The Washington times., 1904-05-22
Shakespeare.
Some Cogent Reasons Why
He Has Had a DepIoTable
Influence on the English
Stage.


Once. in a moment OF mental aberra-
ton, we accepted the responsible posi-
tion on a literary publication of review
er OF plays-not Of plays in the theater.
but Of plays printed between covers at
the expense OF their optimistic and opu-
lent authors
our brief experience in this capacity
enabled us to make one notable dis
coyery. We state IT briefly and tersely.
The one man who has done the most
harm to the English-speaking stage is
the one man who is by universal YER
dict considered its greatest luminary
No. not Charles Frohman. but william,
Shakespeare.
on. yes, we know you don't believe IT
Few people do believe the truth when
they come suddenly upon it from around
the corner. Let's see IL we can't prove
it,
What Is Dramatic Literature?
Back to the reviewing of the printed
plays.
We assume that their conhding authors
wrote them TO be acted We assume il
because we prefer to believe that the
authors were not foolish in all respects.
This is charity on our part. for you
would never believe It from the PLAYS
These plays were literary products.
No play is really dramatic literature
unless II will act. Literature in order to
be literature has TO accomplish the pur-
pose for which it was written and has
TO make the artistic effect that it was
intended II should make. True Htera-
ture Is always a matter Of effect. not Of
form. Dramatic literature is a matter
OF dramatic effect. and dramatic effect
positively cannot be determined with
out actors and an audience. II II could
De, there would be no failures and no
poverty-stricken managers.
The Matter Expanded.
But, you say, Tennyson and Brown |
Ing wrote beautiful PLAYS. sur
passing literary products, fun of Won
Serful lines, inspiring thoughts d.
hghtful uses of words; and they would |
not act Do you mean to say that they
are not literature?
NO, we simply mean to say that they |
arc not dramatic literature Rhymes |
do not make poetry. No more do lam
gdage, thoughts. or themes make plaN-s
The interplay of character and situa- |
ton is the thing that makes the play. |
and the effect Of this can only be Ge-
termined by acting IL. The test Of all |
NNNAeAN - IT'S ERECT therefore.
repeat that there is no such thing % /
dramatic literature, which will not az,
at least: II there IS, no one can know
II for fact, because no one can tell Cor /
certainty what a dramatic situation i
Is until IL is played before an audience !
That is trifie long-winded. but we /
want to make the point perfectly clear |
to our many critics. We don't want /
them to go away off down the street |
fitting valiantly at windmilis for which |
We are not supplying the breeze.
The Shakespearean Form.
Those printed plays. which we assume
were written for the stage-for no
sensible person would write a play FOR
anything else-were without exception !
oebarred from the modern stage by the |
fact that there were written from a |
constructive standpoint just 800 years
behind the times.
In other words. the authors there II !
followed the example Of the renowned |
William Shakespeare. chased their /
scenes all over lot. had dozens OF them /
in single act, did the kind Of stunts |
that were good enough for a stage |
without n curtain. but which were as
obsolete in the theater Of today us
Noah's Ark would be in the United /
States Navy.
1t is because OF his influence on dra- |
matte construction that we say that |
Shakespeare has done more harm to |
the English-speaking stage than any l
other single influence II these aspir- !
ing dramat!sts had followed Clyde |
Fitch they might not, perhaps. hay' |
proved themselves geniuses. but ct
least they would have turned out act /
able plays.
How it Came About.
Let US review little bit. Shakespeare |
was mounting genius, much ahead of
his time-so far ahead. indeed, that II 1
took the best part OF $50 years for time |
TO catch up with him But, say what /
you will about Shakespeare dramatic /
instinct. his characters. his dialogue. |
you cannot truthfully say that Shake
spCare had any adequate idea of dra- /
matte construction. He did not need 70 /
have. The conditions under which he /
worked did not demand IT,
Oh. we know all about what the schol- |
astic critics have 10 say. We know
what they claim about Shakespeare as
8 construcuonist. Once we pinned one
Of them down where he could not get
away. and the only thing he could
prove regarding Shakespeare's construc-
ton. as the modern stage understands
artistic drama-was that Shakespeare
always allowed time enough for his
characters to do things; II one OF them
left the stage and was expected back,
there was always time enough for the
character TO accomplish the purpose for
which he left the stage before he re-
turned.
Was That Construction?
We acknowledged shat was quite a
trick. and then we asked how Shake
speare filled I'm the time. Our gallant
scholar said by talk, of course. Then
we told him that II modern dramatist
displayed no more invention than that
he wouldn't live long enough to know
that he was dramatist.
As we were about 70 say, the Shake
spearean drama was the only serious
English drama for nearly $50 years-or
at least all the serious drama there
was SO resembled Shakespeare that Il
might Just as well have been Shake
speare as far as construction was con-
cerned.
What happened? All interest in plays
ceased a. H..