Letters: Aug. 20, 1928

• Share

Terry's Children

Sirs:

Thanks for the pleasure of TIME which is the only magazine I subscribe to but—please be more careful of statements if you must make them in place of queries. In this week's July 30 notice of Miss Terry are two errors. I. You will find that the father of her children was not Charles Wardell if you care to enquire. II. She did not '"detest" American audiences but adored them and they her. Henry Irving was more appreciated here even than in England therefore there is no base for such an assertion. Both Miss Terry and Irving deplored the fact that England did not appreciate Booth and when he failed there most pathetically, Irving made Booth act in his theatre and share his honors as the great artist and gentleman he was. This as a beau jeste to Americans whom he was most grateful to and has never tired of acknowledging that same great debt. No! No! No! Ellen Terry did not "detest" American audiences. It is sacrilege to say so.

ARTHUR WILLIAM Row Manhattan

It is stated by Forrest Izzard in Heroines of the Modern Stage that the father of Gordon Craig and Ailsa Craig, borne by Actress Ellen Terry, was Charles Wardell. Others have made this statement; many persons credit it. Let Arthur William Row name the father of Ellen Terry's children, if he can. If it is difficult to name the father of a lady's children, it is equally difficult to estimate posthumously her detestations. It is certain that Ellen Terry, toward the end of her life, sent messages of felicitation to U. S. admirers. Those, however, who knew her well acknowledge that she cherished a perhaps well-merited resentment against U. S. theatre-goers. This resentment has been recorded in journals or elsewhere.—ED.

Egypt for Revenue

Sirs: In your otherwise accurate article on Egypt (TIME, July 30, p. 13) occurs the following: "If Great Britain abandoned them to true independence, they would again fall prey to some other Power—which Power would then control the Suez Canal. . . . For this reason the British Foreign Office has honestly and without hypocrisy proclaimed that control of Egypt is, for the British Empire, a measure of self defense." Five years' residence in Cairo, and conversations with British officials in many Departments prove to me that you credit them with a candor which they are far from claiming themselves. The Suez Canal is a mere pretext, and is so admitted by British officials. Nothing would be easier than to fortify a zone on either side of the canal, instead of garrisoning the whole Nile Valley for two thousand miles. No other Power could possibly interfere. With its Mediterranean Base at Malta, the British Navy always has, and always will, control the sea, and would have no difficulty in maintaining a Monroe Doctrine for Egypt. On both sides Egypt is flanked by a limitless desert which no army could cross. . . . The British rule Egypt well; make no mistake about that. But it is for Empire revenue, not for self-defense. Even the Egyptians are beginning to see the military absurdity of the plea that it is necessary to occupy Khartoum in order to keep Mussolini out of Alexandria.

WILLIAM A. EDDY American University, Cairo, Egypt

Ben Boswell