rious jolt to a large number of playgoers who
are loath to free themselves from the influences of old traditions.

The relations of ring and stage have been becoming more and more close in
recent years, and have constituted a favorite theme for newspaper
discussion. It is doubtful, however, whether it would be possible to find
a better review of the situation than the following characteristic essay
in dramatic criticism which appeared in the New York _Sun_:

It is long since the playgoers and first-nighters of
Brooklyn had such a treat as was tendered them last season
by the re-appearance of that bright star in the dramatic
constellation, James J. Corbett. Mr. Corbett came back to us
with his new drama, "Pals," an admirable vehicle for the
display of his singular dramatic talents.

The fact that it was the Lenten season marred somewhat the
attendance, otherwise the society folk of Brooklyn might
have made it a brilliant function. Yet Mr. Corbett's welcome
lacked nothing of warmth or appreciation.

Sacrificed Ring to the Drama.

Since the time when, in "The Naval Cadet," Mr. Corbett took the American
Theater by storm, his art has broadened and deepened. It is an older, a
more mature, dare it be said a shiftier, Corbett who returns to us. So
often of late has the assertion been made that Mr. Corbett is the best
actor in the pugilist division of the stage that it is time for a
comparison between his art and that of those other eminent gentlemen who
have left the ring for the everlasting good of the drama, Messrs. John
Lawrence Sullivan, Terence McGovern, James E. Britt, and J. John Jeffries.

It is true that any comparison between the art of these five eminent
artists must be superficial, and to a certain extent banal, owing to the
diversity of the dramas by which they have seen fit to show forth their
talents.

The stanch art, honest and straightforward as a right swing, of "Honest
Hearts and Willing Hands," is not to be compared to the romantic yet often
superficial "Bowery After Dark," which Mr. Terence McGovern has so ably
interpreted, and neither can be compared exactly with the jarring
right-cross force of Mr. Jeffries's "Davy Crockett."

As those who observe Mr. Corbett practising his now abandoned profession
of pugilism have remarked, he is characteristically lacking in repose of
manner. In this, he is distinctly inferior to Mr. J. Lawrence Sullivan.
John L.--on th