WIDOW HOUSES, BY C BERNARD SHAW EfNG NUM- BER ONE OF THE INDEPEN- ijENT THEATRE SERIES OF PLAYS. EDITED BY J. T. GREIN. University of California • Berkeley Gift of LUCILE HEMING KOSHLAND and DANIEL EDWARD KOSHLAND /2 Jk" '.^^ttt. ' WIDOWERS' HOUSES WIDOWERS' HOUSES. A COMEDY BY G. BER- NARD SHAW. FIRST ACTED AT THE INDE- PENDENT THEATRE IN I LONDON. LONDON: HENRY AND CO. BOUVERIE STREET, E.G. 1893 PrtHtcd by HaziU, Watson, and Vtney, Ld., Lotidon and Ayltibury. The Editor's Preface to the Independent Theatre Series. r THE works produced by the Independent Theatre are not merely plays to be seen : they are plays to be read. They belong to Literature as well as to Drama ; and I should consider the work of the Independent Theatre only half done if it did not succeed in making its repertory known throughout the country to those^who are out of reach of its performances. Besides, looking forward as I do to the establish- ment of Independent Theatres in every centre ot population in the kingdom, I am anxious that the work done in London should be judged in the provinces at first hand from the author's own words, and not solely by the hasty reports contained in the London letter of the local newspaper. Hence this Series, in which, if the public takes kindly to it, will be published all the more important plays produced by the Independent Theatre. I have selected my friend Shaw's Widowers Houses to inaugurate the Series, because it was the first original English work the Independent Theatre vi The Editor*8 Preface to the brought to light, and because it is in some respects the most remarkable play in the Independent reper- tory, a fact proved by the extent to which it has set the machinery of public opinion in motion and supplied bricks and mortar for the consolidation of our Theatre. After the performance of IVidowers' Houses many correspondents inundated me with questions. Why — why, indeed ! — should I produce a play which in fact was not a play at all, which was a socialist pamphlet in three-act form, which seemed impracti- cable from a theatrical point of view, and had no other merits but its dialogue and the portrayal of one or two characters ? The time has now come to say, in reply to these unanswered queries, that I have nothing to do with the tendency, the form, the practicability (a very elastic sort of term) of any play that is offered to me. I ask merely. Is it artistic, is it literary, is it interesting, does it reveal promise ? And in the case of fVidowers' Houses i unhesitatingly say Yes ! in every instance. But there is another question which weighs heavily with me. I contend that it is one part of the mission of the Independent Theatre to attract to the stage all those who, having made a distinct mark in the literary world, are keeping aloof from the boards of the playhouse for want of encouragement, for want of stimulation, for want of opportunity. The work of such men is certain to be of some value ; and even if in their firstlings the faults should overwhelm the qualities, I hold that one renders a service both to them and to our drama by producing Independent Theatre Series, vii them. For through the performance, and through the performance onlyy they will see their work under a microscope, as it were ; they will see its strong points ; they will be forced to admit its weak ones ; they will be able to judge whether they possess the gifts that make playwrights. Bernard Shaw is one of the men who deserve to be called to the boards ; and I trust that the result will prompt him to persevere after his first fairly successful effort. I can only wish, in conclusion, that in the course of time the Independent Theatre may earn the fame of having so materially strengthened the ranks of native dramatists, that the Independent Theatre Series will become a household word. J. T. GREIN. London, Ides of March 1893. The Author's Preface. \^ H ^HE early history of the play which forms I this first volume of the "Independent B^ Theatre Series" has been given by Mr. William Archer in 'The World of the 14th December, 1892, in the following terms : — " Partly to facilitate the labours of Mr. George Bernard Shaw's biographers, and partly by way of relieving^my own conscience, I think I ought to give a short history of the genesis of Widowers Houses, Far away back in the olden days [1885], while as yet the Independent Theatre slumbered in the womb of Time, together with the New Drama, the New Criticism, the New Humour, and all the other glories of our renovated world, I used to be a daily frequenter of the British Museum Reading Room. Even more assiduous in his attendance was a young man of tawny complexion and attire, beside whom I used frequently to find myself seated. My curiosity was piqued by the odd conjunction of his subjects of research. Day after day for weeks he had before him two books, which he studied alternately, if not simultaneously — Karl Marx's T>as Kaptal (in X The Author's Preface. French), and an orchestral score of 'Tristan und Isolde, I did not know then how exactly this quaint juxtaposition symbolised the main interests of his life. Presently I met him at the house of a common acquaintance, and we conversed for the first time. I learned from himself that he was the author of several unpublished masterpieces of fiction. Con- struction, he owned with engaging modesty, was not his strong point, but his dialogue was incomparable. Now, in those days, I had still a certain hankering after the rewards, if not the glories, of the play- wright. With a modesty in no way inferior to Mr. Shaw's, I had realised that I could not write dialogue a bit ; but I still considered myself a born constructor. So I proposed, and Mr. Shaw agreed to, a collaboration. I was to provide him with one of the numerous plots I kept in stock, and he was to write the dialogue. So said, so done. I drew out, scene by scene, the scheme of a twaddling cup- and-saucer comedy vaguely suggested by Augier's Ceinture Doree. The details I forget, but I know it was to be called Rhinegold, was to open, as Widowers Houses actually does, in a hotel-garden on the Rhine, and was to have two heroines, a senti- mental and a comic one, according to the accepted Robertson-Byron-Carton formula. I fancy the hero was to propose to the sentimental heroine, believing her to be the poor niece instead of the rich daughter of the sweater, or slum-landlord, or whatever he may have been ; and I know he was to carry on in the most heroic fashion, and was ultimately to suc- ceed in throwing the tainted treasure of his father-in- law, metaphorically speaking, into the Rhine. All The Author's Preface. xi this I gravely propounded to Mr. Shaw, who listened vvith no less admirable gravity. Then I thought the matter had dropped, for I heard no more of it for many weeks. I used to see Mr. Shaw at the Museum, laboriously writing page after page of the most exquisitely neat shorthand at the rate of about three words a minute ; but it did not occur to me that this was our play. After about six weeks he said to me, 'Look here, I've written half the first act of that comedy, and IVe used up all your plot. Now I want some more to go on with.' I told him that my ^lot was a rounded and perfect organic v/hole, and that I could no more eke it out in this fl^shion than I could provide him or myself with a set of supplementary arms and legs. I begged him to extend his shorthand and let me see what he had done ; but this would have taken him far too long. He tried to decipher some of it orally, but the process was too lingering and painful for endur- ance. So he simply gave me an outline in narrative of what he had done ; and I saw that, so far from having used up my plot, he had not even touched it. There the matter rested for months and years. Mr. Shaw would now and then hold out vague threats of finishing 'our play,' but I felt no serious alarm. I thought fudging from my own experience in other cases) that when he came to read over in cold blood what he had written, he would see what impossible stuff it was. Perhaps my free utterance of this view piqued him ; perhaps he felt impelled to remove from the Independent Theatre the reproach of dealing solely in foreign products. The fire of his genius, at all events, was not to be quenched by xii The Author's Preface. my persistent applications of the wet-blanket. He finished his play; Mr. Grein, as in duty bound, accepted it ; and the result was the performance of Friday last [9th Dec. 1892] at the Independent Theatre." To this history I have little to add. The circum- stances occurred, in the main, as Mr. Archer states them. But I most strenuously deny that there is any such great difference between his Rhinegold and fVidowers Houses as he supposes. I appeal to the impartial public, which has now both my play and Mr. Archer's story before it, to judge whether I did not deal faithfully with him. The Rhine hotel garden, the hero proposing to the heroine in ignorance of the source of her father's wealth, the ** tainted treasure of the father-in-law," the renunciation of it by the lover : all these will be found as prominently in the following pages as in Mr. Archer's description of the fable which he persists in saying I did " not even touch." As a matter of fact the dissolution of partnership between us came when I told him that I had finished up the renunciation and wanted son^e more story to go on with, as I was only in the middle of the second act. He said that according to his calculation the renunciation ought to have landed me at the end of the play. I could only reply that his calculation did not work out, and that he must supply further material. This he most unreasonably refused to do ; and I had eventually to fish up the tainted treasure out of the Rhine, so to speak, and make it last out another act and a half, which I had to invent all by myself. Clearly, then, he was the defaulter ; and I am the victim. The Author's Preface. xiii It will have been noted by the attentive reader that what I have called a story, Mr. Archer calls a plot ; and that he mentions two heroines, introduced for the sole purpose of being mistaken for one another. Now, I confess to discarding the second daughter. She was admittedly a mere joist in the plot ; and I had then, have now, and have always had, an utter contempt/ for " constructed " works of art. How any man in his senses can deliberately take as his model the sterile artifice of Wilkie Collins or Scribe, and repudiate the natural artistic activity of Fielding, Goldsmith, Defoe and Dickens, not to mention zEschylus and Shakespear, is beyond argument with me : those who entertain such preferences are ob- viously incapable people, who prefer a *^ well made play " to King Lear exactly as they prefer acrostics to sonnets. As a fictionist, my natural way is to imagine characters and spin out a story about them, whether I am writing a novel or a play ; and I please myself by reflecting that this has been the way of all great masters of fiction. Af the same time I am quite aware that a writer with the necessary constructive ingenuity, and the itch for exercising it for its own sake, can entertain audiences or readers very agreeably by carefully constructing and unravelling mysteries and misunderstandings ; and that this ingenuity may be associated with sufficient creative imagination to give a considerable show of humanity and some interest of character to the puppets contrived for the purpose of furthering the plot. The line between the authors who place their imagination at the service of their ingenuity and those who place their ingenuity at the service of their imagination may be hard to xiv The Author's Preface. draw with precise justice (to Edgar Allan Poe, for instance !) ; but it is clear that if we draw it as an equator, Scribe and the plot constructors will be at the south pole, and iEschylus and the dramatic poets at the north. Now, Archer's Rhinegold, in the absence of any convincing evidence that vl was an ^schylus, was designed for the southern hemisphere ; and Widowers Houses was built for the north. I told the story, but discarded the plot ; and Archer at once perceived that this step made the enterprise entirely my own, since the resultant play, whether good or bad, must on my method be a growth out of the stimulated imagination of the actual writer, and not a manufactured article constructed by an artisan according to plans and specifications sup- plied by an inventor. The collaboration was there- fore dropped ; and after finishing the second act, so as to avoid leaving a loose end, and noting such beginnings of the third as had already sprouted, I left the work aside for seven years and thought no more of it. Last August, having been rather over- worked by the occurrence of a General Election at the busiest part of the journalistic season in London, I could do nothing for a while but potter aimlessly over my old papers, among which I came across the manuscript of the play ; and it so tickled me that I there and then sat down and finished it. But for Mr. Grein and the Independent Theatre Society it would probably have gone back to its drawer and lain there for another seven years, if not for ever. Some idea of the discussion which followed the performance may be gathered from the appendices The Author's Preface. xv which will be found at the end of this volume. The entire novelty on the stage of the standpoint taken, which is impartially Socialistic, greatly confused the critics, especially those who are in the habit of accepting as Socialism that spirit of sympathy with the poor and indignant protest against suffering and injustice which, in modern literature, culminated in Victor Hugo's Les MiserableSy and has lately been forced into the theatre by the pressure of the Socialist propaganda outside. This "stage Socialism" is repre- sented in my play by the good-natured compunction of my hero, who conceives the horrors of the slums as merely the result of atrocious individual delinquency on the part of the slum landlord. In spite of the unanswerable way in which the shallowness and impracticability of this view are exposed at once by a single speech from a practical business man, many of my critics were unable to rid themselves of it. They dismissed the man of business as a sophistical villain, and so got hopelessly astray as to the characterization in the piece. My portraiture of Lickcheese, the slum rent collector, an effective but quite common piece of work, pleased better than any of the rest. My technical skill as a playwright sus- tained many attacks, all based on the assumption that the only admissible stage technique is the tech- nique of plot construction, an assumption which excludes Shakespear and Goethe from the ranks of competent stage workmen, and which therefore appears to me to reduce itself to absurdity, although I am well aware that many of our critics look on Shakespear and Goethe as literary men who were unfortunately disabled from producing good acting xvi The Author's Preface. plays by their deficiency in the stage craft of the ordinary farcical comedy writer and melodramatist. It was further objected that my play, being didactic, was therefore not a work of art — a proposition which, if examined, will be found to mean either that the world's acknowledged masterpieces are not works of art, or else exactly nothing at all. Now, I submit that I could not reasonably be expected to defer to the authority of canons of art which no artist ac- knowledges, and in subjection to which no art would be possible, even if I had not, by my practice in the profession of music critic during the remarkable development effected both in that art and in its criticism by Richard Wagner, been sufficiently trained in critical processes to recognize the objec- tions I have cited as nothing more than the common fallacies and ineptitudes into which all critics fall when first confronted with a progressive movement. I have also practised picture criticism, and have had to make up my mind as to the pre-Raphaelite move- ment and the Impressionist movement, with the result that I have come to suspect dramatic critics of never having had to make up their minds about anything, owing to the fact that until the advent of Ibsen the other day there had not for many years been anything worth calling a movement in dramatic art. I by no means undervalued their like or dislike of my work, which was written as much to please them as any one else ; but, as an expert, I found their critical analysis anything but skilful, and their power of imposing on themselves by phrase-making, boundless. Even the best of the younger school will occasionally be satisfied that he has quite accounted for an unex- The Author's Preface. xvii pected speech by dismissing it as a wanton paradox (without any consciousness of having insulted the author) ; or he will dispose of an incident by pointing out that it is " inconsistent " ; or, if he wishes to be specially ingenious, he will say of a character — a red-haired one, for instance — that it is not a human being at all, but a type of the red-haired variety of mankind. I make free to criticize my critics thus because some of them are my personal friends ; others have dealt so handsomely by me that I cannot very well except them without a ridiculous appear- ance of returning the compliment ; and the rest will be all the better for being brought to book. Besides, I may offer my Qiuintessence of Ibsenism^ written and published before there was any question of finishing or producing Widowers Houses^ as a substantial proof that my interest in the art of criticism is not at bottom merely the protest of my own sensitiveness against the very disrespectful way in which my work has been handled in various quarters. There must, however, be no mistake as to the ground upon which I challenge criticism for the play, now that I submit it in print to the public. It is a propagandist play — a didactic play — a play with a purpose ; but I do not therefore claim any special indulgence for it from people who go to the theatre to be entertained. I offer it as a technically good practicable stage play, one which will, if adequately acted, hold its proper audience and drive its story home to the last word. But in claiming place for my play among works of art, I must make a melancholy reservation. One or two friendly readers may find it interesting, h xviii The Author's Preface. amusing, even admirable, as far as a mere topical farce can excite admiration ; but nobody will find it a beautiful or lovable work. It is saturated with the vulgarity of the life it represents: the people do not speak nobly, live gracefully, or sincerely face their own position : the author is not giving expres- sion in pleasant fancies to the underlying beauty and romance of happy life, but dragging up to the smooth surface of ** respectability " a handful of the slime and foulness of its polluted bed, and playing off your laughter at the scandal of the exposure against your shudder at its blackness. 1 offer it as my own criticism of the author of Widowers' Houses that the disillusion which makes all great dramatic poets tragic has here made him only derisive ; and derision is by common consent a baser atmosphere than that of tragedy. I had better have written a beautiful play, like Twelfth Nighty or a grand play, like the tragic masterpieces ; but, frankly, I was not able to : modern commercialism is a bad art school, and cannot, with all its robberies, murders and prostitu- tions, move us in the grand manner to pity and terror : it is squalid, futile, blundering, mean, ridiculous, for ever uneasily pretending to be the wide-minded, humane, enterprising thing it is not. It is not my fault, reader, that my art is the expression of my sense of moral and intellectual perversity rather than of my sense of beauty. My life has been passed mostly in big modern towns, where my sense of beauty has been starved whilst my intellect has been gorged with problems like that of the slums in this play, until at last I have come, in a horrible sort of way, to relish them enough to make them the The Author's Preface. xix subjects of my essays as an artist. Such art as can come out of these conditions for a man of my endow- ment I claim to have put into my work ; and therefore you will please judge it, not as a pamphlet in dialogue, but as in intention a work of art as much as any comedy of Moliere's is a work of art, and as pre- tending to be a better made play for actual use and long wear on the boards than anything that has yet been turned out by the patent constructive machinery. And I claim that its value in both respects is enhanced by the fact that it deals with a burning social question, and is deliberately intended to induce people to vote on the Progressive side at the next County Council election in London. So, as the clown says in All's JVell^ '* Spare not me." I am no novice in the current critical theories of dramatic art ; and what I have done I have done on purpose. London, March 1893. ROYALTY THEATRE, DEAN STREET, SOHO. THE INDEPENDENT THEATRE. Founder and Sole Director, J. T. GREIN. SECOND SEASON, SIXTH PERFORMANCE. F RID AT, ^th December, 1892, wiT>oweT(S' Houses, An Original Didactic Realistic Play in Three Acts, by G. BERNARD SHAW. DRAMATIS PERSONiE. Harry Trench . Mr. W. J. Robertson. Cokane . Mr. Arthur Whittaker. Sarforius Mr. T. W. Percyval. Lickcheese Mr. James Welch. Waiter . Mr. E. P. Donne. Porter . Mr. W. Alison. Annie Miss N. DE SiLVA. Blanche . Miss Florence Farr. The Tlay produced under the direction of Mr. H. DE Lange. Dramatis Personae. r Harry Trench, a newly qualified physician. Age about 24, dark, stoutly built, thick neck, cJose- cropped black hair, undignified medical-student manners, frank, hasty, rather boyish. CoKANE, any age from 35 to 50, reduced gentleman with good shop- walker s manners, fidgety, touchy, I scanty hair, constitutionally ridiculous. I Sartorius, 50, well preserved, upright carriage, I imposing domineering style, incisive utterance, high forehead, aquiline nose, resolute mouth, clean shaven, evidences of money about him, in first Act wears light grey frock coat with silk linings, white hat, field-glass slung in new leather case, &c. [ LiCKCHEESE, shabby slum rent collector, dirty face and linen, scrubby beard and whiskers, going I bald. In the third act he is brilliantly clean, I shaved except for wax-ended imperial moustache, 7 is much fatter, wears expensive fur overcoat, &c. Blanche Sartorius, well dressed, good-looking, strong-minded young woman, presentably lady- like, not too delicate or refined. Fresh and attractive, but her father's daughter. Also Annie, a parlourmaid; an English Waiter at a German Hotel ; and a Porter. Act L In the grounds of a Hotel-Restaurant at Remagen on the Rhine. Acts IL and III. In Sartorius's house at Surbiton. Interval of four months supposed to elapse between Acts II. and III. Widowers' Houses- r Act I. Garden of a Hotel at Remagen on the Rhine, on a fine afternoon in August. Tables and chairs under the trees. Entrance to garden from rinjer- side, L. Entrance to hotel, r. Entrance to Table d'Hote, R c. Waiter in attendance. SCENE I. COKANE, TRENCH. Enter from hotel Trench and Cokane, in tourist dress. Cokane. {on the threshold, speaking to the waiter) Two beers for us out here. {Exit Waiter into hotel. Cokane comes down to Trench) We have got the room with the best view in the hotel, Harry, thanks to my tact — thanks to my tact. We'll leave in the morn- ing and do Mainz and Frankfurt. Frankfurt wont take us long — nothing there but pictures. Next day, Nuremberg ! — finest collection of instruments of torture in the world. 2 Widowers' Houses, [act i. Trench. All right. Let's sit down here under the trees and look out the trains {produces Railway Guide — Continental Br ads haw or HendscheV s telegraph — and is about to sit at the l table), Cokane. No, not under the trees, dear boy : there is a frightful draught coming in between them. Let us get the shelter of the building. {Gees to r table,) You will find this the most comfortable chair. Pah ! the seat is all dusty. These foreigners are deplorably unclean in their habits. I shall complain of this. Kellner ! Kellner ! ! Trench. Never mind : it dont matter, old chappie. Let's sit here. {Goes to centre table and sits,) Cokane. Certainly, my dear fellow, if you wish. But dont you think this table has a northerly aspect ? Is it safe to expose ourselves Trench. My dear Cokane, I can assure you, as a medical man of three weeks* standing, that you will not get rheumatism from the sun here at five o'clock on an August afternoon. Come along : dont be an ass. {Pulls Cokane into the chair beside him, Cokane is offended. He sits down under protest; buttons his coat; and coughs slightly, "Trench loses his temper.) I will go inside if you like — if you persist in making a fool of yourself. Exposed ! What are you exposed to ? Cokane. We are exposed to the gaze of the people with sc. I.] Widowers' Houses. 3 whom we have been travelling. The canaille I do not mind ; but nearly all the people who came on board the steamer at Coblentz are English ; and I do not wish for your sake — for your sake, Harry — to be seen by them until I have at least put on a tall hat. Look at our appearance. Trench. What is the matter with our appearance } Cokane. Neglige^ my dear fellow : neglige. On the steam- boat a little neglige was quite en regie ; but here, in this palatial hotel, I think we owe it to ourselves to put on something a trifle more — more recherche. Trench. Why, the steamboat people were the scum of the earth — Americans and all sorts. They may go hang themselves, Billy. I shall not bother about them. ['Takes out his pipe case,) Cokane. Dont call me Billy before people. Trench. My name is Cokane. I am sure they are persons of consequence : you were struck with the distinguished appearance of the father yourself. They are staying here — here^ Harry, at this hotel. They are out buy- ing photographs, and may be back at any moment. Trench. What ! those people.? [Puts up his pipe; pulls his coat straight ; and glances at his hoots}) Perhaps we had better touch ourselves up a little : we look rather the worse for the heat. {Both rise.) Too late, by Jove : here she comes with her governor. (Cokane and Trench retreat. Enter Sartorius l, with Blanche^ 4 Widowers' Houses, [act i. and a porter with parcels, 'The waiter enters from the hotely with beer,) SCENE 11. TRENCH, COKANE, WAITER, SARTORIUS, PORTER, BLANCHE. Sartorius. (/^ porter^ indicating c table) Place those things on that table. {'The porter does not understand,) Waiter. These gentlemen are using this table, I think, sir. Would you mind Sartorius. You should have told me so before. {To Cokane) I regret the mistake, sir. Cokane. Dont mention it, my dear sir: dont mention it. Retain the place, I beg. Sartorius. {coldly turning his back on him) Thank you. {To porter) Place them on that table. {The porter makes no movement until Sartorius points to the parcels and raps the table,) Porter. Ja wohl, gnadige Herr. {Puts down parcels, Sartorius tips him^ and, as he goes outy sits at l table and begins to study his Badeker, taking no further notice of Cokane^ whom he evidently wishes to snub. Blanche is already seated at the table , her father being between her and the two men.) Cokane. {resuming his place at c table. Trench does so too) We are fellow-travellers, if I mistake not. sc. 2.] Widowers' Houses. 5 Sartorius. {without looking round) Indeed ? Cokane. Kellner ! Garden ! Waiter. Yes sir. Cokane. Have you a visitors' book ? Waiter. Yes sir. Anything else sir ? Cokane. Produce it. {Exit waiter, Cokane continues to Trench, with emphasis) I am anxious to ascertain whether this is the hotel your aunt stays at, my dear fellow. Trench. What on earth has put that into your head ? Why not ask the waiter, if you really want to know ? Cokane. Because it would be indelicate, my dear fellow. It would appear as if I were making a parade of my acquaintance with Lady Roxdale. Good taste forbids, Trench, good taste forbids. (Jside) Say something to the old man, Trench : strike up a conversation. Trench. I shall do nothing of the sort. I dont know him. Cokane. Precisely, dear boy. Then let us get to know him as soon as possible. His daughter is an angel. Havent you a paper to offer them ? 6 Widowers' Houses, [act i. Trench. I have the Lancet, Cokane. The Lancet ! Would you offer a medical paper to the father of that girl ? You have no delicacy, Trench. Havent you Tit Bits} Trench. Yes — the week before last. {Pulls it out of his pocket,) Cokane. Admirable ! they will have forgotten all about the week before last. (To Sartorius) Sir : you have perhaps not seen Tit Bits, If not, allow me to offer {Hands it,) Sartorius. {graciously) Thank you. Blanche : Tit Bits, {She takes it coolly,) We are fellow-travellers, I believe. Cokane. Quite so, quite so. And fellow-countrymen also. We rarely feel the charm of our own tongue until it reaches our ears under a foreign sky. You have no doubt noticed that .? Sartorius. Hm ! From a romantic point of view, possibly, very possibly. As a matter of fact, the sound of English makes me feel at home ; and I dislike feeling at home when I am abroad. It is not precisely what one goes to the expense for. I think this gentleman travelled with us also. Cokane. {rising to act as Master of the Ceremonies. Sartorius and Trench rise also) My valued friend, Dr. Trench. sc. 2.] Widowers' Houses. 7 The strain of a London season on a medical man is enormous. Trench, my dear fellow : allow me to introduce you to — er — ? Sartorius. Permit me to shake your hand, Dr. Trench. My name is Sartorius ; and I have the honor of being known to Lady Roxdale, who is, I believe, a near and dear relative of yours. Trench. (sheepishly) Yes : she is my aunt ; but I dont know about her being particularly fond of me. In fact, I hardly know Cokane. My dear fellow, dont harp on family quarrels : they dont interest Mr. Sartorius. Good taste forbids: good taste forbids. {er and habitable repair. As a man of science you owe it to the community to perfect the sanitary arrangements. In questions of duty there is no room for persuasion, even from the oldest friend. Sartorius. (Jo Trench) I certainly feel, as Mr. Cokane puts it, that it is our duty — one which I have perhaps too long neglected out of regard for the poorest class of tenants, Lickcheese. Not a doubt of it, gents, a duty. I can be as sharp as any man when it's a question of business ; but duty is another thing. Trench. Well, I dont see that it is any more my duty now than it was four months ago. I look at it simply as a question of so much money. Cokane. Shame, Harry, shame ! Shame ! Trench. Oh, shut up, you fool. {Cokane springs up, Lickcheese catches his coat and holds him,) Lickcheese. Steady, steady, Mr. Sekketary. Dr. Trench is only joking. He dont do himself justice. sc. lo.] Widowers' Houses. 91 Cokane. I insist on the withdrawal of that expression. {Lickcheese^ reassured^ releases him,) I have been called a fool. Trench. So you are a fool. Cokane. Then you are a damned fool. Now, sir ! Trench. All right. Now we've settled that. {Cokane, with a snort y sits down) What I mean is this. Dont let us have any nonsense about the job. As I understand it, we have got a straight tip from Mr. Lickcheese that Robbins's Row is to be pulled down to make way for the new street into the Strand ; and that, if we dont look out, this confounded meddling County Council will swindle us out of our proper compensation on the ground that it's against public policy to recognize vested interests in squalor and filth and poverty and all the rest of it. Sartorius. I should not put it exactly in that way ; but — Cokane. Quite right, Mr. Sartorius, quite right. The case could not have been stated in worse taste or with less tact. Lickcheese. Sh — sh — sh — sh ! Sartorius. I do not quite go with you there, Mr. Cokane. I {^d that there is much to be said for the view 92 Widowers' Houses, [act hi. taken by the County Council. We live in a pro- gressive age ; and humanitarian ideas are advancing and must be taken into account. I should hardly feel justified in making a large claim for compensation under existing circumstances. Lickcheese. Of course not ; and you wouldnt get it if you did. You see, it*s like this, I>r. Trench. There's no doubt that the Vestries has legal powers to play old Harry with slum properties, and spoil the houseknacking game if they please. That didnt matter in the good old times, because the Vestries used to be us ourselves. Nobody ever knew a word about the election ; and we used to get ten of us into a room and elect one another, and do what we liked. Well, that cock wont fight any longer ; because the tag rag and bobtail are beginning to meddle in the elections ; and the County Council is full of red radical republican revolutionists that wants to cut us out by building what they calls municipal dwellings ; while even the respectable party — actually people that calls themselves gentlemen — wants to make us put our properties into repair ! That County Council is a curse to property owners all over London. However, there It is hanging over our heads ; and, to put it short, the game is up for men in the position of you and Mr. Sartorius. My advice to you is, take the present chance of getting out of it. Spend a little money on the block at the Cribbs Market end — enough to make it look like a model dwelling ; and let the other block to me on fair terms for a depot of the North Thames Iced Mutton Company. They'll be knocked down inside of two years to make room for sc. lo.] Widowers' Houses. 93 the new north and south main thoroughfare ; and you'll be compensated to the tune of double the present valuation, with the cost of the improvements thrown in. Leave things as they are ; and you stand a good chance of being fined, or condemned, or pulled down before long. Now's your time. Cokane. Hear, hear! Hear, hear! Hear, hear! Admirably put from the business point of view. I recognize the uselessness of putting the moral point of view to you. Trench; but even you must feel the cogency of Mr. Lickcheese's business statement. Trench. But why cant you act without me ? What have I got to do with it ^ I am only a mortgagee. Sartorius. There is a certain risk in this compensation investment. Dr. Trench. The County Council may alter the line of the new street. If that happens, the money spent in improving the houses will be thrown away — simply thrown away. But you will expect your seven per cent, as usual. Trench. Certainly. I find it hard enough to get on as it is. Hang it all, a fellow must live. Cokane. Je rien vols pas la necessite. Trench. Shut up, Billy, or else speak some language that you understand. No, Mr. Sartorius : I should be very glad to stand in with you if I could afford it ; but I cant; so there's an end of that. 94 Widowers* Houses, [act hi. Lickcheesc. Well, all I can say is that youre a very foolish young man. Cokane. What did I tell you, Harry? Trench. I dont see that it's any business of yours, Mr. Lickchecse. Lickchcese. It's a free country : every man has a right to his opinion. (Cokane cries Hear hear !) Come, where*s your feelings for them poor people. Dr. Trench ? Remember how it went to your heart when I first told you about them. What ! are you going to turn hard .' Trench.' No : it wont do : you cant get over me in that way. You proved to me before that there was no use in being sentimental over that slum shop of ours ; and it's no good your turning round on the opposite tack now that you want to get me to put my capital into your speculation. I've had my lesson ; and Tm going to stick to my present income. It's little enough for me as it is. Sartorius. It really matters nothing to me, Dr. Trench, how you decide. I can easily raise the money elsewhere and pay you off. Then, since you are resolved to run no risks, you can invest your j^ic,ooo in Consols and get ^^250 a year for it instead of jCjoo, Cokane. This is what comes of being avaricious, Harry. sc. lo.] Widowers' Houses. ^5 Two-thirds of your income gone at one blow. And I must say it serves you right. Trench. That's all very fine; but I dont understand it. If you can do this to me, why didnt you do it long ago? Sartorius. Because, as I should probably have had to borrow at six per cent, I should only have saved j^ioo a year, which is a trifle to me; whereas you would have lost over ;£400 — a very serious matter for you. I had no desire to be unfriendly ; and even now I should be glad to let the mortgage stand, were it not that the circumstances mentioned by Mr. Lickcheese force my hand. Besides, Dr. Trench, 1 hoped for some time that our interests might be joined by closer ties even than those of friendship. Lickcheese. {jumping upy relieved) There ! Now the murder's out. Excuse me, Dr. Trench. Ex-cus^ me, Mr. Sartorius, excuse my freedom. Why not Dr. Trench marry Miss Blanche, and settle the whole affair that way } {Sensation, Lickcheese sits down, triumphant,) Cokane. You forget, Mr. Lickcheese, that the young lady, whose taste has to be considered, decisively objected to him. Trench quite mistook the situation at that time. The young lady was attracted in another quarter. Trench. Oh ! In your quarter, I suppose ? Cokane. I do not say so. Trench. No man of any delicacy 96 Widowers' Houses, [act hi. would suggest such a thing. I said another quarter. You have an untutored mind, Trench, an untutored mind. Trench. Well, Cokane, IVe told you my opinion of you already. Cokane. (rising wildly) And I have told you my opinion of you. I will repeat it if you wish. I am ready to repeat it. Lickcheese. Come, Mr. Sekketary, you and me, as married men, is out of the hunt as far as young ladies is concerned. I know Miss Blanche : she has her father's eye for business. Explain this job to her ; and she'll make it up with Dr. Trench. Why not have a bit of romance in business when it costs nothing ? We all have our feelings : we aint mere calculating machines. Sartorius. {revolted) Do you think, Lickcheese, that my daughter is to be made part of a money bargain between you and these gentlemen ? Lickcheese. Oh come, Sartorius : dont talk as if you was the only father in the world. I have a daughter too ; and my feelings in that matter are just as fine as yours. I propose nothing but what is for Miss Blanche's advantage and for Dr. Trench's. I take their feelings for granted : they aint our business. Cokane. Lickcheese expresses himself roughly, Mr. Sartorius; sc. lo.] Widowers' Houses. 97 but his is a sterling nature ; and what he says is to the point. If Miss Sartorius can really bring herself to care for Harry, even as a last resource, I am far from desiring to stand in the way of such an arrangement. Trench. Why, what have you got to do with it ? Lickcheese. Easy, Dr. Trench, easy. We want your opinion. Are you still on for marrying Miss Blanche if she is agreeable ? Trench. (shortly) I dont know that I am. (Sartorius rises indignantly.) Lickcheese. Easy one moment, Mr. Sartorius. (to 'Trench) Come, Dr. Trench : you say you dont know that you are. But do you know that you aint: that's what we want to know ^ Trench. (sulkily) I wont have the relations between Miss Sartorius and myself made part of a bargain. (Rises to leave the table) Lickcheese. (rising) That's enough : a gentleman could say no less. Now, would you mind me and Cokane and the gov'nor steppin' into the study to arrange about the lease to the North Thames Iced Mutton Company ? That doesnt interest you, you know. You wont mind us leaving you alone a bit just to think over whether you can see your way to stand in after all. 7 98 Widowers' Houses, [act hi. Trench. But I may as well go home now if you have business. There's nothing else to say. Lickcheese. No, dont go. Only just a minute: me and Cokane will be back in no time to see you home. You'll wait for us, wont you ? there's a good fellow. Trench. Oh, if you wish, yes. Lickcheese. Didnt I know you would ! Sartorius. {at the doovy r, to Cokane) After you, sir. (Cokane bows formally and goes into the study,) Lickcheese. {at the dooTy aside to Sartorius) You never had such a managing man as me, Sartorius. {Goes out chucklingy followed by Sartorius,) SCENE XL TRENCH, BLANCHE. {Trench y left alone ^ takes to prowling rcund the room in search of relics of Blanche^ who presently appears at the door^ l, and stands watching him. Finding the handkerchief in her work-basket ^ he picks it up^ and is raising it to his lips when he perceives the needle sticking in it. He carefully removes this, and is again about to kiss the handkerchief when he suddenly changes his mind and throws it angrily away^ Blanche following the whole process intently. He wanders to the piano- forte and finds the photograph on the miniature easel sc. II.] Widowers' Houses. 99 there. He contemplates it ; snaps his fingers at it ; raises it to his lips ; checks himself and is about to throw it away like the handkerchief ; then breaks down and kisses it passionately, 'Triumph in Blanche's face. At last he turns l, and^ finding himself face to face with Blanche^ stares at her without the least presence of mind,) Blanche. {contemptuously) Well ? So you have come back here. You have had the meanness to come into this house again. What a poor-spirited creature you must be ! Why dont you go ? [He starts huffly for the door : she deliberately gets in his way, so that he^ has to stop) /dont want you to stay. (Taking a sudden resolution, he walks straight back to his chair, RC, and plants himself doggedly in it, arms folded. She comes down to l.c. after him) But I forgot: you have found that there is some money to be made here. Lickcheese told you. Tou, who were so dis- interested, so independent, that you could not accept anything from my father! {At the end of every sentence she waits to see what execution she has done) I suppose you will try to persuade me that you have come down here on a great philanthropic enterprise — to befriend the poor by having those houses re- built, eh ? (Trench sits tight and makes no sign,) Yes, when my father makes you do it. And when Lickcheese has discovered some way of making it profitable. Oh, I know papa ; and I know you. And for the sake of that, you come back here — into the house where you were refused — ordered out. {Trench's face darkens) Do you remember that I You know it is true : you cannot deny it. (She sits lOO Widowers' Houses, [act hi. dcwriy and softens her tone a little as she affects to fity him) Ah, let me tell you that you cut a poor figure, a very, very poor figure, Harry. [At the word " Harry " he relaxes the fold of his arms ; his eye lights up ; and a faint grin of anticipated victory rppears on his face) And you, too, a gentleman ! — so highly connected ! — with such distinguished rela- tions ! — so particular as to where your money comes from I I wonder at you. I really wonder at you. I should have thought that if your family brought you nothing else, it might at least have brought you some sense of personal dignity. Perhaps you think you look dignified at present, eh? [No repl\) Well, I can assure you that you dont : you look most ridiculous — as foolish as a man could look — you dont know what to do ; and you dont know what to say. But after all, I really do not see what anyone could say in defence of such conduct — such manly, chivalrous conduct. (He looks vaguely straight in front of him^ and purses his lips as if whistling. She becomes exquisitely polite) 1 am afraid I am in your way. Dr. Trench. (Rising) I shall not intrude on you any longer. You seem so perfectly at home that I need make no apology for leaving you to yourself. (She sweeps to the l doer; opens it; and looks round to see if he has budged : then^ seeing that he has not, she shuts the door and comes down r behind himy stopping a little way off) Harry. {He does not turn. She comes a step nearer) Harry : I want you to answer me a question. (Earnestly ^ stooping over him) Look me in the face. (No reply) Do you hear? (Putting her hand on his shoulder) Look — mc — in — the — face. (He still stares straight in front sc. 12.] Widowers' Houses. loi of him. She suddenly kneels down beside him with her breast against his right shoulder ; takes his face in her hands : and turns it towards her) Harry : (jww most tenderly) why did you kiss my photograph just now, when you thought you were alone ? {His face writhes, as he tries hard not to smile ; but he is evidently vanquished ; and his arm slips round her. She adds, playfully) How dare you touch anything belonging to me ? Trench. I hear some one coming. {She regains her chair with a bound, and pushes it back as far L as possible. Voices outside. Re-enter at r door Cokane, Lickcheese and Sartorius, Sartorius and Lickcheese come down R to French. Cokane crosses to Blanche l in his most killing manner^ SCENE XII. - SARTORIUS, TRENCH, LICKCHEESE, COKANE, BLANCHE. Cokane. How do you do, Miss Sartorius, how do you do ? Nice weather for the return of V enfant prodigue, eh ? Blanche. Capital, Mr. Cokane. So glad to see you. {Give^ her hand, which he kisses with gallantry,) Lickcheese. {on 'Trenches left, in a low voice) Any noos for us, Mr. Trench? Trench. {to Sartorius, on his right) I'll stand in, compensation or no compensation. {Shakes Sartorius' s hand, Annie has just appeared at the door,) I02 Widowers' Houses, [act iik Blanche. {calling from near l door to r) Supper is ready, papa. Cokane. Allow me. {Exeunt otnnes : Blanche on Cokane' s arm ; Lickcheese jocosely taking Sartorius on one arm, and Trench on the other,) CURTAIN, Appendix I. The Author to the Dramatic Critics. Fellow-Critjcs It is one of my advantages that I can discuss criticism, not merely as an author, but as a critic. I have no illusions about critics being authors who have failed. I know, as one who has practised both crafts, that authorship is child's play compared to criticism ; and I have, you may depend upon it, my full share of the professional instinct which regards the romancer as a mere adventurer in literature, and the critic as a highly skilled workman. Ask any novelist or dramatist whether he can write a better novel or play than I ; and he will blithely say Yes. Ask him to take my place as critic for one week ; and he will blench from the test. The truth is that the critic stands between popular authorship, for which he is not silly enough, and great authorship, for which he has not genius enough. It is certainly true that the status of popular author is much coveted by critics ; but that is because the popular author is much better paid for much easier work. Thackeray, like many other eminent authors, coveted a government sinecure ; but nobody therefore sup- poses that authors are merely unsuccessful sinecurists. I04 Widowers' Houses. or that a well paid post in the civil service would have been intellectually a promotion for Thackeray. He who publishes a critical essay well knows how few care to read such things ; whereas some donkey of an author, with the imagination of a schoolboy, or some sentimental young lady perhaps, will turn out a story too absurd to be thinkable by an ordinarily competent critic, and yet have it bought by scores and hundreds of thousands of readers of fiction. It is the natural desire to wallow in the profits of romantic make-believe instead of toiling for the scanty wages of " the intolerable fatigue of thought " that drives the critic to envy the author. You will now feel, fellow-critics, that in turning dramatist I have not turned traitor. It is for the honor of our guild that I venture to suggest that even in the intellectual department the authors are getting ahead of us. I do not wish to rake up the case of Ibsen and his Ghosts again : I think it will be admitted now that the most old-fashioned school for young ladies in the country would have made almost as good a job of that discussion as we did. It was not a question of our liking Ibsen or not liking him, agreeing with him or not agreeing with him. Whichever way our bias lay it was our business to analyse his position skilfully and pronounce on it coolly. Under no circumstances should we have forgotten ourselves so far as to scold at him and cry Fie ! hke a bevy of illiterate prudes. This, how- ever, is what too many of us did ; and now, since what is done cannot be undone, we had better put up a few posts to warn future critics ofF the dangerous places where we come to grief oftenest. Widowers' Houses. 105 The first warning I propose is : Do not let us raise the cry of " Ibsen " whenever we find a modern idea in a play. See what it has led to in the following passages culled from criticisms — some of them friendly and able ones — of Widowers' Houses, "As an ardent admirer of Ibsen's methods, he has not scrupled to follow the method of that writer to extremes." — Daily Tele- graph. " The lesson is trite in the case of creeds that the disciple not seldom distances the master. Ibsen has justly been charged, etc., etc." — Athenaeum. " The London Ibsen [ironical]. One can see that all this is meant to be exceedingly Ibsenesque." — Sunday Sun. " I really think it is time the Independent Theatre Society made an effort to secure a play that is not moulded on the lines laid down by the great and only Ibsen." — Pelican, " Mr. Shaw is a zealous Ibsenite." — Weekly Dispatch. " A rather silly play by a rather clever man, which may be either worship or satire of Ibsenius the Great." — Saturday Review. " Mr. Shaw is the high priest, one may say, of Ibsenism." — Piccadilly. " Like all the Ibsenians he ruins his argument," etc. — Modern Society. " Mr. Shaw is an Ibsenite and is consequently quite up to date." — Freeman's Journal. " A promising young tigress of a daughter, who is drawn on the severest principles of Ibsenite heredity." — Western Mercury. Now the first two acts of Widowers^ Houses were written in 1885, when I knew nothing about Ibsen ; and I must add that the authors of the lines quoted above should have guessed this, because there is not one idea in the play that cannot be more easily re- ferred to half a dozen English writers than to Ibsen ; whilst of his peculiar retrospective method, by which his plays are made to turn upon events supposed to have happened before the rise of the curtain, there is not a trace in my work. The subjects which seem most strongly to suggest Ibsen to modern critics are (i) Heredity, (2) the Emanci- pation of Woman, (3) any adverse criticism whatever io6 Widowers' Houses. of our marriage laws and customs, and (4) any mixture of wickedness and goodness in the same character. It is therefore necessary to remind our- selves that modern English culture was saturated with the conception of heredity by Herbert Spencer, Dan^n, Huxley, Tyndall, and Galton before Ibsen's name was known here ; that the Married Women's Property Act, the result of a long and strenuous crusade against what I may call the anti-Ibsenite ideal of marriage, was passed in England before A DolVs House was written ; that the two most famous works on the subject of Women's Rights are Mary Wollstonecraft*s Vindication and John Stuart Mill's Subjection of Women y dated respectively 1792, and 1869; and that those who may never have studied the complex characters in the fiction of Balzac, George Eliot, George Meredith, and other well-known modern writers, may at least be presumed to have read the history of King David in the Bible, and to have learnt from it that Nature does not keep heroism exclusively for one set of men and villainy exclu- sively for another, merely to enable us all to become dramatists and "paint character" with a bucket of whitewash and a jar of lampblack. These things are the more important for a critic to observe, be- cause matters have taken such a course in England for the last fifty years that the man who has neither the culture of the Bible nor that of the Evolutionist school is in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred a man with no culture at all — a suspicion not to be lightly incurred by anyone whose calling it is to bring culture to bear on dramatic literature. Be warned therefore ; for it is hard to see how a critic who has Widowers' Houses. 107 dipped into modern English literature even to the modest extent of reading one of Mr. Grant Allen's novels, could write as if every idea in physics and morals that is not to be found in Chambers' Vestiges of Creation and Dr. Watts' poems must necessarily be a recent Norwegian importation. The second warning is: Let us not try to en- courage the hypocrisy of the theatre, already greater than that of the conventicle, by being more austere in our judgment of dramatis persons than of real men and women. Imitate that excellent critic of mine (known to me only through his very agreeable notice of my play) the London correspondent of the Glasgow Herald^ who says: — "The characters are depicted naturally, and not in the glorified form so common upon the conventional stage. . . . It was a treat for once to see a hero (like one of Thackeray's) no better than one of his fellow-men ; to listen to the worldli- ness of the slum landlord and his clerk; and particularly to v/elcome a heroine who shows her temper to her betrothed, and still more to her father, and who, like other estimable womankind whom we frequently meet in real life, though rarely on the stage, is always ready to quarrel on a point of feminine dignity, but when * cornered' is always anxious to forgive and to make friends again." That is what I call a reasonable criticism. Now listen to some of the others : — *' There can hardly be said to be a single estimable personage in the whole play." — Times. "All his dramatis personal are entirely selfish and despicable." — Daily Telegraph. "Revolting picture of middle-class life. . . . Remorselessly the eccentric one [the author] laid bare his idealized essence of snobbish- ness compressed from all the worst specimens of his fellow-men, and bade us believe that he was painting from life. . . . The abominable Blanche appears in a worse light than ever; and the eccentricity ends with the smothering of what small spark io8 Widowers' Houses. of decency remained in the heart of the only person of the whole bunch who ever had any." — Morning Leader. " It is already impossible, we should hope, to find a set of people so peculiar and unsympathetic as those introduced in this play." — Morning Advertiser. ** In such a world what is to be done but to show hands all round and caper to the tune of * rogues all ' ? " — Globe. *' Mr. Gilbert possesses an uncanny habit of turning up the seamy side of life's robe ; but Mr. Shaw's world has not rags enough to cover its nudity. He aims to show with Zolaesque exactitude that middle-class life is foul and leprous. The play means that the middle class, even to its womanhood, is brutal at heart, or it means nothing." — Athenceum. ** A set of blood-suckers. Every one is ill-conditioned, quarrelsome, fractious, apt to behave, at a moment's notice, like a badly- brought-up child." — World. "The mere word 'mortgage' suffices to turn hero into rascal Mr. Shaw will say that is his point — scratch a middle-class hero and you find a rascal." — Speaker, " Revelation of a distorted and myopic outlook on society." — Sunday Sun. " Very disagreeable heroine ... all the other characters in the play — the poor parlormaid alone excepted — are as hateful as that heroine." — Era. " Mr. Shaw devotes all his energies to making his characters unsym- pathetic, sordid, soulless — ending even worse than they began." — Stage. ** Heartless young lady . . . cads of diverse temperaments." — Weekly Dispatch. "He goes further than Ibsen, whose characters are a mixture of knaves and fools; whereas in Widowers* Houses they are all knaves." — Modem Society, " Mr. Shaw starts with a total disbelief in human nature." — Freeman* s Journal. " All the characters were villains except a pretty parlormaid." — Western Mercury. "The moral seems to be the utter selfishness of human nature outside a progressive County Council." — Umpire. "I could not help noticing that the only thoroughly decent character in the play was a sort of Mrs. Harris in the shape of the parson, who was only allowed to be talked about, but who did not appear." — Mr. Ben. Greet, addressing the Church and Stage Guild. I remember once hearing Mr. Moody the Evan- gelist preach on the text, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." He declared strenuously that in morals a miss is as good as a Widowers' Houses. 109 mile, and that the most venial sin damns as efFectually as the most atrocious crime. To have fallen short of the glory of God is enough, whether by an inch or a league does not matter. I must say that from any other point of view than Mr. Moody's, the passages set forth above appear to me to be ludicrous exaggerations. Even after making all allowance for the effect on the writers of the way in which, for the first time on the stage (as far as I know) they saw the citizen with his share in the guilt of our industrial system brought home to him, I still think that they might have paused to ask themselves in what respect Trench, Sartorius, Blanche, Cokane and Lickcheese are any worse, I will not say than them- selves, but than the characters in any of the comedies, ancient or modern, to which they have taken no ex- ception on this score. I certainly had no intention of spoiling the moral of my play by making the characters at all singular; and I suggest that the following considerations will explain my apparent cynicism. Formerly, a man was responsible only for his private conduct and for the maintenance of his own household. To-day, as an inevitable consequence of Democracy, he is responsible for the state of the whole community which he helps to govern as a citizen and a voter. Now a man may discharge his private responsibility very well, and yet not even realize that his public responsibility exists. Just as Charles I. was an excellent private gentleman and an intolerable king, so most men to-day are reason- ably good friends and fathers, but execrable citizens, Sartorius is the ordinary man of business, .voting no Widowers' Houses. for the candidate who promises to keep down the rates, and getting on the vestry solely to prevent the vestry from interfering with his property. And he does so in a hypocritical way only because that is the custom — not in the least because he is a Pecksniff. I have drawn him as a man of strong and masterful character, unscrupulous but not a law- breaker, a kind and unselfish father, and much more reasonable and even magnanimous with Trench than the typical villa owner, who is a comparatively spiteful and huffy person. He is, in short, distinctly an exceptional and superior specimen of the middle- class man whose business it is to deal directly with the poor. His rascality — for from the social poiit of view he certainly is a callous rascal — does not lie in his refusing to spend money on his rookeries, since his plea that his tenants would burn his improvements* is perfectly well founded. It lies altogether in his indifference to defects in our social system which produce a class of persons so poor that they are driven by constant physical privation to turn everything they can lay hands on into more fuel and more food. When we find a castaway at sea chewing his boots to appease his hunger, we do not stigmatize him as a creature too degraded to appreciate the right use of boots : we take him aboard and relieve his hunger, after which he wears his boots as appreciatively as a West End gentleman. But Sartorius is not ashamed to explain the dis- appearance of his banisters and cistern lids on the absurd ground that "these people do not know how to live in handsome houses." He has found out that there is no use in treating them goodnaturedly ; Widowers' Houses. Ill and he has not enough social conscience to proceed to ask why there is no use, and to find out how, as a citizen and an elector, to remedy the abject poverty which makes a woman willing, for the sake of having a good warm, to burn the handrail that is put up to save her and her neighbors from falling downstairs. The point may not be obvious at once to a critic w^ho has only to ring the bell for another scuttle of Wallsend when his fire runs low, any more than it was obvious to Sartorius. Conse- quently, in every denunciation of Sartorius as a monster, we may see the hand of Sartorius himself.* I now come to a string of remonstrances partly brought on me by a passage in an interview pub- lished in the Star newspaper (November 29th, 1892), in which I declared that I wished to appeal to the audience " on the solid ground of political economy," and to have a blackboard on the stage with diagrams to illustrate my points, with much more chaff of the same kind. Here is the result : — " A kind of leading article of the slashing type." — Morning. " An exposition in dialogue of the New Economics. . . . What has this farrago of newspaper leaders and Fabian essays to do with the play?" — Star. "Undramatic attempt to cut up a Parliamentary Report into uneven stage lengths. . . . Published as one of the dialogues sometimes given in the Fortnightly Review it would be effective." — Echo. "A discussion, with open doors, of the pros and cons of slum landlordism ... a good sermon." — Black and White. " A new form of didactic Socialistic demonstration, like the practic- able laundries with the poor washerwomen at work which ' * On this subject of current middle-class morality, see also the letters I have addressed to the Press in ansv^^er to my critics, extracts from which will be found in the second appendix. 112 Widowers' Houses. figured in a recent procession in Hyde Park." — Sunday Sun. ** It would be readable and might be useful as a Fabian pamphlet." — Weekly Dispatch. "In no sense a drama, but a succession of dialogues in which the author sets forth his views concerning Socialist questions." — Lloyds. " Not a play — a pamphlet." — Encore. " The exposure of certain social sins connected with the letting of tenement houses afforded the sole raison d'etre of Mr. Shaw's feeble little play." — Observer. " His propaganda — I beg pardon, his new play." — Penny Illustrated Paper. " Merely a lecture." — Financial Observer. *' Mr. Shaw wishes to utter a tirade against certain abuses ; and he thinks the theatre a suitable pulpit for his utterances.*' — Colonies and India. "The play is a pamphlet in dramatic form." — Western Mercury. " The whole of the three acts is occupied with a dreary discussion of the ethics of slum property." — Birmingham Post. "Three acts of dreary dis- sertation on the familiar text that 'rent is robbery.'" — York- shire Post. Mr. Bernard Shaw is an amiable Fabian who believes that * rent is robbery.'" — Yorkshire Evening Post. Now I think it must be evident at this rate to all who have read the play, that if I had written TAe Merchant of Venice it would have been de- nounced as a dissertation on the Jewish question, complicated by a crude exposition of the peculiar views of the Fabian Society on the law of contract. All I need say on the Fabian point is that any person who would like to see the difference between an essay on rent and Widowers' Houses can buy Fabian Essays^ containing just such an essay by me, for ninepence. Fabian pamphlets, in which I have had a hand, can be obtained for a penny ; and a com- parison of them with this play will shew how little the critics quoted above know how merciful I have been to them. Let me say, however, that it is im- possible for any fictionist, dramatic or other, to make true pictures of modern society without some know- Widowers' Houses. 113 ledge of the economic anatomy of it. And since what the dramatist ought to know the critic ought to know, a course of Fabian literature would most unquestionably do incalculable good to both drama- tists and critics, if they could be persuaded to go through it. For all that, I see that it would be useless to blame a critic to-day for not being an economist, or even an ordinarily competent politician and man of business. Nobody expects it from him ; and he himself benightedly ridicules the idea. But what I do expect him to know is that " bluebook plays " hold the stage far better than conventionally idealist dramas. I need only mention the irrepressible Never too Late to Mend to prove that Widowers' Houses, far from being a play of so new a sort that its very title to tlie name of drama is questionable, is, on its blue- book bide, a sample (whether good or bad is not here in question) of one of the most familiar, popular, and firmly established genres in English dramatic literature. It is a matter of experience that the dramatized or novelized bluebook or Fabian Essay (so to speak) has ten times as much chance of success as the mere romance, though it is also, of course, a much more difficult job for the writer. My warning therefore is against the folly of assuming that the reverse is the case, and that a play is handi- capped by a basis of bluebook. A wary critic, if he wished to "slate" Widowers' Houses^ would begin somewhat in this fashion : *' Not even with all the advantages of his profound economic knowledge and his complete acquaintance with the wealth of dramatic material stored in our national bluebook literature was Mr. Shaw able to produce a tolerable 8 114 Widowers' Houses. play." It is mere perversity to assume that the less a dramatist knows and cares about real life, tlie better his plays are likely to be. There are a dozen other warnings that I could formulate for the sake of our younger and weaker brethren, who are being severely tested by the dramatic revival now beginning. But as I very much doubt whether they have read thus far into what must be to them a piece of heavy literature, I will indulge myself by laying down a just now rather weary pen, confident that the really able brothers of the craft will forgive my preaching, seeing that they best know how much the rest stand in need of a sermon. My sole object is to knock on the head a few empty formulas which take up the space in dramatic criticism which should be occupied by real live ideas, and which have been trotted out in the last few years whenever a play has been produced with any pretension to represent modern life as it is really lived. Appendix II. The following extracts from letters addressed by the author to the press after the performance of Widowers Houses are reprinted here to give the reading public some idea of the commotion which can be made in a theatre by a work which, if published as a novel, would surprise no one. First, as to the extent of the commotion, hear "The Era of the 24th December, 1892: — " Hardly any recent play has provoked so much newspaper and other controversy as Mr. Bernard Shaw's Widower^ Houses. At least two of the daily papers, on the day after its production, devoted leading articles to its consideration, besides special criticisms of almost unprecedented length. We should be afraid to say how many journals gave two long columns to it. Then all last week a controversy on its merits and demerits raged in a morning paper ; and it was held up as an example of the kind of play the Lord Chamberlain did not object to by Mrs. Aveling in her lecture to the Playgoers ; and, finally, it was one of the subjects of an interesting lecture delivered last Sunday night to the Socialists of Hammersmith. The last fact, however, becomes less surprising when we find that the lecturer was Mr. Bernard Shaw." This account is not exaggerated. The play occupied the press for weeks after its production to an extent which, in a really healthy and active phase of dramatic art, would have been absurd. The discussion raged chiefly round matters of fact, most 1 1 6 Widowers' Houses, of the writers seeming to have no definite idea of the sources of the revenues enjoyed by the propertied classes under our industrial system. In replying to these criticisms the author carefully abstained from confusing issues of fact with the artistic issues alluded to in the preface to the present volume ; and it should be noted that whereas in that preface the play is defended as a work of art, here it is justified mainly as a document. To the editor of The Star the author is indebted for the publication, on the 19th December, 1892, of a letter of which the following is an abridgment : — " Sir, — ^The critics of my play Widowers* Houses have now had their say. Will you be so good as to let the author have a turn ? I have gone through every criticism I could get hol4 of; and I think it is now clear that ' the m.'v/ drama ' has no malice to fear from the serious critics. The care with which every possible admission in my favor has been made, even in the notices of those who found the play intolerably disagreeable and the author intolerably undramatic, shews that the loss of critical balance produced by the first shock of Ibsen's Ghosts was only momentary, and that the most uncon- ventional and obnoxious agitator-dramatist, even when he has gone out of his way to attack bis critics, need not fear a Press vendetta. ** However, the fairness of criticism is one thing, its adequacy quite another. I do not hesitate to say that many of my critics have been completely beaten by the play simply because they are ignorant of society. Do not let me be misunderstood : I do not mean that they eat with their knives, drink the contents of their finger-bowls, or sit down to dinner in ulsters and green neckties. What 1 mean is that they do not know life well enough to recognize it in the glare of the footlights. Ttvey denounce Sartorius, my house-knacking widower, as a monstrous libel on the middle and upper class, because he grinds his money remorselessly out of the poor. But they do not (and cannot) answer his argument as to the impossibility of his acting otherwise under our social system ; Widowers' Houses. 117 nor do they notice the fact that though he is a bad landlord he is not in the least a bad man as men go. Even in his economic capacity I have made him a rather favorable specimen of his class. I might have made him a shareholder in a match factory v^^here avoidable * phossy jaw ' is not avoided, or in a tram company vt^orking its men seventeen and a half hours a day, or in a railway company with a terrible death-roll of mangled shunters, or in a whitelead factory or chemical works — in short, I might have piled on the agony beyond the endurance of my audience, and yet not made him one whit worse than thousands of personally amiable and respected men who have invested in the most lucrative way the savings they have earned or inherited. I will not ask those critics who are so indignant with my ' distorted and myopic outlook on society ' what they will do with the little money their profession may enable them to save. I will simply tell them what they must do with it, and that is follow the advice of their stockbroker as to the safest and most remunerative investment, reserving their moral scruples for the expenditure of the interest, and their sympathies for the treatment of the members of their own families. Even in spending the interest they will have no alternative but to get the best value they can for their money without regard to the conditions under which the articles they buy are produced. They will take a domestic pride in their comfortable homes, full of furniture made by ' slaughtered ' {i.e. extra-sweated) cabinet makers, and go to church on Sunday in shirts sewn by women who can only bring their wages up to subsistence point by prostitu- tion. What will they say to Sartorius then ? What, indeed, can they say to him now ? — these * guilty creatures sitting at a play,' who, instead of being struck to the soul and presently proclaiming their malefactions, are naively astonished and revolted at the spectacle of a man on the stsge acting as we are all acting perforce every day. The notion that the people in Widowers' Houses are abnormally vicious or odious could only prevail in a community in which Sartorius is absolutely typical in his unconscious villainy. Like my critics, he lacks conviction of sin. Now, the didactic object of my play is to bring conviction of sin — to make the Pharisee who repudiates Sartorius as either a Harpagon or a diseased dream of mine, and thanks God that such persons do not represent his class, ii8 Widowers' Houses. recognize that Sartorius is his own photograph. In vain will the virtuous critic tell me that he does not own slum pro- perty : all I want to see is the label on his matchbox, or his last week's washing-bill, to judge for myself whether he really ever gives a second thought to Sartorius's tenants, who make his matchboxes and wash his stockings so cheaply. *' As to the highly connected young gentleman, naturally straightforward and easygoing, who bursts into genuine indignation at the sufferings of the poor, and, on being shewn that he cannot help them, becomes honestly cynical and throws off all responsibility whatever, that is nothing but the reality of the everyday process known as disillusion. His allowing the two business men to get his legs under their mahogany, and to persuade him to * stand in' with a specula- tion of which he understands nothing except that he is promised some money out of it, will surprise no one who knows the City, and has seen the exploitation of aristocratic names by City promoters spread from needy guinea-pig colonels, and lords with courtesy titles, to eldest sons of the noblest families. If I had even represented Harry Trench as letting himself in for eighteen months' hard labour for no greater crime than that of being gambler enough to be the too willing dupe of a swindler, the incident would be perfectly true to life. As to the compensation speculation in the third act being a fraud which no gentleman would have counte- nanced, that opinion is too innocent to be discussed. I can only say that as the object of the scheme is to make a haul at the expense of the ratepayers collectively, it is much less cruel and treacherous in its incidence than the sort of speculation which made the late Mr. Jay Gould universally respected during his lifetime. I shall be told next that Panama is a dream of mine. " There is a curious idea in the minds of some of my critics that I have given away my case by representing the poor man, Lickcheese, as behaving, when he gets the chance, exactly as the rich man does. These gentlemen believe that, according to me, what is wrong with society is that the rich, who are all wicked, oppress the poor, who are all virtuous. I will not waste the space of The Star by dealing with such a misconception further than to curtly but good-humouredly Widowers' Houses. 119 inform those who entertain it that they are fools. I administer the remark, not as an insult, but as a tonic. " Now comes the question, How far does all this touch the merits of the play as a work of art ? Obviously not at all ; but it has most decidedly touched the value of the opinions of my critics on that point. The evidence of the notices (I have sheaves of them before me) is irresistible. With hardly an exception the men who find my sociology wrong are also the men who find my dramatic workmanship bad ; and vice versa. Even the criticism of the acting is biassed in the same way. The effect on me, of course, is to reassure me completely as to my own competence as a playwright. The very success with which I have brought all the Philistines and sentimental idealists down on me proves the velocity and penetration with v/hich my realism got across the footlights. I am well accustomed to judge of the execution I have done by the cries of the wounded. " On one point, however, I heartily thank my critics for their unanimous forbearance. Not one of them has betrayed the licenses I have taken in the political and commercial details of the play. Considering that I have made a resident in Surbiton eligible as a St. Giles* vestryman ; that I have made the London County Council contemporary with the 1885 Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes ; that I have represented an experienced man of business as paying 7 per cent, on a first mortgage — con- sidering, in short, that I have recklessly sacrificed realism to dramatic effect in the machinery of the play, I feel, as may be well imagined, deeply moved by the compliments which have been paid me on my perfect knowledge of economics and business." Before giving the rest of the letter, it is con- venient to refer here to a very funny discussion which arose over the scene in the second act in which Blanche assaults the servant. Although nothing is commoner on the stage than bodily violence threatened or executed by indignant heroes, heroines have hitherto been excluded by convention from this method of displaying their prowess. The I20 Widowers' Houses. author resolved to redress this injustice to Woman by making his heroine attack her servant much as Othello attacks his ancient. The resultant sensation testified to the hardihood of the experiment. The critics were highly scandalized ; and their view of the incident was expressed in the following passage from a notice which appeared the day after the performance : — " What a ludicrous incident I How we all shrieked with laughter I What has such a scene to do with the play ? Why did Mr. Shaw introduce it ? I will tell you why. Because Mr. Shaw wishes to present Blanche as a type, a type of the modern middle-class Englishwoman (as he sees her), the woman who will not hear about the poor wretches in their tenement houses because it is so unpleasant, and who, in her own drawing-room, can, in a fit of temper, use brutal violence to her own dependants." It was not possible for the author to seriously discuss the notion that he regarded temper and violence as class characteristics. He was only able to say, in a letter to The Speaker^ " Some people think that ladies with tempers are never personally violent. I happen to know that they are ; and so I leave the matter." It is true that the ideal lady — the " typical " lady if that term be preferred — never strikes, never swears, never smokes, never gambles, never drinks, never nags, never makes advances to inept wooers, never, in short, does anything " unladylike," whether " in her own drawing-room " or elsewhere. Just so the ideal clergyman never hunts, never goes to the theatre, and regards the poorest laborer as his equal and his brother by their common Father, God. The author confesses to having Widowers' Houses. 121 jilted the ideal lady for a real one. He did it inten- tionally; and he will probably do it again, and yet again, even at the risk of having the real ones mis- taken for counter-ideals. Why Blanche should be held to indicate any belief on his part that all ladies are hot-tempered, any more than Hamlet is held to indicate a belief on Shakespear*s part that all princes are philosophers, is not apparent to him. Here is a final extract from the letter to T^he Star on the subject of Blanche : — *^0n another point in her conduct one critic makes an objection which, I confess, amazed me. Sartorius, as the son of a very poor woman, knows that the poor are human beings exactly like himself. But his daughter, brought up as a lady, conceives them as a different and inferior species. ' I hate the poor,' she says — 'at least, I hate those dirty, drunken, dis- reputable people who live like pigs.' The critic in question, whose bias towards myself is altogether friendly, cannot con- ceive that a young lady would avow such inhuman sentiments: hypocrisy, he contends, would prevent her if her heart did not. I can only refer him, if he has really never heard such sentiments boasted of by ladies, to the comments of the Times and the St. James's Gazette (to name no other papers written by gentlemen for gentlemen) on the unemployed, on the starving Irish peasants whose rents have since been reduced wholesale in the Irish land courts, or on the most heavily sweated classes of workers whose miserable plight has been exposed before Parliamentary Committees and Royal Com- missions, to prove that the thinkers and writers of Blanche Sartorius's party vie with each other in unconscious — nay, conscientious — brutality, callousness, and class prejudice when they speak of the proletariat. Hypocrisy with them takes the shape of dissembling sympathy with the working class when they really feel it, not of affecting it when they do not feel it. My friend and critic must remember the savage caricatures of William Morris, John Burns, Miss Helen Taylor, Mrs. Besant, etc., in which Punch once indulged, as well as the outrageous calumnies which were heaped on the late Charles Bradlaugh 122 Widowers' Houses. during his struggle to enter Parliament, not to mention the cases of unsocial conduct by county gentlemen and magistrates exposed every week in the 'Pillory' columns of Truth. Am I to be told that the young ladies who read these papers in our suburban villas are less narrow and better able to see across the frontiers of their own class than the writers whom their fathers support ? The fact is that Blanche's class prejudices, like those of the other characters in the play, are watered down instead of exaggerated. The whole truth is too mon- strous to be told otherwise than by degrees." To this a writer in The Ladfs Pictorial (24th December, 1892) retorts: — " So it comes to this, that Mr. Shaw's defence for drawing a middle-class English girl as a virago who batters her maid and vilifies the starving poor, is that in professedly political papers (written by men for men — women not entering into the question at all), the other side is held up to ridicule by mud being flung upon their humble allies ! as though the political game played by political journals has anything what- ever to do with the attributes of humanity common to the average woman and the average man I " It only remains for the author to meet this defence by citing the journalism written by women for women, and by denying most strenuously that the indifference of women to political journalism can be interpreted in any other way than as a selfish and narrow insensibility to the social questions which form the real substance of politics. The only other utterance of the author's which need be quoted is from a letter to The Speaker (31st December, 1892). It is not a defence of the artistic value of the play, which cannot be established or disestablished by argument, but a renewal of the author's insistence on the impossibility of appreciating Widowers' Flouses. 123 a work of art without adequate knowledge of its subject-matter : — " I now approach the question which is really the most interesting from the critical point of view. Is it possible to treat the artistic quality of a play altogether independently of its scientific quality ? For example, is it possible for a critic to be perfectly appreciative and perfectly incredulous and half insensible at the same time ? I do not beheve it for a moment. No point in a drama can produce any effect at all unless the spectator perceives it and accepts it as a real point ; and this primary condition being satisfied, the force of the effect will depend on the extent to which the point interests the spectator — that is, seems momentous to him. The spectacle of Hamlet fencing with an opponent whose foil is ' unbated ' produces its effect because the audience knows the danger ; but there are risks just as thrilling to those who understand them, risks of cutting arteries in surgical operations, risks of losing large sums by a momentary loss of nerve in the money market, risks of destroying one's whole character by an appar- ently trifling step, perils of all sorts which may give the most terrible intensity to a scene in the eyes of those who have the requisite technical knowledge or experience of life to fathom the full significance of what they are witnessing, but which would produce as little effect on others as the wheeling forward of a machine gun would on a hostile tribe of savages unacquainted with the * resources of civilization.' " It has long been clear to me that nothing will be done for the theatre until the most able dramatists refuse to write down to the level of that imaginary monster the British Public. We want a theatre for people who have lived, thought, and felt, and who have some real sense that women are human beings just like men, only worse brought up, and consequently worse behaved. In such a theatre the merely literary man who has read and written instead of living until he has come to feel fiction as experience and to resent experience as fiction, would be as much out of place as the ideal British Public itself. Well, let him sit out his first mistaken visit quietly and not come again; for it is clear that only by holding the mirror up to literature can the dramatist please him, whereas it is by holding it up to nature that good work is produced. In 124 Widowers' Houses. such a theatre Widowers^ Houses would rank as a trumpery farcical comedy ; whereas to-day it is excitedly discussed as a daringly original sermon, political essay, satire, Drapier letter or what not, even by those who will not accept it as a play on any terms because its hero did not, when he learnt that his income came from slum property, at once relinquish it (i.^., make it a present to Sartorius without benefiting the tenants) and go to the goldfields to dig out nuggets with his strong right arm, so that he might return to wed his Blanche after a shipwreck (witnessed by her in a vision), Justin time to rescue her from beggary, brought upon her by the discovery that Lickcheese was the rightful heir to the property of Sartorius, who had dispossessed and enslaved him by a series of forgeries unmasked by the faithful Cokane. Was it really lack of capacity that led me to forego all this 'drama' by making my hero do exactly what he would have done in real life — that is, apologize like a gentleman (in the favorable sense) for accusing another man of his own unconscious rascality, and admit his inability to change a world that will not take the trouble to change itself?" The reader will now be in a position to understand the sort of controversy which has so magnified the importance of fVidowers^ Houses, Appendix III. The following is an item of news from 'The Star newspaper of the 2nd January, 1893 : — *' A dangerous staircase has proved fatal to Elizabeth H , aged 40, a charwoman, of X Buildings. The evidence at St. Giles's Coroner's Court on Saturday showed that the deceased was found lying at the bottom of the stairs at her lodgings on Tuesday morning, at half-past twelve, in an insensible condition. She was carried upstairs and put to bed, but died the same day. '^ The Coroner's officer : ' The stairs are very dangerous at night. They are insufficiently lighted.' "Dr. Brennan deposed that death was due to extensive fracture of the skull. He said he found the stairs dark and slippery. A handrail was needed. "The Coroner: 'There is, I understand, no resident landlord on the premises.' Over a hundred families live at these buildings. The jury, in returning a verdict of 'Accidental death,' "added the subjoined rider: 'The jurors, having heard in evidence that the staircases leading to X Buildings are insufficiently lighted, and that there are no handrails, would call the attention of the landlord to this condition of things, with a view to their immediate improvement.'" The report of the Royal Commission of 1885 on the Housing of the Working Classes, alluded to in the third act of the play, may also be consulted as to the ordinary rent and condition of a single -room tenement in London. 126 Widowers' Houses. Finally, it may not be amiss to observe that the author has himself made collections of weekly rents from very poor tenants, and is conversant with the attitude of the middle-class proprietor towards the laborer tenant TH B END Printed by Harell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury. THE INDEPENDENT THEATRE SERIES. Edited by J. r. GREIN, \/l ESSRS. HENRY & CO. beg to announce that they have made •*•'■*■ arrangements for the publication of a selection of the most notable plays in the repertory of the Independent Theatre. The Series, under the editorship of Mr. J. T. Grein, the founder and director of the Independent Theatre, will be uniform with the present volume ; and the price will be half-a-crown nc^. It is hoped that the Authors' Prefaces will form an interesting feature in the Series. The First Volume of the Series will consist of WIDOWERS' HOUSES, by G. Bernard Shaw, with a Preface by the Author, and an Appendix dealing with the discussion raised by the performance. The Second Volume will contain ALAN'S WIFE, A Study in Three Scenes. Anonymous. With a Preface by J. T. Grein. The Third Volume will contain A VISIT. by Edward Brandes, Translated by William Archer, who will contribute a Prefatory Note on the alterations made by the Lord Chamber- lain in the Acted Version of the Play, and an Article upon the Danish Drama. Of^r Volumes will be announced in due course. HENRY AND CO., 6, BOUVERIE STREET, E.C. WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR. THE QUINTESSENCE OF IBSENISM. An Explanation of Hcnrik Ibsen's Plays. With a Chapter on the Woman Question, and an Appendix on English Acting and the English Theatre in Relation to Ibsen's Work. Two Shillings and Sixpence. [IValter Scott ^ 24, Warwick Latu, Londcn^ E.C. CASHEL BYRON'S PROFESSION. A Novel. One Shilling. [IValter Scott ^ 24, Warunck Lant^ London^ E.C. THE EIGHT HOURS MOVEMENT. Verbatim Report of a Two Nights' Debate on the Shortening of the Working Day, between the President of the National Secular Society, Mr. G. W. Foote, and G. Bernard Shaw. Sixpence. [G. StanJringt 7 and (), Finsbury Strut, London^ E.C. FABIAN ESSAYS. The Standard Work on the Theoretic Basis and Practical Metliods of Modem English Socialisni. Edited by G. Bernard Shaw. Containing Essays on the Economic, Historic, Industrial, and Moral Bases of Socialism by G. Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb, William Clark, and Sydney Olivier ; on Property and Industry under Socialism by Graham Wallas and Annie Be^^ant ; and on the Transition to Social-Democracy and the Political Outlook by G. Bernard Shaw and Hubert Bland. Library Edition, in cloth cover designed by IValter Crane and May Morris^ Four Shillings and Sixpence ttet, from the Secretary of the Fabian Society^ 276, Strand, London, JV.C. Popular Edition, in paper cover designed by Walter Crane, One Shilling, [Walter Scott, 24, Warwick Lane, London, E.C. THE FABIAN SOCIETY, WHAT IT HAS DONE, AND HOW IT HAS DONE IT. An Amusing Page from the History of English Socialism. Instructive to Amateur Revolutionists. One Penny. [7he Fabian Society, 276, Strand, London, W.C, THE IMPOSSIBILITIES OF ANARCHISM. A De- structive Criticism, from the Social-Democratic Point of View, of the Proposals of both ''Individualist" and "Communist" Anarcliists. The treatment of the subject in this essay is practical throughout, and bears not only on avowed Anarchism, but on a considerable body of fashionable political doctrine which is unconscious of its close relation to Anarchism. The author is acquainted with his subject, a most unusual feature in writings directed against Anarchism. Price Twopence. [The Fabian Society, 276, Strand, London, W.C. /