New-York tribune., 1916-04-22

There arc many passages IN SNAKE
speare's plays which reveal them
selves as hastily written, in which
the STYLE is not level with the topic
and in which the meaning IS not clear.
There are other passages in which
the metaphor is absurdly mixed
and in which men take up arms
against a sea Of troubles or seek
the bubble reputation in the can
mons mouth" Slips of this sort
are rarely discovcrable in the writ
ings Of faultless artists in verse, in
Vergil, for example, or in Pope.
HIS MATERIAL
Hasty at times in his style
Shakespeare is also on occasion
careless in his choice Of subjects
and in the construction of his plots.
In at least half a dozen plays,
notably in Measure for Measure
and "Alrs Well That Ends Well,
the stories are wholly unworthy OF
his genius, gross in incident and
repugnant in temper. Probably
even Shakespeare, with his utmost
effort, could not have so handled
these topics as TO make sincere and
convincing plays. Certainly he did
not spend his utmost effort on
them; and these plays remain amor
phous and empty, relatively unin-
teresting both on the stage and in
the study. It is characteristic OF
Shakespeare that his artistic inter
est kindled only when he had a
theme at once fertile and congenial,
and that then he shrank from none
Of the labor necessary 70 solve the
problems Of construction and con-
trast and climax. letting his
imagination joyfully create char
acters instantly and permanently
vital. and, in short, putting forth
his full power and letting loose all
the might OF his genius. In less
than half OF his twoscore plays do
we feel that Shakespeare has done
his best. and these are the dramatic
masterpieces which continue TO be
REPRESENTED in the theatre and 20
be read in the library and upon
which his fame is imperishably
founded. In not less than a quarter
OF his plays we find the evidences
of his genius so infrequent and so
enfeebled that if these pieces had
not been preserved his reputation
would not be appreciably dimin-
ished.
THE DRAMATIST.
Now, if Shakespeare was not a
profound scholar nor an original
thinker nor an impeccablc artist,
what was he2 Well, at his best,
when he had story which inspired
him, he was one OF the most adroit
Of playwrights, peopling his pieces
with characters who, when we have
once become acquainted with them,
remain with us as friends forever,
and putting into the mouths OF
these characters an almost unfail-
ing flow OF poetry. of imagination
all compact.
In a dozen at least OF his plays
Shakespeare reveals himself as a
master OF stagecraft. He had
studied the secrets Of dramaturgic
technique in the place and in the
manner where they can be most
readily scized-on the stage itself
ard in the presence OF spectators.
Shakespeare was an actor, al
though, so far as we can judge, he
was not a performer Of varied his
trionic capacity, since he seems 70
have contented himself with dig
nihed parts demanding intelligence
and elocution rather than FIRE Yet
the experience OF the actor must
have been as useful TO the author
In the case OF Shakespeare as in
the case OF Moliere and Sophocles
Because he was an actor he was
allowed 10 become one of the mana
gers. and he served as hack play
wright for the company, patching
up old plays and making over
popular pieces which were getting
out OF fashion. Experimenting in
cessantly, he learned all the tricks
Of the trade slowly, making himself
in time a master OF the difficult art
OF playmaking.
Playwrights, like poets, are born
and not made, but, like poets again.
they have to be made after they
are born. Shakespeare adapted at
first and then ventured 70 compose
pieces Of his own. more or less in
imitation Of the successful plays OF
his contemporaries. Lyly and
Greene, Marlowe and Kyd-just rs
Sophocles initiated Kschylus and
just as Moliere initiated the comic
playwrights Of Italy. BY this ex-
Fermentation he mastered the mys-