66

If the manager, who was likely to be also a leading actor as well as the deviser of the plots, had happened to read the Italian story out of which Shakspere made Romeo and Juliet," he might have "cast" it to such a company as this, discarding the tragic termination, emphasizing the romantic aspects and providing opportunities for the clowning of the comedians. Pantaleone would have had a quarrel with the Doctor. Lelio would have been the son of Pantaleone, and Leonora would be the daughter of the Doctor. The man who played the "old women" would be the nurse of Leonora; and the Captain would swagger as the cousin or brother of Leonora, whom Lelio would kill in a duel. Franceschina would be the serving-maid of Leonora, and Pulcinella would be the valet of Lelio. The manager-author would call the company together and explain to each the relation he was supposed to bear toward all the others. Then he would indicate the sequence of scenes in the several acts; and this scenario, as it was called, would be written out and pinned up behind the scenes. The play might begin with a violent altercation between Pantaleone and the Doctor; but this would be no difficult demand upon either performer, since they had often quarrelled in earlier plays. A little later might come a long love-scene for Lelio and Leonora: and this again would be no novelty, since he had been making love to her in almost every other piece since he joined the company. Lelio had in stock a dozen perfervid declarations of devotion; and Leonora had by experience a dozen different ways of receiving his declaration.

In this fashion, the story of the loves of Romeo and Juliet might be unrolled by means of these stock

figures, each of which retained his own name always and his own individuality. And in this same fashion, any other story, tragic or comic, might be represented by a similar company of Italian comedians, accustomed to one another, and realizing the advantages of conscientious "team-play." The unchanging and highly colored type, which any one of these comedians impersonated and made his own, has an obvious likeness to the bishop or knight or any other piece of a set of chessmen, whose rights and privileges are strictly limited and absolutely invariable, but who can be set in motion in varied and limitless relations with the other pieces.

That the Italians were able to interest audiences, generation after generation, with primitive plots of this kind in which character was subordinated to story, is added evidence that action is of primary importance in the theater. But the pieces these Italians improvised abundantly had only a fleeting vogue. Nothing except depth and sincerity of character-drawing can endow a play with the enduring merit which will resist the inevitable changes of theatrical fashion. The "Romeo and Juliet" of Shakspere survives to-day, as vital as when it was first acted, because its two foremost figures are eternal types of the heedless and headstrong passion of ardent youth.

CHAPTER IX

THE LOGIC OF CONSTRUCTION

You are not going to make or ruin your imagination while here. That is something that will remain if you have it in you; that you cannot acquire if you are not blessed with it. But here you may learn to handle your tools. So measure, copy, plumb. A carpenter who constantly uses a foot-rule can guess the length of a foot better than one who seldom refers to it. AUGUSTUS SAINT-GAUDENS,

to his pupils, as reported by Homer Saint-Gaudens.

I

than

THE technic of the drama is more difficult to grasp the technic of prose-fiction, because the novelist needs to consider his readers only, whereas the dramatist has always to consider his actors, his theater, and his audience. When we contrast the constructive faculty required by the playmaker with that which we tolerate in the story-teller, we are led to the conclusion that the novel may be the product of unskilled labor, whereas the play must be the work of a craftsman who has learned his trade and acquired the mastery of his tools. Many a modern novel in the English language, more than one of Dickens's, is a sprawling invertebrate. The conduct of the story is haphazard; and we may guess that the author modified his earlier intentions more than once in the course of his writing. Scott began "Woodstock" without knowing how he was going to end it; and he recorded in his journal that when he had finished the first of the three volumes in which

the story was originally published, he was at a loss to find matter for the second volume.

Now, the playwright cannot take things in this easy-going fashion. He needs a subject strong enough to carry him through, since charm of treatment and diversity of incident will avail him little, if his theme is not interesting in itself. He cannot rely on constructed decoration; he can only decorate his construction. As the shrewd Voltaire insisted, the success of a play depends very largely on the subject chosen. This subject must, as Aristotle tells us, have a certain magnitude, that is to say, it cannot be trivial or casual; and it must have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Moreover, it must be conducted from the beginning through the middle to the end, as directly as may be. The story cannot straggle into by-paths; it cannot meander into backwaters; it must move forward steadily and irresistibly, setting before the spectators the essential scenes of the essential struggle. The elder Dumas once declared that the secret of success on the stage was to make "the first act clear, the last act short, and all the acts interesting." This is no easy feat; and it can be achieved only by a scrupulous forethought akin to that employed by the architect in designing a building for a special purpose on a special plot of land. The dramatist must accept the obligations thus imposed, and he must meet them as best he can; for it is in meeting them that he fails or triumphs.

Many years ago, before he had adventured himself in playwriting, Mr. Henry James stated the case with his customary insight.

"Between a poor drama and a fine one, there is," he said, 'a wider interval than anywhere else in the scale of success.