The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-10-07
Shakespeare and the Modern Drama.

There is periodically an attempt to have
a "shakespearean revival" on the modern
stage, and 1t always becomes evident that
such a revival is only successful when an
actor of undoubted genius makes 1t SO.
The student of the drama wonders why
this should be SO, and also why modern
playwrights, though they are never able
TO equal the great master of the English
drema, produce plays which can be acted
by people OF mere talent and draw great
audiences. The success OF the latter is
cot due to the bad taste of the public,
bee, use the productions are often really
artistic and fine, and no fault can be
found with them by the most severe critic
But the fact remains that the average
actor cannot act Shakespeare in such
way as to please the audiences. while he
can do roles created by modern play
wrights In a pleasing and artistic way.
There is a possible reason for this in
the fact that more than three hundred
years have elapsed since the first pro-
duction of "Hamlet,'' king Lear" and
the rest of the Immortal group of dramas
wrought in the days of Elizabeth. The
conditions under which those plays were
written may have something to do with
heir greatness, and also with the fact
that the average player is not equal to
their demands.
When Shakespeare wrote his dramas
stage properties and costumes were of the
SIMPLEST kind. The audience OF the Eliza
bethan age supplied the lack of these by
imagination-the quick fancy OF people
but newly emerged from childhood. When
they saw pretty boy come on the stage
as Juliet or Rosalind, they put up with
his defects of voice and gesture, and he
became TO them the embodiment Of
charming phase OF womsnhood. But II
took either the imagination Of the audi
ence or the magnetic power of the actor
to produce this effect. Hence Shakespeare,
writing his plays to suit these conditions,
with the u1erring instinct of the great
artist who feels the spirit of his age
and brings himself into conformity with
IL, so shaped his productions that they
would be effective in the old Globe The
atre. He put into his lines descriptive
anu pnllOsopuiCdA pdSSdBeS WHICH On1y
the finest art can now save from becoming
tedious, but which, to the ElizabetEan
audience, were alive with meaning. Fancy,
for example. THE Tempest" being played
with the meagre properties in use in the
sixteenth century! There was certainly
need of an Ariel and Prospero to ex-
plain matters. Moreover, the actor, be-
ing unable to depend upon properties or
scenery for any Of his effects, was COM
PEELED TO do great deal of acting in order
to make his role effective at ALL
Plays written. for such audiences and
such actors are necessarily different
from any which would be written In q
later time, when the costuming and
setting have become complicated When
the middle OF the eighteenth century
came, with It's elaborate dressing, cos
tuning began to play its part in the
dramatic art. The London world was a
world Of clothes, on the stage and CT.
aad we find constant references to the
costumes Of the actors. Shakespeare
seldom refers to anything worn by any
character in his plays. He depended
for his effects on the simple, primal
emotions. Sheridan and his contem-
porsries used the contrasts between