The Profligate 1

The Profligate 1

The Profligate

A Play in Four Acts

 

Author: Arthur Wing Pinero

 

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

 

 

IT is now more than four years since “The Profligate” was written,

and in the interval we have seen many conflicting influences at work

upon the theatre, many signs of progress; but in June 1887, although

the dramatic atmosphere was full of agitation and uncertainty, and the

clamorous plaints of the pessimists were loud, the bolt of Norwegian

naturalism had not yet fallen upon our stage, Ibsen was still, as

far as England was concerned, an exotic of the library. Mr. Pinero,

however, appears to have been an unswerving optimist in the face of

spreading pessimism; he evidently felt that the air was clearing, that

the period was approaching when the British dramatist might begin to

assert his artistic independence, and at least attempt to write plays

which should, by means of simple and reasonable dramatic deduction,

record actual experience flowing in the natural irregular rhythm of

life, which should at the same time embody lofty ideals of conduct and

of character. So he wrote “The Profligate,” wrote it as he explained,

to fit no particular theatrical company, fettered the free development

of his ideas by no exigencies of managerial expediency.

 

As soon as the play was completed he sought the opinion of one whose

attitude towards the drama has always been marked by keen artistic

sympathy and generous devotion--that delightful comedian, that masterly

manager, John Hare. Mr. Hare’s opinion of “The Profligate” found

__EXPRESSION__ in very practical form. He was at that time on the eve of

becoming theatrically homeless, but explaining to the author his plans

for the future, he begged Mr. Pinero to keep his play for him until

such time as he should be in a position to produce it, a request to

which Mr. Pinero gladly acceded.

 

Two years elapsed, during which period the battle of the _isms_ had

proceeded apace, realism clashing with conventionalism, naturalism

with romanticism. And the time now seemed ripe to gauge the practical

progress of the modern dramatic movement, as we may call it, to test

how far theatrical audiences were really prepared to accept serious

drama without “comic relief.” The opportunity was at hand, the new

Garrick Theatre was completed, and Mr. John Hare produced “The

Profligate.”

 

It must be admitted, however, that in doing this a question of

managerial policy prompted a concession to popular taste or custom

which Mr. Pinero had never anticipated in the composition of “The

Profligate.” He had ended his play with the suicide of the penitent

profligate at the very moment that the wife is coming to him with pity

and forgiveness in her heart, resolved to share his life again, to

bear with him the burden of his past as well as his future--a grimly

ironical trick of fate which the author considered to be the legitimate

and logical conclusion of this domestic tragedy.

 

But authors propose, and the “gods” dispose. Mr. Hare, as he frankly

admitted in a letter to the papers, felt somewhat timorous of braving

the popular prejudice in favour of theatrical happiness in the last

act of new plays, and he suggested to Mr. Pinero that, as a matter of

expediency, it would be well to alter his _dénouement_, so as to bring

about a reconciliation between the reformed profligate and his innocent

wife. Mr. Pinero fell in with the managerial views, determining at the

same time that, while he allowed the hero of his story to live on with

promise of future happiness upon the stage, when the play came to be

printed the terrible finality of the tragedy should be restored exactly

as it was first written.

 

Now, therefore, that it has become feasible to place “The Profligate”

in the hands of the reader, the author’s intention is adhered to, and

the play appears in its original form. As a matter of record, however,

and for the benefit of those readers who may possibly be interested

in comparing the two versions, I think it advisable to append below

that portion of the acted text which differs from the play as it is

now published, especially since the matter has excited some critical

discussion.

 

The Fourth Act, as generally performed, is entitled “On the Threshold,”

and the departure from the original occurs on p. 122, when Dunstan

Renshaw is about to drink the poison. From that point it runs thus:--

 

DUNSTAN.

 

[_He is raising the glass to his lips when he recoils with a cry

of horror._] Ah! stop, stop! This is the deepest sin of all my

life--blacker than that sin for which I suffer! No, I’ll not! I’ll

not! [_He dashes the glass to the ground._] God, take my wretched life

when You will, but till You lay Your hand upon me, I will live on!

Help me! Give me strength to live on! Help me! Oh, help me!

 

[_He falls on his knees, and buries his face in his hands. LESLIE

enters softly, carrying a lamp which she places on the sideboard;

she then goes to DUNSTAN._

 

LESLIE.

 

Dunstan! Dunstan!

 

DUNSTAN.

 

[_Looking wildly at her._] You! You!

 

LESLIE.

 

I have remembered. When we stood together at our prayerless marriage,

my heart made promises my lips were not allowed to utter. I will not

part from you, Dunstan.

 

DUNSTAN.

 

Not--part--from me?

 

LESLIE.

 

No.

 

DUNSTAN.

 

I don’t understand you. You--will--not--relent? You cannot forget what

I am!

 

LESLIE.

 

No. But the burden of the sin you have committed I will bear upon

my shoulders, and the little good that is in me shall enter into

your heart. We will start life anew--always seeking for the best

that we can do, always trying to repair the worst that we have done.

[_Stretching out her hand to him._] Dunstan! [_He approaches her as in

a dream._] Don’t fear me! I will be your wife, not your judge. Let us

from this moment begin the new life you spoke of.

 

DUNSTAN.

 

[_He tremblingly touches her hand as she bursts into tears._] Wife!

Ah, God bless you! God bless you, and forgive me!

 

[_He kneels at her side, she bows her head down to his._

 

LESLIE.

 

Oh, my husband!

 

This ending found many advocates, even Mr. Clement Scott and Mr.

William Archer, who may be regarded as representing the opposite poles

of dramatic criticism, agreeing in their decision that this was the

only logical conclusion. “There can be but one end to such a play,”

wrote Mr. Scott, “and Mr. Pinero has chosen the right one. To make this

wretched man whose sin has found him out a wanderer and an outcast

is bad enough; to make him a suicide would be worse.” Yet there were

others who thought differently.

 

Wednesday, the 24th of April, 1889, saw the opening of the Garrick

Theatre and the production of “The Profligate,” the programme of which

occasion is here appended.

 

 

 

 

_Programme._

 

 

OPENING OF THE GARRICK THEATRE.

 

THIS EVENING, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24th, 1889.

WILL BE ACTED

FOR THE FIRST TIME

 

THE PROFLIGATE

 

A New and Original Play in Four Acts.

 

BY

A. W. PINERO.

 

LORD DANGARS Mr. JOHN HARE.

DUNSTAN RENSHAW Mr. FORBES ROBERTSON.

HUGH MURRAY Mr. LEWIS WALLER.

WILFRED BRUDENELL Mr. S. BROUGH.

Mr. CHEAL Mr. DODSWORTH.

EPHGRAVES Mr. R. CATHCART.

WEAVER Mr. H. KNIGHT.

 

Mrs. STONEHAY Mrs. GASTON MURRAY.

LESLIE BRUDENELL Miss KATE RORKE.

IRENE Miss BEATRICE LAMB.

JANET Miss OLGA NETHERSOLE.

PRISCILLA Miss CALDWELL.