Edward Fordham Spence, under the pseudonym 'E.F.S.', opens his collection of essays on Edwardian theatre with a frank admission: reading the proof-sheets, he fears the articles may give 'a gloomy idea about the state of our Stage.' Yet he insists on his naturally sanguine temperament, a necessary quality for anyone who has written about drama for 'a score or so of years.' The preface sets the tone for a work that is both critical and hopeful, arguing that Britain possesses dramatists and players capable of making the theatre 'worthy of our country,' but that 'the misuse of them is appalling.'

Spence's voice is that of a seasoned observer, blending sharp analysis with a dry, often ironic wit. He is not afraid to name names—from Harry Lauder to J.M. Barrie—and his essays range from the qualifications of a dramatic critic to the morality of music-halls, the optics of stage make-up, and the peculiarities of audience conduct. The collection, originally published in 1910, offers a window into the debates and preoccupations of Edwardian theatre, filtered through a single, distinctive sensibility.

The Critic's Toolkit and Stock Phrases

Spence devotes his opening chapters to the figure of the dramatic critic, dissecting his qualifications, his knowledge of fashionable society, and his 'stock phrases.' The critic, as Spence portrays him, operates under peculiar constraints: the pressure of writing quickly after a performance, the fear of libel actions, and the jadedness that comes from years of watching plays. Spence's own prose is a model of the critical voice he describes—incisive, occasionally sardonic, but never merely dismissive. He notes that the critic's duty is to be tolerant, especially when young, and that the 'jaded critic' is a recognizable type, worn down by the sheer volume of productions. The letter bag of a critic, Spence suggests, is filled with unpaid labors and unsolicited advice, a detail that grounds his analysis in the practical realities of the profession.

The Morality of the Stage and Harry Lauder's Challenge

In Chapter VII, Spence takes up the question of morality in drama, using as his foil a statement by music-hall singer Harry Lauder. Lauder had claimed that theatres traffic in immorality while music-halls remain pure, and that plays often leave the audience wondering 'Will they marry?' or 'Are they married?' Spence responds with characteristic irony: 'Ye gods and little Lauder, how beautiful and simple is the morality of the music-hall!' He unpacks Lauder's critique of J.M. Barrie's What Every Woman Knows, where Lauder objected to a man going away with another woman as 'unnecessary' and out of keeping with 'the true character of a Scotsman.' Spence counters by citing statistics on illegitimate births in Scotland, dryly noting that perhaps the 'hapless followers of Rahab' are only there 'for the entertainment of English visitors.' The exchange reveals Spence's willingness to engage with contemporary figures and his preference for nuance over simplistic moralizing.

Stage Conventions: Truth, Illusion, and the Pig in a Poke

Spence's observations on stagecraft are among the most vivid in the collection. In Chapter VI, he discusses 'the optics' of the theatre—make-up, gesture, scenery, costumes, and even stage meals. He recounts an ancient story of an actor who was hissed because, instead of imitating the squeaks of a pig, he 'pinched the tail of a real porker in a poke.' The moral: 'upon the stage a little truth is sometimes dangerous, a great deal often fatal.' Spence argues that English players are 'wise, perhaps without knowing it,' in their preference for selective realism. He also compares British and American productions, claiming that British ones are 'vastly more accurate'—a judgment that reflects his own standards of verisimilitude. These concrete examples ground his criticism in the practical choices made by actors and directors.

Audience Conduct and the Pit

Spence turns his attention to the audience in Chapter XI, discussing laughter, smoking in the auditorium, and the conduct of those in the pit. He asks a fundamental question: 'Why do we go to the Theatre?' The answer, he implies, is not always straightforward. He defends the matinée hat and justifies certain 'deadheads' (those who attend for free), offering a sympathetic view of the social dynamics of theatre-going. His tone is conversational, as if sharing observations with a fellow theatre-goer over a drink. The chapter on 'Things in the Theatre' includes a defense of theatrical advertisements and a note on music, showing that Spence's interests extend beyond the play itself to the entire ecosystem of the Edwardian theatre. His willingness to consider the perspective of the audience—including its less respectable members—gives his criticism a democratic breadth.

Spence's essays are best read as a series of provocations rather than a systematic treatise. He moves from the critic's desk to the stage to the auditorium, always with an eye for the telling detail and a willingness to puncture pretension. Readers interested in Edwardian theatre history will find a wealth of specific references—to actors, plays, and controversies—but the book's real value lies in its voice: urbane, skeptical, and deeply engaged with the art of the theatre. Spence does not offer a final verdict on the state of the stage, but he provides a model of how to think and write about it with both rigor and wit.