Hartford, Oct. 24.
My Dear Howells:
I have delayed thus long, hoping I might do something for the January number, & Mrs. Clemens has diligently persecuted me day by day with urgings to go to work & do that something, but it’s no use—I find I can’t. We are in such a state of weary & endless confusion that my head won’t “go.” So I give it up.
Say I sent you the St. Louis Republican’s enthusiastic review of Samson forwarded to me by Pope. Of course Pope sent one to you, but perhaps he didn’t italicise the most [significant] feature, & so I did it myself (the repeated calls before the curtain)—though now it occurs to me that you would naturally notice that very pearticularly without any of my assistance.1
But now why don’t you invent a play yourself? It would pay you, say $30 a night in New York & $20 everywhere else. That, I remember, is what Daly was to pay Bret Harte (this was 3 years ago)—& he was to advance ‸pay‸ him one or two thousand dollars, besides, on the delivery of the MS.2 Daly has the most superb company of actors in America—they would almost do justice to even a play written by you. Shan’t I drop Daly a line & hint to him that it isn’t likely you would want to bother with a play but that possibly you might if prsersuasively tackled? Shan’t I?3
Ys Ever
Mark.
With Mrs. Clemens & [Twichells’ affectionate ] warm regards.
Explanatory Notes | Textual Commentary
to restore forgotten and discarded personalities as
well as to bring forward unfriended youth. . . . His purpose was to
break away from tradition; to free actors from the trammels of
“lines” into which they had settled as in a
groove. It was with a great wrench that the old favorites were pried
out of the rut, but the result was soon a mobile force, adaptable
and creative. He astonished his players by throwing them into parts
for which they thought they had no fitness. They were one day
dejected over their tasks, and the next elated with the success they
had achieved. . . . Then the dignity of the profession was secured
by impartial rules. The humblest personage had rights equal to the
favorites of the public. All could come to the manager with a
grievance. From the beginning he got the reputation of an unyielding
disciplinarian, but if he was rigid with others, he also sacrificed
himself. It was soon seen that no one else could do so much with men
and women of the stage as he. (Joseph Francis Daly, 89–90) Howells’s response does not survive, but
evidently was affirmative: see 29 Oct 74 to Daly.
Source text(s):
Previous publication:
L6, 261–262; MTL, 1:229, excerpt; MTHL, 1:33–34.
Provenance:see Howells Letters in Description of Provenance.
Emendations and textual notes:
significant • signifi-|can’t [SLC evidently scanned the page, misread ‘cant’ of ‘significant’, and added an unnecessary apostrophe]
Twichells’ affectionate • Twich-| ells’ affectionate ells’