Great War Theatre

Researcher's Summary:

‘Loyalty’ opened at the St. James’s Theatre, London, on 21 November 1917 and closed just over two weeks later on 8 December. Although its anti-pacifist sentiments appealed to newspaper reviewers and audiences, it was criticised on the grounds that the characters were caricatures, and there was too little drama and action and too much repetitive declamatory rhetoric; and pacifists would not go to see it and so it would not be effective in making them see the error of their ways. However, the speeches of the pacifist characters who did renounce their previous views were praised: Sir Andrew Craig, a newspaper proprietor, who, when himself a prisoner of war, saw his wounded son tortured and killed in front of him; and James Brown, ‘the honest spokesman of Labour’, whose neighbour’s house was destroyed in a Zeppelin raid on Poplar (where, in reality, eighteen children were killed on 13 June 1917 by the first daylight bombing attack on London by fixed-wing aircraft). The play’s attacks on pacifists was the reason why it was chosen for a charity matinée in July 1918, organised by the Marchioness of Londonderry and attended by Queen Mary. There was a hint that the Queen had herself requested that ‘Loyalty’ be played; and when it was published two months later it was advertised as having been ‘recently performed by desire of the Queen’ (e.g. in The Scotsman, 19 September 1918).

Licensed On: 27 Oct 1917

License Number: 1203

Author(s):

Keyword(s):

British Library Reference: LCP1917/21

British Library Classmark: Add MS 66176 K

Performances

Date Theatre Type
1 Nov 1917 Royalty Theatre, London Unknown Licensed Performance
21 Nov 1917 St James’s Theatre, London Professional
Read Narrative
‘If the popularity a play like that of a leading article could be won solely by reason of the sentiments expressed, then “Loyalty,” by an author who prefers to remain unknown, might run for ever. But we want something more in a play than admirably patriotic sentiments expressed in somewhat stilted language, and it is not enough to listen for three out of four acts to nothing but the opinions of pro-English and pro-Pacifist speakers. If “Loyalty” possessed drama as well as declamation then it might have justified all the wonderful hints as to its merits which appeared in the Press agents’ paragraph, and the audience at the first performance at the St. James’s might have applauded something more than healthy English opinions expressed by Mr. Aubrey Smith in downright English fashion. It was in its way refreshing to see snivelling Pacifists confounded when war has brought sense, if not sobriety, to all of the miserable little band that prated of universal brotherhood before August, 1914' (The People, 25 November 1917). ‘“Loyalty,” the new play by the anonymous author at the St. James’s, is purely apiece of propaganda, with a shred of story as slight as that of revue. It deals with the conversion of some pacifists from the error of their ways, thanks to the torture of the newspaper proprietor’s wounded son, of which he is a witness, to the bombing of the house next door by a Zeppelin, and so on. Incidentally, we have a pacifist newspaper office with a comic editor, whose secretary is a Tory, and an assistant editor, who is ditto, comes into a fortune and gets into Parliament, much to the disgust of his proprietor, and marries the proprietor’s daughter. Not much for four acts. But, as I have said, it is propaganda, and the pacifists are assailed vigorously, much to the delight of the audience. I am heartily in sympathy with this attack, and therefore regret that the pacifists are mere caricatures ... on the whole, one misses the brilliancy which, generally speaking, the play of talk calls for. Its very directness and commonplaceness, however, may make for success’ (Reynold’s Newspaper, 25 November 1917). 'The merit of the work lies rather in its effect as a pamphlet or tract than in its quality as drama. Such a skilful craftsman as Brieux has found it very difficult to make plays out of pamphlets, being constantly faced by the dilemma that one or the other has at some point to be sacrificed. In “Loyalty” the sacrifices are mostly on the side of drama. We have shoals of patriotic speeches with which ninety-nine out of a hundred of any audience would agree. Unfortunately, the anti-patriots are such a poor, comic lot that there is not enough fight for dramatic effect. It was by episodes, brilliancy of the acting, and the fervid, hardly subtle eloquence of the speeches that “Loyalty” won its big reception' (The Sketch, 28 November 1917). ‘Whoever wrote “Loyalty” ... attempted a very difficult feat. He attempted to dramatise a leader. A daring experiment, certainly, and in result almost as unsuccessful as would be an attempt to dramatise the crochet column of a woman’s weekly. You go to see a play, and what you get is a War Aims meeting with the spectacle of the principal speaker kissing a pretty girl thrown in as a sop ... The author of “Loyalty” is principally concerned in driving home his conclusion. He does not care about stating his case fairly. For this reason “Loyalty” is, quite apart from its dramatic merits, unsuccessful. It will not convince any opponent, and its tendency will be to alienate the sympathy of any thinking person in agreement with the main line of argument – as, of course, practically all the audience at the St. James’s will be' (The Era, 28 November 1917). 'As drama proper, it is almost negligible except by reason of certain moving incidents photographing, so to speak, certain phases of the war, that lift the last act of a play otherwise thin of plot and amateurish in construction, and that seemed to carry away the more impressionable sections of those in the theatre. As for its frankly reactionary and Anti-Democratic sentiments, of a sort belched forth every morning and most Sundays, one may characterise them (and then pass them by as the idle wind) in phrases taken from the turgid dialogue as all “flapdoodle and flummery,” and as illustrating the rising of “a wave of Jingoism" ..The Pacifists in “Loyalty” are almost as farcically absurd as those in Henry Arthur Jones’s recent unsuccessful piece of this name and, if one may be allowed at this time of day to mention “G.B.S.,” one might regret the absence of the fairness of balance with which, in similar plays of conversation of his, he allowed his puppets on both sides to assail one another' (The Stage, 29 November 1917). '“Loyalty” undoubtedly has many fine points about it, but the idea that it would convert the pacifist into an ardent warite is as hopeless as was the same idea relative to Henry Arthur Jones’ parable play, “The Pacifists.” If the peace-at-any-price person cannot see in current and past events enough to convince him of the error of his ways, neither “The Pacifists” nor “Loyalty” will alter his opinion. Any pacifist converted by either of these two plays would prove himself an even bigger fool than he now appears to be. Which is saying a good deal!’ (Clarion, 30 November 1917). 'It is, of course, propaganda throughout, and very obvious propaganda at that; political speeches follow one another in quick succession from each side. The views of both parties are overdrawn presumably for theatrical effect, though the points are mostly made by the Independent candidate, who scores all the time against Labour, which on this occasion includes all anti-war and other cranks' (The Queen, 1 December 1917). ‘To such playgoers as like to hear their own views on the war, and the Englishman’s duty, declaimed in telling tirades, and to watch anti-patriots and anti-patriotic opinions held up to ridicule on the stage, “Loyalty” will prove a very exhilarating entertainment. This political play can certainly claim the merits of sincerity and fervour; and those who ask nothing more from the playhouse than that it shall echo, and so confirm, their own sentiments, will thrill at its reminders of the brutalities of Germany’s methods of warfare, and feel ready to cheer the speeches of its author’s patriotic mouthpieces ... how can drama exist without conflict of wills, and what conflict can there be if one set of stage-characters, however admirably they talk, have things all their own way, while their opponents are presented as absolutely ridiculous, and nothing better than gas-bags? By making his group of Pacifists caricatures, and ascribing to them merely flatulent phrases, the playwright has spoilt his own opportunity, besides under-rating what he aims at exposing. The less intelligence he grants to the objects of his attack, the smaller his own victory. We ought to have had a duel in his play; instead we got something like a game of ninepins, and though often enough the dummy Pacifists were bowled over by a shrewd stroke of wit, as often a platitude was relied on to do the damage. Platform oratory in the playhouse has one advantage; it gives a chance to the actors for declamation, and there is plenty of fine declamation in “Loyalty"' (Illustrated London News, 1 December 1917). 'I content myself with wondering whether “Loyalty” is likely to achieve any of the good at which it aims. There would be no object in considering it as a work of art; for it nowhere comes within measurable distance of being a play. It is just an Aunt Sally show: a row of comic guys set up for a patriot to knock down. I cannot rouse myself to any excitement at the sight of patriots playing skittles. There are so many much better things that they might be doing. And their energies seem all the more wasted when the skittles all tumble over before they are hit. Oh, a dull game indeed for the looker-on; and equally dull, I should have thought, for the player. Yet this patriot (whoever he may be) seems to have enjoyed himself; and there was much cheering from the multitude. But any pacifist who happened to have dropped in probably went home with his withers unwrung and a curl upon his pacific lip; having utterly failed to recognise his own image among the skittles, or at any rate having good reason for claiming that he did not recognise it. But he who would scourge evildoers ought so to direct his flail that it may have at least some chance of reaching the intended victim. It is not enough that those who need no scourging shall applaud. They applauded right heartily. They thought they recognised the skittles easily enough ... even if you agreed most heartily with it all, there was always the feeling that with such skittles set up against it, it was an empty beating of the air and a thing only to be yawned at. Once or twice only did anything grip. This happened when Mr. Fisher White, a pacifist, described how he had seen his own son wounded and a prisoner done to death, or when Sam Livesey was converted by the experience of one night in London in a raid ... However, perhaps “Loyalty” will do an awful lot of good in stiffening resolution. It can at any rate do no harm. Perhaps I am led to do it injustice by the fact that expecting a play, or at any rate something of originality or force, I found merely a selection of plain and ordinary speeches’ (Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News, 1 December 1917). 'It is perhaps doubtful whether “Loyalty” will convert a single Pacifist, but it will assuredly please, amuse, and confirm in their patriotism those who believe Great Britain and the Empire, including all the dominions beyond the seas, to stand firm’ (Gloucester Citizen, 1 December 1917). 'We expected something tremendous, and all we got was second-rate drama, second-hand political theories, and newspaper patriotism ... instead of throwing light in political dark places, it simply, as it were, continued to throw the old light in the old dark places, and left them at the end every bit as dark. It told us all about the War and Party Politics, and the Pacifists, and everything we have heard of and learnt since those tragic days of August, 1914. It threw in a quite trivial love story, just, as it were, to make a story of what would otherwise have been little but a personal declamation of some of the most striking leading articles which have been read and digested since the war changed most of our ideas and revealed to us what really is the rock-bottom of love and loyalty and patriotism and the problems of labour and poverty. But if the thinking people did not know these things already, they have at least learnt them during the last three sad years ... we had hoped that Loyalty would have shown us something a little ahead of accepted ideas. Still, to reiterate is sometimes to the world’s advantage. In an audience there is always sure to be a certain percentage of fools. To enlighten fools is the end of Loyalty - and no mean end either, providing there still remain a large enough number to fill the theatre for a “run" ... it is a play to hear if you like to hear this kind of thing. To see, it offers few attractions. There is very little real drama, and much that is not drama at all, but belongs rather to the platform' (The Tatler, 5 December 1917). ‘“Loyalty,” at the St. James’s, has not enjoyed a very long run. It was withdrawn last night’ (The People, 9 December 1917).
2 Jul 1918 Haymarket Theatre, London Professional
Read Narrative
‘The Marchioness of Londonderry tells me that the King and Queen have given their patronage to a matinée which will be held on July 2 at the Haymarket Theatre in aid of the War Service and Woman’s Legion. The play selected for the occasion is Mr. Harold Owen’s “Loyalty,” and Queen Mary has promised to attend. I understand from Lady Londonderry that quite as much importance is attached to the propaganda of the play as to the profits which will accrue from its presentation. She is determined to make it a thoroughly patriotic affair in every way, and that is why their Majesties are taking such a keen interest in the occasion' (Pall Mall Gazette, 13 June 1918). ‘The Queen honoured with her presence at the Haymarket Theatre this afternoon a special matinée organised by the Marchioness of Londonderry in aid of the funds for the War Service and Woman’s Legion. Her Majesty was accompanied by Queen Alexandra, Princess Mary, and Princes Victoria. The matinee marked a new departure in functions of its kind, for the object of its organiser was not merely to raise funds for a patriotic purpose, but also, selecting for the occasion an exceptionally clever propaganda play, to make clear to the public the British war ideals. “Loyalty,” by Mr. Harold Owen, might have been written for the occasion. The play traces the psychological progress of a man who, starting a confirmed pacifist, is gradually converted to the view that nothing but a thorough defeat will cure Germany of her fever for military domination. A well-written piece work, it earned the hearty reception accorded to it. The house was crowded in every part, and the khaki uniforms of members of the Woman’s Legion, who filled the whole of the gallery, combined with the hospital blue of many wounded soldiers to give a pleasing note of colour to the picturesque scene' (Pall Mall Gazette, 2 July 1918). ‘At Lady Londonderry’s Women’s Legion matinée [Queen Mary's] jolly laughter fairly cheered up a house a little damped by the avalanche of Home Truths hurled at us by Mr. Harold Owen in his clever play, Loyalty. Apropos, what a bit of propaganda wasted this is. It ought to be running somewhere always - ‘specially, p’r’aps, in some of those provincial places (also Ireland) where even now they don’t get bothered very much by the war. It’d do some of our Conchies and pro-Germans and anti everything that’s English an awful lot of good' (The Tatler, 10 July 1918). ‘The Queen sent a charming letter of thanks in connection with the performance of Loyalty last week [at the Haymarket], which was witnessed by her Majesty’. The Queen realised ‘that staging a special play like Loyalty, which is not being played at the present time, requires a great deal of extra time and trouble on the part of the management and the artists, and her Majesty is very grateful to them for their courtesy in so readily responding to her request’ (The Stage, 11 July 1918).