The Fall of Clement Scott

Clement Scott was a popular and influential drama critic for the Daily Telegraph in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Born on 6th October, 1841, he was the son of William Scott, the vicar of Hoxton, and following a common school education became a civil servant working in the War Office.

An interest in writing led to him submitting articles to various periodicals before becoming the dramatic journalist for the Sunday Times in 1863. The forthrightness of his opinions led to problems however, leading to the post lasting only two years. In 1871 he became the dramatic critic for the Daily Telegraph, as well as writing numerous books and plays and for various leading periodicals, finally giving up his post at the War Office to concentrate fully on his writing in 1879.

His position as a dramatic critic was unique. He headed the list of all such luminaries of his day and pioneered a new essay style of reviewing in much greater depth than had previously been seen. His columns became very popular and later his own magazine, 'The Theatre', acheived widespread circulation.

His 'from the hip' method of writing, jotting down his impressions as soon as he had seen the production and publishing them without further consideration or review, would often lead him into controversy. His insistence of always reviewing plays on the first night, unlike most other critics who would wait a few days, angered managers since first-night problems were not uncommon and he was not therefore reviewing the play in its proper finished form. He maintained a long running feud with fellow critic William Archer and was particularly scathing of the works of Ibsen and Bernard Shaw. This, and his outspoken criticisms of various actors and actresses would often lead to threats of legal action.

Such was his standing with the public, however, that he weilded great power and could make a substantial difference to the financial prospects of a play according to the quality of his review. But, just when his career and reputation was at its highest, he forfeited it all through an act of extreme folly which alienated not only the theatrical profession but his reading public.

He was requested by the evangelical weekly 'Great Thoughts' to submit to an interview 'Does the theatre make for good?' with Raymond Blathwayt, and the result, published in January 1908, was an extraordinary attack on the morals of the stage and stage-folk, particularly actresses. Not only did he impune the honour of actresses in general, but, by saying that no woman who maintained her purity could ever be successful in a stage career, he implied that the leading actresses of the time were, of necessity, immoral and that they could only have acheived their station by virtue of their 'compliances'.

As the years had passed Scott had grown increasingly cantankerous and careless in his remarks, all too often allowing his own personal animosities to show through and cloud his reviews so that he was no longer the reliable guide. Perhaps his popular standing with the general public had led him to feel invulnerable and in ill-considering the imprudence of his remarks, but it soon became apparent that on this occasion he had made a serious error of judgement and supplied his opponents with a wealth of ammunition to use against him. The Daily Mail in particular, The Telegraph's great rival, took great delight in fanning the flames, dredging up Scott's past indescretions and encouraging performers to write send in letters condemning of the interview which it gleefully published.

Scott was appalled by the storm of righteous indignation that was whipped up against him and was forced to publicly recant his remarks as a temporary aberation. But the damage was done. With theatre managers uniting to bar him from their premises and dozens of letters arriving at the Daily Telegraph every day demanding his discharge the newspaper was forced to dismiss him. He was subsequently re-hired when the furore died down but his reputation had already been irreperably damaged. In 1899, he resigned and retired to Biarritz to complete his greatest literary work, The Drama of Yesterday and Today. He subsequently visited America and wrote some articles upon its stage affairs before returning to England and starting a paper which he called "The Free Lance" and which acheived only limited success.

There had been a time when a column of his writing could make a play or damn it to oblivion, but now he found himself being largely dismissed. His health and finances deteriorated, and he soon he found himself fallen upon hard times. Remarkably, overlooking the injury that he had visited upon their profession, a brilliant company of actors came together, among them Sir Henry Irving, Beerbohm Tree, Julia Neilson, Madame Rejane and others, and staged a benefit for him at His Majesty's on 23rd June, 1904. He saw little benefit from the money raised for him however, as he passed away only two days later after a long illness.

Excerpts from Clement Scott's interview for the evangelical periodical 'Great Thoughts' January, 1898

If anyone I loved insisted on going on stage contrary to my advice, I should be terrified for her future, hopeless for the endurance of her affection, or even our friendship. For stage life, according to my experiences, has a tendency to deaden the finer feelings and crush the inner nature of men and women, to substitute artificiality and hollowness for sincerity and truth. I speak from intimate experience with the stage, extending over thirty-seven years. Of course, I refer now to the inner life of the theatre, that which goes on behind the scenes.

In dealing with this inner life I leave out all references to what I may term the 'theatrical families' of the stage - those well-known people of generations of play actors. They are like doctors and artists, to whom the whole thing is a matter of trainingfor the profession. They either do not notice or are unaffected by what, perhaps, comes as a shock to the novice. I speak, rather, of and to the hundreds of young people, especially of the opposite sex, who have an unhealthy craving for matters theatrical.

It is really impossible for a woman to remain pure who adopts the stage as a profession. Everything is against her. The freedom of life, speech and gesture which is the rule behind the curtain render it almost impossible for a woman to preserve the simplicity of manner which is her greatest charm. Her whole life is artificial and unnatural to the last degree. Therefore it is an unhealthy life to live.

But there are far more serious evils to be encountered than those.The drawbacks mentioned are things that render it impossible for a lady to remain a lady. But what is infinitely more to be deplored is that a woman who endevours to keep her purity is almost of necessity foredoomed to failure in her career.

It is an awful thing to say, but no one who knows the life of the green room will dare to deny it. More I need not say. I could give chapter and verse for my authority by the dozen, but it would not be very savoury reading. All that I can say is that I marvel at any mother who allows her daughter to take up a theatrical career.

Still more I am astounded that any man should calmy endure his wife to become an actress, unnacompanied by himself. He must either be a fool or a knave. Nor do I see how any woman is to escape contamination in one form or another. Temptation surrounds her in every shape and on every side. Her prospects frequently depend upon nature - and the extent of her compliance, and, after all, human nature is very weak.

Two things that I want to be made clear: First, that it is quite possible to lead a good life on the stage. Thousands of people do. Miss Blank, for instance, is as good a woman as ever lived. But the fact that many people do lead good lives does not remove the great temptations from their weaker brethren. Second, that I am not a canting prig, or a Pharisee, who makes broad his phylacteries. Thank God I am as other men are. The temptations of the stage have been quite as bad for me as for anyone else, if not more. It would disorder any life, shipwreck any temperament, however religious, to have your whold mind devoted to showy and alluring things for thirty seven years.

The worst of the theatrical profession is that it induces vain and egotistical ideas in all of us to a degree scarcely credited by an outsider. Actors, and very particularly actresses, can not hear a word of dispraise.

----------

I have received letters literally by the hundred in the last thirty years, full of the foulest abuse, which bear the names of some of the best known theatre people of the day. How I could be revenged if I were to publich them! But it only goes to prove the truthfulness of what I say - that no school on earth is bad for the formation of character, or so readily, quickly and evitably draws out all the worst in a man or a woman as the stage.

And I think the English stage is the worst; for, as a matter of fact, the English are the least artificial people, and are more completely without the saving grace of humour than any nation in the world, and so the more readily make themselves ridiculous.

----------

I am sorry that one has to utterly condemn all hope of union between religion and the stage, but as things stand, it is ridiculous to even suggest such a thing. Many of our ablest actors and actresses would be only too glad if it were possible to bring about such a union, but they one and all recognise the hopelessness of making the attempt. Not even the Church and Stage Guild will ever bring it about.

What I have said will probably give great offence to certain people, but they are just the people I should not care about in the least; and, after all, no one will put the cap on unless it fits. If they do find that it fits, they will at least have the good worldly sense to keep such a fact to themselves.

I, as a man of the world, agree with the Puritan party, that religion and the stage have nothing in common. Indeed I go further and say that the one would weaken the other. The stage is of the earth, earthly and very earthy. The church is spritual, or is supposed to be. No one in his senses really believes the church influences the stage, while it is patent to the most casual onlooker that a union would not in the least benefit the church.

Cardinal Manning, at one end of the religious scale, hated the theatre. The Puritan, Wesleyan or Baptist minister detests it. At the other end the philosophical man of the world, with an equal knowledge of human nature, stands between them and says they are both right.

It has been very well said that science and religion run upon parallel lines, but that they will never meet. The same statement, in another sense, is true of religion and the stage. They are, and they must ever remain, as widely seperated as the poles themselves.

The Apology (Published April, 1898)

Now that I am enabled once more to sign my name to and identify myself with the article called 'Drama of the Day,' I am anxious to make a personal statement, and, I trust, to end an unfortunate incident. Referring to the interview held with me, and published in 'Great Thoughts' in December of last year, I desire to express my regret to tho ladies of the theatrical profession, and to the theatrical profession at large, for having given utterance to words which I now realize must have inflicted indefinite pain upon many good women whom I not only respect, but whose claims to the good opinion of all I freely and frankly avow. I desire to withdraw such statements as I then made. In my excuse I suggest that the words which were published, and which have evidently given such offence, were spoken at a moment of great mental strain, when my surroundings were such as to prevent me from clearly appreciating the distress they were likely to cause.

In defence of Clement Scott, the following are readily apparent:

• Scott certainly never intended for his remarks to be published in the mainstream press. They were intended for a select audience of evangelists to whom they would have represented no more than an affirmation of their already strongly held beliefs. Furthermore, had they remained in that arena, those against whom they were targeted would have been none the wiser with the cumulative effect that there would have been no harm done. As a journalist himself, however, Scott should clearly have realised that such inflammatory statements were certain, sooner or later, to come to wider attention.
• Scott was, in effect, betrayed by the editors of 'Great Thoughts,' who, presumably to further their own cause, released the transcript of his interview to the mainstream press even before they had published it themselves. The relevant issue of 'Great Thoughts' had a publication date of January 1st, but Scott's comments had already been widely read in the press on both sides of the Atlantic by mid-December.

Reproduced below is an example of one of Scott's scathing reports.

The Theatre, 1st Oct, 1894.
THE QUEEN OF BRILLIANTS.

A Comic Opera in three acts, from the German. By Herren THEODOR TAUBE and ISIDOR FUCHS. Adapted by Mr. BRANDON THOMAS. Composed by Mr. EDWARD JAKOBOWSKI. Produced at the Lyceum. September 8.

Splendor et praeterea nihil might fairly be offered as the most fitting commentary on The Queen of Brilliants. Never, probably, has a framework so magnificent, so dazzling in its beauty, been provided for so inept and inconsequent a piece. Absolute coherence in the plot of an ordinary comic opera is, of course. hardly to be expected, but that some faint semblance of a story should occasionally be discoverable does not seem an unreasonable demand. The German authors of The Queen of Brilliants, and Mr. Brandon Thomas, the adapter, would, however, appear to be of a different opinion; and if only they can induce the public to follow their lead, all may yet be for the best in this best of stage worlds. Messrs. Abbey and Grau, the temporary lessees of the Lyceum, have, at any rate, left nothing undone to please the eye by furnishing a series of gorgeous and magnificent tableaux. Through these flits a sumptuously attired crowd of courtiers, heralds, dancers, fishing-girls, and students, who, under the skilful direction of Mr. Charles Harris, perform from time to time bewildering evolutions of the most marvellous kind. Unfortunately, when the interest excited by these has died away there is little or nothing left to attract. Of Mr Jakobowski's music the best that can be said is that it is pleasing, fluent, and not inappropriate. Of originality it contains hardly a trace. Nor has Mr. Brandon Thomas been more successful with the English libretto, which betrays a sad lack of anything like wit or humour. Equally destitute of inspiration are his lyrics, in which such monstrous solecisms as the rhyming of "adoptions" with "corruptions," "morning" with" performing," "purse" with "us," and "revel" with "drivel" are perpetrated. After an absence of ten years Miss Lillian Russell made her reappearance as Betta, and proved that not only does she retain all her old charm and beauty, but that she is also an incomparably finer actress and singer than when she deserted England for America. By dint of unflagging effort and strenuous "gagging," Mr. Arthur Williams contrived to extract some fun from an indifferent part, while a newcomer, Miss Annie Meyers, created a distinctly favourable impression by her merry manner and sympathetic singing. Provided with singularly colourless parts, Mr. W. H. Denny, Mr. John Le Hay, Mr. Avon Saxon, and Madame Amadi are hardly to be blamed if they failed to make anything of them. Of Mr. Hubert Wilke, the new American baritone-tenor, there is little to be said. His manner is effeminate, and his singing mediocre.