality, as when ART AND M YSTER Y OF COLLABORA TION. 25 M. Meilhac and M. Halevy were writing together. In collaboration as in matrimony, again, it is well when the influence of the masculine element does not wholly overpower the feminine. As there are households where husband and wife fight like cat and dog, and where marriage ends in divorce, so there are literary partnerships which are dissolved in acrimony and anger. M. Alexandre Dumas fils has lent his strength to the authors of the ' Supplice d'une Femme,' ' Heloise Paranquet,' and the ' Danichef,' and there followed bad feelings and high words. Warned by this bitter experience, M. Dumas is said to have answered a request to collaborate with the query, " Why should I wish to quarrel with you?" But M. Dumas is a bad collab orator, I fancy, despite his skill and his strength. He is like the powerful ally a weak country some times calls in to its own undoing. Yet in his case the usual cause of disagreement between collabora tors is lacking, for the plays he has recast and stamped with his own image and superscription have succeeded. Now in general it is when the work fails that the collaborators fall out. Racine made an epigram against the two now forgotten authors of a now forgotten tragedy, that each claimed it before it was produced and both re- 26 ./A' 7 1 <-/ A r /; J/ YSJ'Eh' Y Ol< COU.A HOKA TIO\. nounced it after it had been acted. The quarrels of collaborators, like the quarrels of any author, or, for that matter, like any quarrels at all to which the public are admitted, are the height of folly. The world looks on at the fight, and listens while the two former friends call each other hard names; and more often than not it believes what each says of the other, and not what he says of himself. If I may be allowed to offer myself as a witness, I shall testify to the advantage of a literary partner ship, which halves the labor of the task and doubles the pleasure. It may be that I have been excep tionally skilful in choosing my allies or exception ally fortunate in them, but I can declare unhesitat ingly that I have never had a hard word with a col laborator while our work was in hand and never a bitter word with him afterwards. My collaborators have always been my friends before and they have always remained my friends after. Sometimes our literary partnership was the unpremeditated outcome of a friendly chat, in the course of which we chanced upon a subject, and in sport developed it until un expectedly it seemed promising enough to be worthy of artistic consideration. Such a subject belonged to both of us, and had best be treated by both to gether. There was no dispute as to our respective ART AND MYSTER Y OF COLLABORA TION. 27 shares in the result of our joint labors, because we could not ourselves even guess what each had done when both had been at work together. As Augier said in the preface to the ' Lionnes Pauvres,' which he wrote with M. Edouard Foussier, we must copy " the married people who say one to the other, ' your son.' " I have collaborated in writing stories, in making plays, and in editing books. Sometimes I may have thought that I did more than my share, sometimes I knew that I did less than I should, but always there was harmony, and never did either of us seek to assert a mastery. However done, and by which ever of the two, the subject was always thoroughly discussed between us; it was turned over and over and upside down and inside out ; it was considered from all possible points of view and in every stage of development. When a final choice was made of what seemed to us best, the mere putting on paper was wholly secondary. I have written a play of which I prepared the dialogue of one act and my associate prepared that of the next ; I have written a play in which I wrote the scenes in which certain characters appeared and my ally wrote those in which certain other characters appeared ; I have written a short story in two chapters of which one 28 ART A ND M YS TEK Y Of COLL A BORA TION. was in my autograph and the other in my partner's; but none the less was he the half-author of the por tions I set on paper, and none the less was I the half-author of the portions he set on paper. Probably the most profitable method is that of alternate development certainly it is for a drama. After the subject begins to take form, A makes out a tentative sequence of scenes; and this, after sev eral talks, B fills up into an outline of the story. Slowly, and after careful consultation, A elaborates this into a detailed scenario in which every charac ter is set forth, every entrance and every exit, with the reasons for them, every scene and every effect in fact, everything except the words to be spoken. Then B takes this scenario^ and from it he writes a first rough draft of the play itself, complete in dia logue and in " business." This rough draft A re vises, and rewrites where need be. Then it goes to the copyist ; and when the clean type-written manuscript returns both A and B go over it again and again, pointing and polishing, until each is sat isfied with their labor in common. Perhaps the drama is the only form of literature in which so painstaking a process would be advantageous, or in which it would be advisable even ; but of a play the structure can hardly be too careful or too pre- AR T AND M YSTER Y OF COLLA BORA TION. 29 cise, nor can the dialogue be too compact or too polished. " I am no pickpurse of another's wit," as Sir Philip Sydney boasts, but I cannot forego the malign pleasure of quoting, in conclusion, Mr. Andrew Lang's insidious suggestion to " young men entering on the life of tetters." He advises them " to find an ingenious, and industrious, and successful part ner; stick to him, never quarrel with him, and do not survive him." THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. (In Collaboration with H. C. Runner^ THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. I. Document No. i. Paragraph front the " Illustrated London News" pub lished under the head of " Obituary of Eminent Persons^ in the issue of January ^tk, 1879. SIR WILLIAM BEAUVOIR, BART. Sir William Beauvoir, Bart., whose lamented death has just occurred at Brighton, on December 28th, was the head and representative of the junior branch of the very ancient and honourable family of Beau voir, and was the only son of the late General Sir William Beauvoir, Bart., by his wife Anne, daughter of Colonel Doyle, of Chelsworth, Suffolk. He was born in 1805, and was educated at Eton and Trin ity Hall, Cambridge. He was M.P. for Lancashire from 1837 to 1847, an d was appointed a Gentleman of the Privy Chamber in 1843. Sir William mar ried, in 1826, Henrietta Georgiana, fourth daugh ter of the Right Hon. Adolphus Liddell, Q.C., 3 34 THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASK. by whom he had two sons, William Beauvoir and Oliver Liddell Beauvoir. The latter was with his lamented parent when he died. Of the former noth ing has been heard for nearly thirty years, about which time he left England suddenly for America. It is supposed that he went to California shortly after the discovery of gold. Much forgotten gossip will now in all probability be revived, for the will of the lamented baronet has been proved, on the 2d inst., and the personalty sworn under ; 70,000. The two sons are appointed executors. The estate in Lancashire is left to the elder, and the rest is divided between the brothers The doubt as to the career of Sir William's eldest son must now of course be cleared up. This family of Beauvoirs is of Norman descent and of great antiquity. This is the younger branch, founded in the last century by Sir William Beauvoir, Bart., who was Chief Justice of the Canadas, whence he was granted the punning arms and motto now borne by his descendants-^-a beaver sable rampant on a field gules; motto, " Damno." THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. 35 * II. Document No. 2. Promises to pay put fortJi by William Bcauvoir, jun ior, at various times in 1848. /. O. U. vio5. o. o, April loth, 1848. William Bcauvoir, junr. Document No. 3. The same. I. O. U. 250. o. o. April 22d, 1848. William Reanvoir, junr. Document No. 4. The same. I. O. U. 600. o. o. May 10th, 1848. William Beauvoir,junr. 36 THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. Document No. 5. Extract from the " Sunday Satirist," a journal of high life published in London, May i^th, 1848. Are not our hereditary law-makers and the mem bers of our old families the guardians of the honour of this realm? One would not think so to see the reckless gait at which some of them go down the road to ruin. The D e of D m and the E 1 of B n and L d Y g, are not these pretty guardians of a nation's name? Quis custodiet ? etc. Guardians, forsooth, parce quits se sont donntfs la peine de naitre ! Some of the gentry make the running as well as their betters. Young VV m B r, son of old Sir W m B r, late M.P. for L e, is a truly model young man. He comes of a good old county family his mother was a daughter of the Right Honourable A s L 1, and he himself is old enough to know better. But we hear of his escapades night after night and day after day. He bets all day and he plays all night, and poor tired nature has to make the best of it. And his poor worn purse gets the worst of it. He has duns by the score. His I. O. U.'s are held by every Jew in the city. He is not content with a little gentlemanlike game of whist or but he THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. 37 must needs revive for his special use and. behoof the dangerous and well-nigh forgotten pharaoh. As luck would have it, he had lost as much at this game of brute chance as ever he would at any game of skill. His judgment of horseflesh is no better than his luck at cards. He came a cropper over the "Two Thousand Guineas." The victory of the favourite cost him to the tune of over six thousand pounds. We learn that he hopes to recoup himself on the Derby by backing Shylock for nearly nine thousand pounds; one bet was twelve hundred guineas. And this is the sort of man who may be chosen at any time by force of family interest to make laws for the toiling millions of Great Britain! Document No. 6. Extract from "Bell's Life" of May iqth, 1848. THE DERBY DAY. WEDNESDAY. This day, like its predecessor, opened with a cloudless sky, and the throng which crowded the avenues leading to the grand scene of attraction was, as we have elsewhere remarked, in calculable. 38 THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. THE DERBY. The Derby Stakes of 50 sovs. each, h. ft. for three- year-olds; colts, 8 st. 7 lb., fillies, 8 st. 2 lb.; the second to receive 100 sovs., and the winner to pay 100 sovs. towards police, etc. ; mile and a half on the new Derby course 5215 subs. Lord Clifden's b. c. Surplice, by Touchstone, . i Mr. Bowe's b. c. Springy Jack, by Hetman, . . 2 Mr. B. Green's br. c. Shylock, by Simoon, ... 3 Mr. Payne's b. c. Glendower, by Slane, . . . . o Mr. J. P. Day's b. c. Nil Desperandum, by Venison, o Document No. 7. Paragraph of SJiipping Intelligence from the Liver pool " Courier " of June 2\st, 1848. The bark Euterpe, Captain Riding, belonging to the Transatlantic Clipper Line of Messrs. Judkins & Cooke, left the Mersey yesterday afternoon, bound for New York. She took out the usual comple ment of steerage passengers. The first officer's cabin is occupied by Professor Titus Peebles, M.R.C.S., M.R.G.S., lately instructor in metallurgy at the Uni versity of Edinburgh, and Mr. William Beauvoir. Professor Peebles, we are informed, has an impor tant scientific mission in the States and will not re turn for six months. THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. 39 Document No. 8. Paragraph from the New York" Herald" of September gth, 1848. While we well know that the record of vice and dissipation can never be pleasing to the refined tastes of the cultivated denizens of the only morally pure metropolis on the face of the earth, yet it may be of interest to those who enjoy the fascinating study of human folly and frailty to " point a moral or adorn a tale " from the events transpiring in our very midst. Such as these will view with alarm the sad example afforded the youth of our city by the dissolute career of a young lump of aristocratic af fectation and patrician profligacy, recently arrived in this city. This young gentleman s (save the mark!) name is Lord William F. Beauvoir, the latest scion of a venerable and wealthy English family. We print the full name of this beautiful exemplar of " haughty Albion," although he first appeared among our citizens under the alias of Beaver, by which name he is now generally known, although recorded on the books of the Astor House by the name which our enterprise first gives to the public. Lord Beauvoir's career since his arrival here has been one of unexampled extravagance and mad im- 40 THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. morality. His days and nights have been passed in the gilded palaces of the fickle goddess Fortune in Thomas Street, and College Place, where he has squandered fabulous sums, by some stated to amount to over 78,000 sterling. It is satisfactory to know that retribution has at last overtaken him. His enormous income has been exhausted to the ulti mate farthing, and at latest accounts ke had quit the city, leaving behind him, it is shrewdly sus pected, a large hotel bill, though no such admission can be extorted from his last landlord, who is evi dently a sycophantic adulator of British " aristoc racy." Document No. 9. Certificate of Deposit, vulgarly knoivn as a pawn- ticket, issued by one Simpson to J Villiam Beauvoir, December 2d, 1848. John Simpson, Loan Office, :{(} Bowery, New York. Dec. 2orfc. P. . JBoj 4076. Jan. 22, 1879. MESSRS. PIXLEY & SUTTON. GENTLEMEN : We have just received from our London correspondents, Messrs. Throstlethwaite, Throstlethwaite, and Dick, of Lincoln's Inn, Lon don, the letter, a copy of which is herewith inclosed, to which we invite your attention. We request that you will do all in your power to aid us in the search for the missing Englishman. From the letter of Messrs. Throstlethwaite, Throstlethwaite, and Dick, it seems extremely probable, not to say certain, that Mr. Beauvoir arrived in your city about 1849, m company with a distinguished English scientist, Pro fessor Titus Peebles, whose professional attainments 6o THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. were such that he is probably well known, if not in California, at least in some other of the mining States. The first thing to be done, therefore, it seems to us, is to ascertain the whereabouts of the professor, and to interview him at once. It may be that he has no knowledge of the present domicile of Mr. William Beauvoir, in which case we shall rely on you to take such steps as, in your judgment, will best conduce to a satisfactory solution of the mys tery. In any event, please look up Professor Peebles and interview him at once. Pray keep us fully informed by telegraph of your movements Yr obt serv'ts, HITCHCOCK & VAN RENSSELAER. Document No. 18. Telegram from Afessrs. Pixley and Suit on, Attorneys and Counsellors at Law, 98 California Street, San Francisco, California, to Afcssrs. Hitclicock and Van Rensselacr, Attorncysand Counsellors at Law, 76 Broadway, New York. SAN FRANCISCO. CAI,., Jan. 30. Tite Peebles well known frisco not professor keeps faro bank. PIXLEY & SUTTON. (D. H. 919.) THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. 61 Document No. 19. Telegram from Messrs. Hitchcock and Van Rensse- laer to Messrs. Pixley and Sutton, in answer to the preceding. NEW YORK, Jan. 30. Must be mistake Titus Peebles distinguished scientist. HITCHCOCK & VAN RENSSELAER. (Free. Answer to D. H.) Document No. 20. Telegram from Messrs. Pixley and Sutton to Messrs, Hitclicock and Van Rensselacr, in reply to the pre ceding. SAN FRANCISCO, CAL., Jan. 30. No mistake distinguished faro banker suspected skin game shall we interview. PIXLEY & SUTTON. (D. H. 919.) Document No. 21. Telegram from Messrs. HitcJicock and Van Rensselaer to Messrs. Pixley and Sutton, in reply to the pre ceding. NEW YORK, Jan. 30. Must be mistake interview anyway. HITCHCOCK & VAN RENSSELAER. (Free. Answer to D. H.) 62 THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. Document No. 22. Telegram from Messrs. Pixley and Sutton to Messrs. Hitchcock and Van Rensselaer, in reply to the pre ceding. SAN FRANCISCO, CAL., Jan. 30 Peebles out of town have written him. PIXLEY & SUTTON. (D. H. 919.) Document No. 23. Letter from Tite W. Peebles, delegate to the California Constitutional Convention, Sacramento, to Messrs. Pixlcy and Sutton, 98 California Street, San Fran cisco, California. SACRAMENTO. Feb. 2, '79. MESSRS. PIXLEY & BUTTON, San Francisco. GENTLEMEN: Your favor of the 3ist ult., for warded me from San Francisco, has been" duly rec'd, and contents thereof noted. My time is at present so fully occupied by my duties as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention that I can only jot down a brief report of my recol lections on this head. When I return to S. F., I shall be happy to give you any further information that may be in my possession. The person concerning whom you inquire was my fellow-passenger on my first voyage to this State THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. 63 on board the Mercy G. Tarbox, in the latter part of the year. He was then known as Mr. William Beauvoir. I was acquainted with his history, of which the details escape me at this writing. He was a countryman of mine; a member of an im portant county family Devonian, I believe and had left England on account of large gambling debts, of which he confided to me the exact figure. I believe they totted up something like .14,500. I had at no time a very intimate acquaintance with Mr. Beauvoir; during our sojourn on the Tar- box he was the chosen associate of a depraved and vicious character named Phoenix. I am not averse from saying that I was then a member of a profes sion rather different to my present one, being, in fact, professor of metallurgy, and I saw much less, at that period, of Mr. B. than I probably should now. Directly we landed at S. F., the object of your inquiries set out for the gold region, without ade quate preparation, like so many others did at that time, and, I heard, fared very ill I encountered him some six months later; I have forgotten precisely in what locality, though I have a faint impression that his then habitat was some canyon or ravine deriving its name from certain os- 64 THE DOCUMENTS IX THE CASE. seous deposits. Here he had engaged in the busi ness of gold-mining, without, perhaps, sufficient grounds for any confident hope of ultimate success. 1 have his I. O. U. for the amount of my fee for assaying several specimens from his claim, said speci mens being all iron pyrites. This is all I am able to call to mind at present in the matter of Mr. Beauvoir. I trust his subsequent career was of a nature better calculated to be satis factory to himself; but his mineralogical knowledge was but superficial ; and his character was sadly deformed by a fatal taste for low associates. I remain, gentlemen, your very humble and obd't servant, TlTUS W. PEEBLES. P. S. Private. MY DEAR PlX : If you don't feel inclined to pony up that little sum you are out on the bay gelding, drop down to my place when I get back and I'll give you another chance for your life at the paste boards. Constitution going through. Yours, TlTE. THE DOCUMENTS IA T THE CASE. 65 IV. Document No. 24. Extract from the New Centrcmlle \Jate Dead Horse] " Gazette and Courier of Civilization," December 20f/l, 18/8. Miss Nina Saville appeared last night at the Mendocino Grand Opera House, in her unrivalled specialty of Winona, the Child of the Prairies ; supported by Tornpkins and Fro- bisher's Grand Stellar Constellation. Although Miss Saville has long been known as one of the most promising of Cali fornia's young tragediennes, we feel safe in saying that the impression she produced upon the large and cultured au dience gathered to greet her last night stamped her as one of the greatest and most phenomenal geniuses of our own or other times. Her marvellous beauty of form and feature, added to her wonderful artistic power, and her perfect mas tery of the difficult science of clog-dancing, won her an im mediate place in the hearts of our citizens, and confirmed the belief that California need no longer look to Europe or Chicago for dramatic talent of the highest order. The sylph- like beauty, the harmonious and ever-varying grace, the vivacity and the power of the young artist who made her maiden effort among us last night, prove conclusively that the virgin soil of California teems with yet undiscovered fires of genius. The drama of Winona, the Child of the Prairies, is a pure, refined, and thoroughly absorbing entertainment, and has been pronounced by the entire press of the country equal to if not superior to the fascinating Lady of Lyons. It intro duces all the favorites of the company in new and original characters, and with its original music, which is a prominent 5 66 THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. feature, has already received over 200 representations in the principal cities in the country. It abounds in effective situa tions, striking tableaux, and a most quaint and original concert entitled " The Mule Fling," which alone is worth the price of admission. As this is the first presentation in this city, the theatre will, no doubt, be crowded, and seats will be secured early in the day. The drama will be preceded by that prince of humorists, Mr. Billy Barker, in his humorous sketches and pictures from life. We quote the above from our esteemed contem porary, the Mendocino Gazette, at the request of Mr. 7eke Kilburn, Miss Saville's advance agent, who has still further appealed to us, not only on the ground of our common humanity, but as the only appreciative and thoroughly-informed critics on the Pacific Slope, to " indorse " this rather vivid expres sion of opinion. Nothing will give us greater pleas ure. Allowing for the habitual enthusiasm of our northern neighbor, and for the well-known chaste aridity of Mendocino in respect of female beauty, we have no doubt that Miss Nina Saville is all that the fancy, peculiarly opulent and active even for an advance agent, of Mr. Kilburn has painted her, and is quite such a visJon of youth, beauty, and artistic phenomenality as will make the stars of Paris and Illinois pale their ineffectual fires. Miss Saville will appear in her " unrivalled spe- THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. 67 cialty"at Hanks' New Centreville Opera House to morrow night, as may be gathered, in a general way, from an advertisement in another column. We should not omit to mention that Mr. Zeke Kilburn, Miss Saville's advance agent, is a gentle man of imposing presence, elegant manners, and complete knowledge of his business. This informa tion may be relied upon as at least authentic, having been derived from Mr. Kilburn himself, to which we can add, as our own contribution, the statement that Mr. Kilburn is a gentleman of marked liberality in his ideas of spirituous refreshments, and of equal originality in his conception of the uses, objects, and personal susceptibilities of the journalistic profes sion. Document No. 25. Local item from the New Centreville "Standard" December 2oth, 1878. Hon. William Beauvoir has registered at the United States Hotel. Mr. Beauvoir is a young English gentleman of great wealth, now engaged in investigating the gigantic resources of this great country. We welcome him to New Centreville. 68 THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. Document No. 26. Programme of the performance given in the Centre ville Tlicatre , December 2 \ sf, 1878. HANKS' HEW CENTREY1LI.E OPERA HOUSE. A. JACKSON HANKS Sole Proprietor and Manager. FIB8T APPEARANCE IK THIS CITY OP TOMPKINS & FROBISHER'S GRAND STELLAR CONSTELLATION, Supporting California's favorite daughter, the young American Tragedienne, MISS NINA SAVILLE, Who will appear in Her Unrivalled Specialty, "WINONA, THE CHILD OF THE PBAIRIE." THIS EVENING, DECEMBER 21st, 1878, Will be presented, with the following phenomenal cast, the accepted American Drama, WINONA, THE CHILD OF THE PRAIRIE. WINONA MissKLOUA MACMAD1SON BIDDY FI.AHEKTY I Miss NINA OLD AfXT DINAH (with Song, " Don't Get Weary"). . . SALLY HOSK1XS (with the Old-time melody, " Bobbin' Around ") SAVILLE. KX>R JOE (with Sonir) FRAl'LIXELlNABBEXSTElN^withstamiiK-rmgSoi>g,''lyoo8tlandet" J SIK EDMUND BENNET (specially engaged) E. C. GRAINGER WALTON TRAVERS G. W. PARSONS (JII-SY JOE M. ISAACS 'ANN ABLE 'GRACE 'IGG1NS BILLY BA KKKR TOMMY TIPPER Miss MAMIE SMITH PETE, the Man on the Dix-k SI H ANCOi K MRS. MALONE, the Old Woman in the Little House MRS. K. Y. BO< >TH ROBERT BENNETT (aged 5) LITTLE ANNIE WATSON Act I The Old Home. A.-t II. \l..n, in th> \\.M-I.I. Act III.-Tlie Frozen Gulf: THE C3REAT ICEBERG SENSATION. Act IV.- -Wedding Itello. " WINONA, THE CHILD OK THE PRAIRIE," WILL BE PRECEDED BY A FAVORITE FARCE, In which the great BILLY BARKER will appear in one of his most outrage ously funny bits. NEW SCENERY by Q. 25. SLOCTTM. Music by Professor Kiddoo's Silver Bugle Brass Band and Philharmonic Orchestra. Chickway's Grand Piano, lent by Schmidt, 2 Opera House Block. AFTER THE SHOW GO TO HANKS' AND SEE A MAN! Pop Williams, the only legitimate Bill -Footer in New Centreville. (New Centreville Standard Print) THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. 69 Document No. 27. Extract from the New Centreville \late Dead Horse} " Gazette and Courier of Civilization" December 24//1, 1878. A little while ago, in noting the arrival of Miss Nina Saville, at the New Centreville Opera House, we quoted rather extensively from our esteemed contemporary, the Mendocino Times, and com mented upon the quotation. Shortly afterwards, it may also be remembered, we made a very direct and decided apology for the sceptical levity which inspired those remarks, and expressed our hearty sympathy with the honest, if somewhat effusive, en thusiasm with which the dramatic critic of Mendo cino greeted the sweet and dainty little girl who threw over the dull, weary old business of the stage " sensation " the charm of a fresh and childlike beauty and originality, as rare and delicate as those strange, unreasonable little glimmers of spring sun sets that now and then light up for a brief moment the dull skies of winter evenings, and seem to have strayed into ungrateful January out of sheer pity for the sad earth. Mendocino noticed the facts that form the basis of the above meteorological simile, and we believe we gave Mendocino full credit for it at the time. 70 THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. We refer to the matter at this date only because in our remarks of a few days ago we had occasion to mention the fact of the existence of Mr. Zeke Kil- burn, an advance agent, who called upon us at the time, to endeavor to induce us, by means apparently calculated more closely for the latitude of Mendo- cino, to extend to Miss Saville, before her appear ance, the critical approbation which we gladly ex tended after. This little item of interest we alluded to at the time, and furthermore intimated, with some vagueness, that there existed in Mr. Kilburn's character a certain misdirected zeal which, combined with a too keen artistic appreciation, are apt to be rather dangerous stock in trade for an advance agent. It was twenty-seven minutes past two o'clock yes terday afternoon. The chaste white mystery of Shigo Mountain was already taking on a faint, al most imperceptible hint of pink, like the warm cheek of a girl who hears a voice and anticipates a blush. Yet the rays of the afternoon sun rested with un- diminished radiance on the empty pork-barrel in front of McMullin's shebang. A small and vagrant infant, whose associations with empty barrels were doubtless hitherto connected solely with dreams of saccharine dissipation, approached the bung-hole THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. 7 1 with precocious caution, and retired with celerity and a certain acquisition of experience. An unat tached goat, a martyr to the radical theory of per sonal investigation, followed in the footsteps of infantile humanity, retired with even greater prompt itude, and was fain to stay its stomach on a presum ably empty rend-rock can, afterwards going into se clusion behind McMullin's horse-shed, before the diuretic effect of tin flavored with blasting-powder could be observed by the attentive eye of science. Mr. Kilburn emerged from the hostelry of McMul- lin. Mr. Kilburn, as we have before stated at his own request, is a gentleman of imposing presence. It is well that we made this statement when we did, for it is hard to judge of the imposing quality in a gentleman's presence when that gentleman is sus pended from the arm of another gentleman by the collar of the first gentleman's coat. The gentleman in the rear of Mr. Kilburn was Mr. William Beau- voir, a young Englishman in a check suit. Mr. Beauvoir is not avowedly a man of imposing pres ence; he wears a seal ring, and he is generally a scion of an effete oligarchy, but he has, since his in troduction into this community, behaved himself, to use the adjectival adverb of Mr. McMullin, white, and he has a very remarkable biceps. These quali- 72 THE DOCUMENTS IX THE CASE. ties may hereafter enhance his popularity in New Centreville. Mr. Beauvoir's movements, at twenty-seven min utes past two yesterday afternoon, were few and simple. He doubled Mr. Kilburn up, after the fash ion of an ordinary jack-knife, and placed him in the barrel, wedge-extremity first, remarking, as he did so, " She is, is she? " He then rammed Mr. Kilburn carefully home and put the cover on. We learn to-day that Mr. Kilburn has resumed his professional duties on the road. Document No. 28. Account of the same event, from tlie New Ccntrci'illc " Standard" December 241/1, 18/8. It seems strange that even the holy influences which radiate from this joyous season cannot keep some men from getting into unseemly wrangles. It was only yesterday that our local saw a street row here in the quiet avenues of our peaceful city a street row recalling the riotous scenes which took place here before Dead Horse experienced a change of heart and became New Centreville. Our local succeeded in gathering all the particulars of the affray, and the following statement is reliable. It seems that Mr. Kilburn, the gentlemanly and affable THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. 73 advance agent of the Nina Saville Dramatic Com pany, now performing at Andy Hanks' Opera House to big houses, was brutally assaulted by a ruffianly young Englishman, named Beauvoir, for no cause whatever. We say for no cause, as it is obvious that Mr. Kilburn, as the agent of the troupe, could have said nothing against Miss Saville which an outsider, not to say a foreigner like Mr. Beauvoir, had any call to resent. Mr. Kilburn is a gentleman unaccustomed to rough-and-tumble encounters, while his adversary has doubtless associated more with pugilists than gentlemen at least any one would think so from his actions yesterday. Beauvoir hustled Mr. Kilburn out of Mr. McMullin's, where the unprovoked assault began, and violently shook him across the new plank sidewalk. The person by the name of Clark, whom Judge Jones for some reason now permits to edit the moribund but once respectable Gazette, caught the eye of the congenial Beauvoir, and, true to the ungentlemanly instincts of his base nature, pointed to a barrel in the street. The brutal Englishman took the hint and thrust Mr. Kilburn forcibly into the barrel, leaving the vicinity before Mr. Kilburn, emerging from his close quar ters, had fully recovered. What the ruffianly Beau- voir's motive may have been for this wanton assault 74 THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE. it is impossible to say; but it is obvious to all why this fellow Clark sought to injure Mr. Kilburn, a gentleman whose many good qualities he of course fails to appreciate. Mr. Kilburn, recognizing the acknowledged merits of our job office, had given us the contract for all the printing he needed in New Centreville. Document No. 29. Advertisement from the New York "Clipper," De cember 2\st, 1878. WINSTON & MACK'S GRAND INTERNATIONAL MEGATHERIUM VARIETY COMBINATION. COMPANY CALL. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Company will assemble for rehearsal ;>t Erne- son's Opera House, San Francisco,