The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-03-23
Nathan and Phelps on
the Modern Theatre
By BARRETT H. CLARK.

AN tempteu 10 compare anu ieeoh
l. cile" two critics of our modern thea
tire, two widely divergent points of view,
two irreconcilable theories of life and art.
Mr.. George Jean Nathan and Prof. Will
lam Lyon Phelps are poles apart and their
recent books, The Popular Theatre and
The Twentieth Century Theatre, are as
different, one from another, as two books
could well be.
It is odd, to say the least. in looking over
these interesting contributions to a topic
about which there will always be argyll
ment to find the champion of amusement
in the theatre a man of deep purposes, Of
almost morbid seriousness, and the pro-
fessor, who has often been depicted by
Mr.. Nathan as staid and respectable gen
tleman laying down the law to his Yale
students, bland man Of the world, advO
eating his notions with perfect good ma
ture and without the least trace of dogma
tism. Nathan seems eteTnally to be dis
guising the fact that he is in deadly ear
nest and Phelps the fact that he is not.
Of course they are both in earnest, but
Nathan wouldn't for the world be thought
professorial-henceh his frank praise of
the leg show-and Phelps wouldn't for
the world Though his fear is not so great
as Nathan'sl be considered liippant.
Mr.. Nathan's The Popular Theatre is
view of the American stage as it is-ac-
cording to the authors view of the situa-
tion. His message, reduced TO the space
of single paragraph, is this:
"The theatre is. simply, plainly -and
IN the soundest critical deiinition-a place
where we'll educated, well bred, well fed
man may find something TO divert him
pleasantly for n couple of hours. And
how is this well educated, well bred, well
fed man to be diverted! Certainly not by
so-called intellectual drama, for II he de-
sired intellectual stimulation he would 20
TO lecture chamber or Il cOmradely ale
clinic or stay at home and read. Ger
tainly not by an ostentatiOus spectacle of
good manners, for good manners are no
novelty to him, and did he crave an i'm
mediate pageant of them, all he would need
do is call 'upon one of his friends. Ger
tainly not fine literature, for fine litera
ture is less a diversion TO him than regu-
lar habit. And certainly not by any an
alagous thing that is part and parcel of
his routine. What he wants is the oppo-
site Of that TO which he is accustomed.
In brief, diversion by contrast, by aesthetic
shock And this is what he looks TO the
theatre to provide him.
For nearly 240 pages our earnest critic,
disguised sometimes as buffoOn and some
times as a Chestertonian paradox Juggler,
but always evident as a very earnest and
high minded conservative, turns the Amer
lean theatre inside out, exposing every
sort of affectatioD and insincerity. The Sc
rious theatre is for the bourgeoise, the
"moral' play for the pretentious, the sim
moral" play for the Comstockian-to sup
press. After all his idea is essentially sane,
though not at all new. Indeed, the book,
with all its elaborate machinery set in mo-
ton epdter e bourgeois, is incOntrOvertl-
bly, sound. 1t may irritate, the author in
tended that it should irritste, but it is
damnably convincing.
The Phelps book is neither an endeavor
to hit you over the head by arguments,
however sound, nor 10 jostle You into