The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-03-25
CLASSIC DRAMA AND BOREDOM
"DON KARLOS" AS A RITE AND
AS A SOLEMNITY.

anu LdhB hoAhb-
keit-Mansfield a. Don KarlOs'-"The
Greater Love-" Mozart and ID. Shaw.
Reverence for a great actor and q great
dramatist are suffering q severe strain at
the New Amsterdam. That Richard Mans
field "a to-day the foremost English speak
ing tragedian and one Of the great his
trionio R~eniuses Of all time, is no more to be
questioned than that Schiller is a world
dramatist OF all but the very first order.
Yet IL anything could shake ones faith in
these ~verities it would be the conjunction
into which the present production OF Don
Karloss has brought them. For the simple
truth is, first. that this play is one Of the
most impossible propositions for the theatre
that ever emanated from the s~tupendously
impractical genius Of classical Germany;
and second, that even its few dramatic posi-
hlities are almost diabolically calculated
to serve as a bushel to Mr.. Mansield's proper
light. That in producing the play the actor
was inspired by a great and worthy ambi-
ton Ia not to be questioned: but all the more
In the fact OF its production an ~inscrutable
mystery.
The practical disqualifcations OF the
piece are no secret, even to the German
mind; Schiller himself acknowledged many
Of them. The most obvious of these is its
length. To say that it numbers $50 lines
10 to give a very vague idea OF its magnitude
A concrete comparison will perhaps go
further. The leviathan Of the English
drama is Hamlet, which is SOY long that
to present it on the modern stage in its
entirety is a sheer impossibility. Mr.. Ben
Greet has given the whole text in a soeneless
production, in languid California, yet even
at that he was obliged to call half time for
rest and dinner. But Don Karlos" Is
more than half again as long. Hamlet
and Macbeth" together, or Hamlet and
sJulius Cesar" could be given in only a
quarter to half an hour more than would be
required for Don karlos." Schiller him
eelf described his play not as a drama, but
rs a dramatic poem"
This matter of length is of vital impor-
tance in the theatre. 1t is not, as Mr.. Pinero
would nave us believe, n mere question OF
late dinners and suburban rains Eliza
bethan London was g~uiltless of either of
these, and yet it is evident that Shakespeare
out Hamlet" considerably for actual pre-
eentation, ] at az Pinero did Lefty" and
the esthetio result in the playhouse was as
clearly q gain in the one case a. in the other.
The fact is that the human mind is not
capable of any long continued response to
Rsthetic stimulus. In the case of q novel,
or Of a dramatic poem, the reader returns to
the attack from time to time with faculties
refreshed; but the practical dramatist is
in the plight Of the tiger, who, according to
Byron, captures his quarry with one leap or
not at all. The importance of scale is a.
great in the drama az in sculpture or archi-
tecture-where it is acknowledged to be the
primary technical consideration. A play
that is too long for the responsive power Of
the human mind is as inept az a statue that
is too large for it's room or a window that is
too large for its wall. The fathers of the
German language showed a deeper appre-
citation of this than the fathers of the German
drama--who never seem to have understood
why lanpueilio means tedious and dull.
Even the German classics of the first
order, great dramas. and on the whole
actable dramas -"Wallensteih, Wilhelm
Tell" Faust" itself are elephantine when
compared to the masterpieces of any other
country. Sophocles and Calderon, Mo-
liere, Shakespeare. and even Ibsen in his
highest development. all respected soTupu-
lousy this matter of scale.
1t is true that Schiller made stage adapta-
tons Of dor Karlos, first a prose version,
and later a poetic retrenchment, which
has aimee been further abbreviated; but
the task here was of IA different order from
that of Shakespeare or Pinero. To reduce
Hamlet" or Lefty to practical proper
tions called for the sacrifice of a compara-
lively small fraction of the t~eHt-matters
Of minor importance. No possible stage
version Of "Don Karlos" can give much
more than half of the original, 80 that its
very vitals go by the board. Even a. acted
In Germany the play greatly exceeded
Mr.. Mansfield teNt-or any text, in fact,
which is a practical possibility on our stage.
The production on view at the New Am
sterdam bear the same relation to "A well
rounded drama as the ruins Of the Parthe-
non bear to the perfect work Of Phidius.
Even as a dramatic poem, moreove r,
sDon Karlos" is very far from Phidian
excellence in form. 1t ia. in fact, a virtual
abortion; and of this, too, Schiller was well
aware. His first conception of it was al
a mere drama of royal life, centIing in the
fate Of a prince, KarIos, son of Philip II, Of
Spain, who was in love with his stepmother
the Princes own affianCed bride, of whon
q tyrannous father had bereft him. 1t
was according to this conception tina he
planned the play, in l7S3, when he was "a
years old, and executed the first portion
of it. The influence of Hamlet in Schiller's
portrait Of Kdr rios has been very generally
recognized, and it may be questioned
whether his main scheme was not a better
one than that which Shakespeare inherited
from Kyd-and especially for the purposes
OF romantic drama. Certainly it blends the
Princes love motive very effectively with
his antagonism to the King. combining
Gertrude and Ophelid, as it were. into a single
dominant heroine. But Schiller presently
laid the play aside.
1t was only three years before he returned
to it, and he completed it in 1887. But he
was developing fast and was already a diff
ferent man. The end OF the play forgot
the beginning.
It has been said that Schiller had ceased
to be interested in the Hamlet idea. 1t is
certain that the plan according to which
he had started in to develop his love story
brought him to a speedy impdsse. In
essentially worthy natures such a love az