In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Elizabeth Robins and the 189I Production of Hedda Gabler JOANNE E. GATES On 1 June 1891, when the controversy and success of the Elizabeth Robins production of Hedda Gabler had subsided after the longest run to date of any Ibsen play in London, publisher William Heinemann reprinted a deluxe "Large Paper" edition of the English translation that he had introduced in January. Ostensibly, this edition preserved the version of the playas it had been performed in April and May at the Vaudeville Theatre. Translator Edmund Gosse added an introduction which praised the London performers and stressed that "the version here printed is that which they used," except that, "for working purposes, and to avoid certain crudities of the original, they made a few highly judicious alterations." The large paper edition of the play testified to the astounding new popularity of Ibsen's drama. And, as Gosse most elaborately pointed out, the success ofthe production was due primarily to the acting talent of Elizabeth Robins. Yet a careful comparison of this edition of Gosse's Hedda Gabler with the version of the text preserved in Robins's promptbook for Hedda's part reveals that the "few highly judicious alterations'" amounted to a complete retranslation , but that none of these changes made their way into the fancy edition printed with Gosse's introduction. In short, the spoken play and the Heinemann-Gosse reedition are two separate translations. Robins partly accounts for the discrepancy in Ibsen and the Actress, where she writes that she has somewhere the sets of page proofs of the Heinemann-Gosse Hedda Gabler with changes that she and fellow actress Marion Lea marked for production.' She leaves hints in her published accounts of production efforts that her knowledge of Norwegian was a helpful asset. Gay Gibson Cima has examined Robins's annotations from her side or promptbook and analyzed the thoughtful staging decisions which marked Robins's production' Little has been said, however, about the simple but significant fact of Robins having artistic control over her production. Only in 612 JOANNE E. GATES Robins's private papers, in an unfinished and unpublished later volume of her autobiography, "Whither and How,»4 do the details emerge to explain how the translation dispute which erupted when Gosse's first edition appeared in January evolved into her independent production. Because that production converted new and important enthusiasts to the Ibsen movement, the Robins Hedda Gabler may be credited with changing the course of English drama. Consequently, my purpose here is to relate Robins's untold story in order to demonstrate that her struggles to secure the part and her contributions to the retranslation of the acting version are as greatly significant as her on-stage triumph. One reason for Robins's astounding success in the part of Hedda was her fierce determination to surmount the lack ofopportunities available to someone as talented as she. An American actress, Robins came to England in 1888. By then she had achieved modest success in the United States, having performed what she estimated to be over 300 roles in the Boston Museum Company and on tour with James O'Neill, Edwin Booth and Lawrence Barrett. Yet, until the fall of 1890, she had hardly the glimmer ofa chance to make a name or even to earn her living on the London stage. During that fall, she was engaged to play in the stage adaptation of Dostoevski's Crime and Punishment. It was the first time that her successful notices were coupled with an extended run. She formed a close friendship with another American actress in the company, Marion Lea, who was ·equally dissatisfied with the lack of advancement for talented performers. In November 1890, weeks before Hedda Gabler appeared, the management announced that the Dostoevski piece would close because attendance had slackened. Lea and Robins shared their disappointment by privately attacking conditions of the English theatre which left the superior drama unperformed and skilled actors without work. Commercial contracts often bound performers to one theatre exclusively, thus locking them into a single character line and discouraging any opportunity for appearances in special matinees. The two actresses would not accept these conditions as their fate. They formed...

pdf

Share