For its first play of the four to be given in Boston, the Moscow Art Theatre, the most famous repertory theatre in the world, chose the rambling, pseudochronicle history play of Alexei Tolstoy, "Tsar Fyodor Ivanovitch", as has been its custom in New York and Chicago. The play affords manifold opportunities for spectacle and ensemble work, manifold chances for actors and director. These were more than taken advantage of by players and producers. A more beautifully grouped, paused, acted, and costumed production Boston has seldom seen. This much is plain in spite of the difficulties of a foreign tongue. There are those who believe that true enjoyment can not be had from these Russians because the plays are given in their tongue. The fullest enjoyment is, of course, obviously impossible. Matters of speech, matters of reading can not be followed. Translations read before witnessing the productions become the necessary makeshift for following the play. But in such a production as that of the "Tsar Fyodor" there are other joys than those afforded by the actual dialogue. In the performance the looseness and the weakness of the play pass unnoticed. In fact, viewed under the conditions just described the play itself, with its study of the weak Tsar and the plotting Boris, becomes of secondary interest.

In its place comes the production and the acting. The company changes from performance to performance. The cast seen on Tuesday afternoon was not the cast seen on Monday night. Katchaloff had replaced Moskvin as the Tsar, Stanislavsky was cost as Shouisky in the place of Luzhsky, Yershoff was playing Boris instead of Vishnevsky, and Madame Pashennaya played the Tsarina in the place of Madame Tchekhova. The performance at the Tuesday matince was no doubt not quite as interesting as the one on the opening night, though the Shouisky of Stanislavsky was outstanding, as was the Boris of Yershoff. Disappointment came in the Tsar as played by Katchaloff. There was no pitiable quality of his weakness, the emphasis seemed almost to go on the comic aspects of his futility. That was the tendency until the last act, when the actor held his audience spell-bound with sympathy. Then, too, the Tsarina of Madame Pashennaya did not have the plasticity that Madame Tchekhova could have brought to it. The remarkable thing about the Moscow Art Theatre Company is that the minor characters as well as the principals stand out as finely etched character studies. The Golub, Junior, of Alexei Grizunoff, and the garrulous centenarian of Mikhail Tarkhanoff were typically finished minor parts.

Equally amazing as some of the individual acting, if not more so, is the group or ensemble work of the company as a whole. In the crowded stage scenes each actor seems to be part of a subtly arranged picture, without any consciousness of posing to form a picture. There is no mere attitudinizing for effect. Hands, arms and legs, the curve of the bodies seem to flow naturally from position to position, working out on the stage fine effects of composition, corresponding to the mood of the play at the moment. From grouping to grouping the actors move, and yet one never feels that here one definite grouping is over and here the next one beings. There is an unrivalled flow, and contiuuity, beauty and rhythm in the stage direction. Particularly memorable were the kneeling figures of the delegates from Moscow at the end of the second act, and the Tsar and Tsarina, with the beggars at one side, at the end of the fifth act. And mention must be made of the costumes. Rarely has a play been set with the beauty and display of brilliance that one sees here. In fact, if the Moscow players can extract so much from a play of the type of Tolstoy's "Tsar Fyodor", and can hold an audience enthralled that does not understand the language, one looks forward eagerly to their playing of "The Lower Depths", "The Three Sisters", and "The Cherry Orchard".