CORNELL UNIVEKSITY LIBRARY 
 
 ENGLISH COLLECTION 
 
 THE ClIFT OF 
 
 JAMES MORGAN HART 
 
 PROFESSOR OF ENGUSH 
 
Cornell University Library 
 PN 2589.A67 
 
 3 1924 026 121 214 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924026121214 
 
RECENT NAPOLEONIC LITERATURE 441 
 
 was not twenty-three when his brother made him king 
 of Westphalia — than he is, in ' The Grand Duchy of Berg,' 
 on Caroline Murat, whose morals were not much better 
 than those of her young brother. "With regard to his 
 criticisms of Jerome's 'baseness' to Miss Paterson, 
 Jerome was only a boy when he contracted his illegal 
 marriage in America, and in consenting to its annulment 
 he was only aping the ways of ruling families more 
 ancient than the Bonapartes. We wonder if the author 
 is aware that it was at the Pavilion at Brighton, 
 in the town of Mrs Fitzherbert, that English society 
 showed its sympathy for the basely treated ' Mrs Pater- 
 son, late Madame Jerome Bonaparte,' who danced in the 
 royal quadrille at Princess Charlotte's birthday party. 
 A point of more legitimate historical interest, which 
 might have been mentioned in connexion with Jerome 
 being made a king and his consequent marriage with 
 Princess Catherine of Wiirtemberg, is that, after the death 
 of Princess Charlotte, the issue of the ex-king and queen 
 of Westphalia would have been close to the succession 
 to the British Crown, had the belated marriages of 
 George Ill's sons proved barren — Catherine being grand- 
 daughter of Augusta, elder daughter of Frederick, Prince 
 of Wales. 
 
 Our space does not permit us to do more than mention 
 the book which stands last on our list, 'Napoleon k 
 Bayonne.' It is a detailed account from local chronicles, 
 most of which had never seen the light before, of 
 Napoleon's sojourn at Bayonne, where he arrived on 
 April 14, 1808, and took up his quarters at the Chateau 
 de Marrac, which he did not leave until he had sent 
 thence the Spanish royal family into exile at Valen^ay, 
 and had placed Joseph on their throne. This most 
 interesting narrative of the turning-point of .Napoleon's 
 career, to which his eventual downfall may be traced, is 
 the work of a writer little known to fame even in his 
 native land. M. Dac^r6, the sub-librarian of the city of 
 Bayonne, is an example of those modest functionaries, 
 often found in 'the French provinces, who, with great 
 industry and literary skill supply historians with material 
 of the highest value without reaping any public reward 
 for their services. 
 
( Art. VIII.— THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE. 
 
 1. Die Shakespeare-Buhne nach den alien Buhnenanweis- 
 ungen. Von Dr Cecil Brodmeier. V^eimar : Buchmann, 
 1904. 
 
 2. Prolegomena zu einer Darstellung der englischen Volks- 
 biihne zur Elisabeth^ und Stuart-Zeit. Von Dr Paul 
 Monkemeyer. Hannover und Leipzig : Hahn'sche Buch- 
 handlung, 1905. 
 
 3. Die Buhneneinrielitung des Shakespeareschen Theaters 
 nach den zeitgenossischen Dravien. Von Dr Richara 
 Wegener. Halle : Niemeyer, 1907. 
 
 4. Smne Principles of Elizabethan Staging : a Dissertation 
 submitted to the Graduate School of Arts and Literature. 
 By George F. Reynolds. Chicago : The University of 
 Chicago Press, 1905. 
 
 5. The Development of Shakespeare as a Dramatist. By 
 George Pierce Baker, Professor of English in Harvard 
 University. London and New York : Macmillan, 1907. 
 
 6. The Stage of the Globe. By E. K. Chambers. (Appendix 
 to vol. X of 'The Works of William Shakespeare.') 
 Stratford-on-Avon : The Shakespeare Head Press, 1904. 
 
 One of the main tendencies of modern thought has been 
 to emphasise the intimate relationship between an 
 organism and its environment, and the impossibility of 
 thoroughly understanding the one apart from the other. 
 In the field of literature, the drama is so manifestly and 
 peculiarly a product of social conditions that the criticism 
 which considered Shakespeare as a sort of isolated 
 niiracle has long ago been discredited and abandoned. 
 No one now denies that the Elizabethan drama must be 
 seen in its true perspective, as a part of English history, 
 before its meaning and value can be properly estimated. 
 But in the case of drama, as distinct from other forms of 
 literature, there is a material as well as an intellectual 
 and social environment to be taken into account. A play 
 is destined for performance in a theatre, and a practical 
 playwright can no more disregard the actual structure 
 of hia stage than a composer can disregard the range and 
 quality of the instrument for which he is writing. There 
 are innumerable cases in which, if we want to grasp a 
 
THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 443 
 
 dramatist's reason for doing thus, or thus, and not oth^r- 
 wifeie, we must recall in imagination the actual mechanism 
 of performance which he had in view. Hence the keen 
 interest which scholars have tal^en in investigating the 
 true structure of the Attic theatre in the fifth century, 
 which has been obscured by the facile acceptance of 
 unauthoritative traditions, and by deductions from archi- 
 teOtttral remains of a later period. But our knowledge, 
 of the Greek theatre is not a whit more imperfect than 
 our knowledge of the English theatre before the Civil 
 War. The theatrical manners and customs of the period 
 have -been to some extent studied, and imaginative his- 
 torians, founding on passages from prologues, espilqgues, 
 • inductions,' and pamphlets, have drawn animated . pic- 
 tures of the typical Elizabethan audience. But, what- 
 ever the value of these pictures, they deal with social, 
 not with technical, conditions — with the environment ' in 
 front of the house,' as we should nowadays put it. Of 
 the structure of the stage and the actual mechanism 
 of presentation, little is known with any approach to , 
 certainty. The need for such knowledge, however, is 
 now vividly realised in many quarters. Investigations 
 are being made, points of controversy are being minutely 
 scrutinised, and it is not unreasonable to hope that a 
 thorough sifting of the evidence may before long enable 
 us to reconstruct the main outlines of the Eliza|jethan 
 stage, even if certain details must always remain obscure. 
 The need for thorough investigation has been brought 
 home to us, not only from the literary, but from the 
 theatrical side. The modem 'Shakespearean revival,' 
 with its gorgeous scenery, its spectacular^ interludes, and, 
 in many cases, its ruthless mangling pf the text, is 
 evidently quite unlike anything foreseen or intended by 
 Shakespeare. The question whether, if he could have 
 foreseen, he would have approved, need not be here dis- 
 cussed. One may hold that he would not entirely have 
 disapproved, and may yet sympathise with those who 
 wish to see his plays performed, occasionally at any rate, 
 under stage conditions more nearly approaching those 
 which he must have had in his mind's eye. From this 
 desire various artistic enterprises have taken rise. We 
 have had in England the meritorious Elizabethian Stage 
 Society, directed for many years by Mr William Poel. 
 
444 THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 
 
 Several American universities have made efforts in the 
 same direction, and one or two German theatres, notably 
 the Court Theatre at Munich, have given numerous per- 
 formances on what they call a ' Shakespeare-Biihne.' 
 But there has been a striking lack of unanimity as to 
 the precise characteristics of the ' Shakespeare-Biihne ' ; 
 and the English performances, at any rate, were arranged 
 with an arbitrariness, often bordering on eccentricity, 
 which greatly impaired their value as serious reconstruc- 
 tive endeavours. All these experiments, in fact, have 
 proved little or nothing, except the urgent need for that 
 systematic examination of all the data of the case which 
 cannot now be long delayed. 
 
 Partial and provisional efforts in this direction have 
 already been made, and we propose to pass in review 
 some of the more recent studies of the subject. All 
 except one brief essay are of German or American 
 origin. In England, investigation has not got much 
 beyond the point at which Collier and Halliwell-Phillipps 
 left it. Mr E. K, Chambers' admirable work on ' The 
 Mediaeval Stage ' stops short, as its title imports, on the 
 threshold of the Renaissance. The one English essay 
 that stands on our list * comes also from the pen of Mr 
 Chambers, and appears among the appendices to the 
 Stratford-on-Avon Shakespeare. It runs to no more 
 than ten pages ; and in such a space it is impossible to 
 go very deep into this complicated enquiry. Mr Chambers 
 may be said rather to summarise its difficulties than to 
 offer any solution of them. His criticisms of certain 
 German and American theories are very acute ; but his 
 attempt to argue away the pillars which are commonly 
 conceived to have supported the ' shadow ' or half -roof 
 over the stage of the ' public ' theatres strikes us as more 
 daring than successful. His exposition of the probability 
 of a wide divergence in the arrangements of different 
 theatres seems, on the face of it, convincing; but the 
 tendency of investigation is to rebut this initial proba- 
 bility, and to encourage the belief that the great majority 
 of dramatists, in constructing their pieces, kept in view 
 a normal or typical stage. There are exceptions, especi- 
 
 • Mention should be made, however, of several learned and valuable 
 papers contributed (in English) to the German periodicals 'Anglla' and 
 ' Englisehe Studien," by Mr W. J. Lawrence, of Dublin. 
 
THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 445 
 
 ally in plays written for the ' Children of Paul's,' but 
 they are not more than sufficient to prove the rule. 
 
 Among the German studies, Dr Paul Mdnkemeyer's 
 dissertation, though not the first in order of time, may 
 conveniently be treated first. It is quite rightly entitled, 
 ' Prolegomena zu einer Darstellung der englischen Volks- 
 biihne.' It consists of three chapters, preliminary to a 
 larger work which the author has in hand. The first 
 deals with «The stage of the English popular drama 
 before the erection of permanent theatres in London 
 (1576).' It is, in fiact, a careful survey of the transition 
 from the medieval mystery-stage to the stage of Shake- 
 speare's immediate predecessors. This is an essential part 
 of any thoroUgh-going enquiry, and Dr Monkemeyer's 
 treatment of it is very intelligent and suggestive. The 
 second and third chapters consist of a general examination 
 of the material with which the student has to deal, and 
 consideration of its evidential value. Much that the author 
 has to say on this point is sufficiently obvious, and yet has 
 been very commonly overlooked. He insists, for example, 
 on the fact that plays acted only at Court, or at one of the 
 universities, cannot be cited in evidence of the practices of 
 the regular theatres. Malone'sf undamental error in believ- 
 ing that the Elizabethan stage, like the modern stage, could 
 be shut off by a front curtain, arose from his neglect of 
 this obvious principle. He based his belief mainly on the 
 line, 'Now draw the curtaines for our scene is done,' 
 which occurs at the end of • Tancred and Gismunda '—a 
 play never acted (it would seem) by professional players, 
 but presented by the gentlemen of the Inner Temple 
 before Queen Elizabeth in 1568. It is clear that from 
 such a play as this no deductions are to be drawn with 
 reference to the common * stage. A more difficult ques- 
 tion arises in the case of certain plays as to which our 
 information is insufficient. For instance, Dr Monkemeyer 
 would reject 'The Divil's Charter,' by Barnabe Barnes, 
 which was published in 1607, ' As it was plaide before the 
 King's Majestie, upon Candlemasse night last : by his 
 Majesties Servants. But more exactly renewed, corrected 
 and augmented since by the Author, for the more pleasure 
 
 * We say 'common' rather than 'public' stage, for the latter term 
 involves an ambiguity in this context, and should be resei'ved for the 
 'public' or unroofed as distinct from the ' private ' or covered theatres. 
 
448 THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 
 
 and profit of the Reader.' Clearly the evidence of such a 
 play is to be accepted with caution; but we think Dr 
 Monkemeyer would be wrong to disregard it entirely. It 
 is incredible that the actors should have reserved this 
 lurid melodrama for the Court alone ; and the author s 
 revision probably consisted in elaborating the dialogue 
 rather than in altering or adding to the ' business.' In 
 writing the stage-directions, which are unusually full, 
 Barnes certainly had actual performance in his minds 
 eye; and his directions in nowise conflict with the 
 general mass of evidence as to the possibilities and 
 practices of the common stage. On the whole, we 
 should be inclined to rank as admissible evidence any 
 play by a dramatist of experience which was certainly 
 written with a view to theatrical performance, and not 
 solely as a Court entertainment. This principle would 
 apply, for example, to Shirley's ' St Patrick for Ireland,' 
 which Monkemeyer would apparently reject on the ground 
 that it is not known to have been acted elsewhere than in 
 Dublin. If the stage-directions in such a play flagrantly 
 contradicted our other evidence, we should no doubt be 
 justified in rejecting them ; but when no such contradic- 
 tion occurs we may legitimately assume that the play- 
 wright had in view the general type of theatre to which 
 he was accustomed. The more one reads of the Eliza- 
 bethan drama with a view to reconstructing its material 
 mechanism, the more is one conscious of a certain 
 ' standardisation ' of effects. 
 
 Dr Monkeraeyer's third chapter deals with the ' Origin 
 of the stage directions in the genuine popular plays,' as 
 distinct from Court plays. He begins by insisting on a 
 very elementary fact : namely, that the stage directions 
 in modern editions are, for the purposes of this investi- 
 gation, absolutely worthless. They are (for the most 
 part) the interpolations of editors whose sole aim was 
 to smooth the way for the general reader, and who, so 
 far as they visualised the scenes at all, did so in terms 
 of the modem theatre. Dr Monkemeyer might have 
 stated more strongly than he does the necessity for 
 entirely banishing the modem edition from our ken. 
 Recent editors, it is trae, have generally realised the 
 importance of distinguishing between the original stage 
 directions and those which have been supplied hy them- 
 
THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 447 
 
 selves or their predecessors. But* even when printed 
 within brackets, a modern stage direction tends to warp 
 the student's vision. This, is especially the case with re- 
 gard to the place indications which it, is now the custom 
 to prefix to every scene. It is the beginning of wisdom, 
 in this enquiry, to realise that scarcely any of these occur 
 in the original texts, and probably not one in the accus- 
 tomed modern foym. Rarely do we even find such a 
 direction as 'Enter Brutus in his Orchard,' or 'Enter 
 the King, Exeter, Bedford, and Grloucester. Alarum : 
 Scaling ladders at Harfleur.' As a rule, indeed, the 
 locality may be more or less clearly dieduced fromjthe 
 dialogue, but the exceptions to this rule are innumerable. 
 The reader who is accustomed only to modern editions 
 would be amazed to learn how many passages in the 
 Elizabethan drama are entirely unlocalised — so much so 
 that it is impossible even to say whether they, are 'in- 
 teriors ' or ' exteriors.' Such passages are perhaps more 
 frequent in the minor dramatists, but even in Shakespeare 
 they are common enough.: Nor are scenes uncommon; jn 
 which absolute inconsistencies of locality occur. A simple 
 instance may be found in ' Othello,' iii, 4, and iy>; !• Modern 
 editors, with;cauti,ous vagueness, place, these scenes 'Be- 
 fore the Castle '—judging, no doubt, that the casual 
 entrances of ' Bianca, a Gurtezan ' imply some sort of 
 public locality. This is quite true ; but in what public 
 locality can we possibly place the private and intensely 
 painful tl-ansactions between Othello and Desdempp,a 
 which occur in both scenes? These things baffle imag- 
 ination if we conceive them as happening on the open 
 esplanade. They imply a chamber in the castle, or, at 
 the very utmost, a private garden ; but how account for 
 Bianca's intrusion into either of these places ? The prob- 
 lem ^s insoluble from the point of view of the modern 
 audience, accustomed always to have a definite scene 
 before its eyes ; whereas Shakespeare's audiences, fresh 
 from the moralities and interludes, with their abstract 
 or ideal scenes, were probably unconscious of any diffi- 
 culty. The category of place imposed itself but faintly 
 and intermittently on the mind of the Elizabethan play- 
 goer : a fact which the believers in the habitual indication 
 of scenes by placards, and even by painted cloths, would 
 do weU to note. Here, no doubt, we are trenching on 
 
448 THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 
 
 / debatable ground ; but we do so deliberately. We believe 
 the vagueness of localisation of the Elizabethan drama to 
 be a fundamental fact which cannot be fully reahsed 
 until the student has dismissed modem editions from his 
 mind, and gone back to the original texts. 
 
 For the rest, Dr Monkemeyer distinguishes with great 
 acuteness between four classes of stage directions: those 
 which must have proceeded from the author himself; 
 those in which the hand of the stage-manager or prompter 
 is apparent; those which must have been inserted by 
 printer-editors for the better understanding of readers ; 
 and those which clearly proceed from stenographers 
 noting the ' business ' as they saw it while taking their 
 surreptitious copies. This last class, by the way, is some- 
 times so valuable as evidence, that one is inclined to think 
 leniently of the dishonest practice to which we owe it. 
 
 Some passages in Dr Monkemeyer's book seem to 
 indicate a conception of the typical Elizabethan stage 
 which we believe to be untenable ; but as he is confessedly 
 only at the outset of his investigation, criticism would be 
 premature. 
 
 Dr Cecil Brodmeier's book on ' Die Shakespeare-Biihne ' 
 claims no such suspension of judgment. Here w^e have 
 an attempt to expound the stage-management of all 
 Shakespeare's plays in the light of a hard-and-fast theory 
 s^ — a theory which seems to be largely accepted in Germany, 
 S,nd has found able adherents in America. Wherever it 
 may have originated, Dr Brodmeier is certainly its most 
 conspicuous champion. It is known as the theory of 
 • alternation ' ; and as our whole vision of the Elizabethan 
 stage is determined by our acceptance or rejection of it, 
 an endeavour must be made to state it fully and clearly. 
 
 Playgoers whose memory carries them back twenty 
 years or so can recall a general practice, in plays requiring 
 frequent changes of scene, of alternating what were called 
 ' front ' or • carpenter ' scenes with full ' sets.' Thus, in 
 ' Othello,' the curtain would first rise on a moderately 
 deep scene representing the exterior of Brabantio's house. 
 Then a painted ' cloth ' would be let down in front of this 
 (or two ' flats ' would be shoved on), representing a street 
 in Venice ; and on the shallow space between this ' cloth ' 
 and the footlights the first encounter between Othello 
 and Brabantio would take place. This over, the ' cloth ' 
 
THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 449 
 
 would be raised, or the ' flats ' withdrawn, and it would 
 be found that Brabantio's house had been cleared away, 
 and the whole depth of the stage called into requisition 
 for a 'set' representing the Venetian Senate chamber. 
 This practice has fallen into seeming disuse ; but it is in 
 truth only disguised by the fact that managers generally 
 drop a curtain, or plunge the stage in darkness, while the 
 scene is being changed. The principle of employing the 
 time occupied by comparatively shallow scenes for the 
 setting of deep scenes remains in force wherever several 
 changes of place within a single act are necessary. 
 
 Now the ' alternation ' theory would throw back this 
 pi'actice to Elizabethan times, with the substitution of a 
 ' middle curtain ' for the ' cloths ' or ' flats ' of twenty years 
 ago. The dramatists, we are told, habitually arranged 
 that a scene requiring the whole stage should be followed 
 by a scene requiring only the shallow front portion of 
 the stage ; and while this scene was in progress in front 
 of the ' middle curtain,' stage-hands were arranging behind 
 it such properties as might be required for the next scene, 
 if not actually setting out painted- ' hangings ' (kquUasenr 
 artige Behange) somewhat in the nature of modern 
 scenery. That there is a certain initial plausibility in 
 this theory (except in so far as the painted hangings are 
 concerned) cannot be denied. We do frequently find, 
 especially in Shakespeare, that short scenes requiring 
 comparatively few actors are inserted between longer 
 scenes requiring many performers, and sometimes more 
 or less elaborate properties. Moreover, there would seem 
 to be a manifest convenience in being able to indicate a 
 change of place (as well as a possible lapse of time) by 
 some such simple device as the opening or closing of a 
 pair of curtains.* That the theoiy should have arisen is 
 not in the least surprising ; but we do not believe that it 
 will bear examination. 
 
 The • altemationists ' all start from the famous De 
 Witt drawing of the Swan Theatre (reproduced facing 
 p. 450), though they are very soon forced to run counter to 
 its authority. It is necessary, then, that we should briefly 
 consider the credentials of this much-discussed document 
 
 • It is admitted on all hands that whatever curtains were employed on 
 the Elizabethan stage were not raised and lowered like most modem 
 curtains, but wei'e drawn aside— as a rule!, no doubt, parting in the middle. 
 
450 THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 
 
 — our only graphic presentment of the interior of a 
 ' public ' or unroofed theatre. 
 
 It was discovered in 1888 by a German scholar, Dr Karl 
 Gaedertz, in a manuscript volume in the University 
 Library at Utrecht. The volume is a sort of common- 
 place-book, kept by one Arend van Buchell (b. 1565, 
 d. 1641). Van BucheU had a friend, Johannes de Witt, 
 who was a noted traveller. De Witt seems to have 
 sent him a letter describing his 'London observations' 
 and including a sketch of the Swan Theatre, which Van 
 Buchell copied into his commonplace-book. The drawing, 
 as we have it, cannot be De Witt's original, for it is on 
 exactly the same paper as the rest of the book. Thus it 
 has not the authority of a sketch taken actually on the 
 spot ; nor can we tell whether the original from which 
 it was copied was drawn on the spot, or merely from 
 memory. On the other hand, there seems to be no 
 suspicion of forgery in the matter. No expert has 
 thrown doubt on the assumption that the drawing 
 dates from the late sixteenth or early seventeenth 
 , century. 
 
 Some of its features may be accepted without question 
 as being very much what other evidence would lead us 
 to expect. We know, for instance, that most of. the 
 public theatres were round or octagonal in shape, the 
 Fortune Theatre being the only certain exception. Again, 
 almost aill the representations of the Bankside theatres in 
 the old panoramic maps show from the outside that hutch 
 or turret rising over the roof which we see from the inside 
 in the De Witt drawing. It was here, no doubt, that the 
 trumpeter (sketched by De Witt) blew the three blasts 
 which announced the opening of a performance. The 
 half roof or ' shadow 'over the stage is mentioned in two 
 building-contracts which we possess. In the Fortune 
 it was probably supported by pillars, as in the Swan 
 sketch ; but in the Hope contract it is stipulated that 
 no pillars shall be required for its support. The pro- 
 jection of the stage into the ' yard ' is very similar to 
 that provided for in the Fortune contract. The two 
 doors are mentioned in innumerable stage-directions. 
 ! And, finally, we know that there must have been at the 
 back of the stage some such gallery as is shown in the 
 drawing. It was used by the actors for battlements 
 
a ■q 
 
 ■ 
 
 . Sb© a 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 §■ Si2i! . 
 
 
 a5 
 
 
 tO) 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 p. J W S &I E ^ 
 
 ^ S3* a^£S 
 
 M 
 
 O t) S c3 B Q :S 
 
 
 stairs t 
 of the 
 ntrano 
 cting p 
 separa 
 n betw 
 n theE 
 
 m 
 
 piral 
 
 oors 
 
 de E 
 
 onne 
 
 illars 
 
 urtai 
 
 rap i 
 
 rt 
 
 tc n « " ft o B 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 <jfqdri WP^d 
 
 M 
 
 <d « D R 
 
THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 451 
 
 balconieB, etc. ; it was sometimes occupied by spectators ; 
 and at other times (or perhaps concurrently) by the 
 musicians of the theatre. 
 
 ' It would seem, then,' the readier may say, ' that there 
 is independent evidence fot practically every feature in 
 the drawing.' Yes, there is ; and yet, when we come to 
 examine it in detail, and try to conceive it as the scene of 
 any ordinary Elizabethan play, we find it lacking in such 
 essential particulars that we are forced to believe either 
 that it does not accurately represent the Swan stage, or 
 that the Swan stage differed very remarkably from the 
 typical stage of the period. One might almost take it for 
 a theatre conjecturally outhned by some one who had 
 superficially examined the maps, pamphlets, and other 
 documents, but had not gone minutely into the ultimate 
 evidence of the plays themselves. 
 
 Dr Brodmeier, however, professes at the outset to 
 accept the Swan drawing without serious question. It 
 does not, indeed, show any middle curtains ; but these, 
 (though, curiously enough, he does not make the sugges- 
 tion) may be concealed behind the pillars. For the rest, 
 it gives him the three stage-regions (Biihnenfelder) which 
 his theory requires: the ' Vorderbiihne ' in front of the 
 pillars, the ' Hinterbiihne ' behind the pillars, and the 
 ' balkonartige Oberbiihne ' — the balcony-like Upper Stage 
 — at the back. To these may ' eventuell ' be added a fourth 
 stage-region, by opening one or other of the doors arid 
 showing some action in progress in the space behind. The 
 fact that this fourth ' Biihnenfeld ' is gravely accepted by 
 several theorists shows what dangers beset the mere 
 library student in this investigation. Who that has 
 any sense of the theatre can look at the Swan drawing 
 and imagine the tomb of the Capulets represented — as 
 Brodmeier would have us think — by the space behind 
 one of the doors? All the most poignant part of the 
 scene, all that passes after Romeo enters the tomb, would 
 be wholly invisible to at least a quarter of the audience, 
 very imperfectly visible to at least another quarter, and, 
 on the whole, so cabined, cribbed, confined as to suggest 
 Bob Acres' nightmare of a duel in a sentry-box. It is 
 hard enough to imagine, with Brodmeier, that this 
 * fourth stage-region* served for the niche in which 
 Hermione, as a statue, was placed at the end of ' The 
 
452 THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 
 
 Winter's Tale.' Remember that, as she is twice bidden 
 ' descend,' she was evidently standing on a pedestal ; and 
 conceive a statue on a pedestal placed behind one ot 
 these door-openings, or any door-opening of reasonable 
 height ! All the spectators above the ground level who 
 saw her at all would see her decapitated. But this is 
 credible in comparison with the theory as to Juliets 
 tomb. Dr Brodmeier evidently has not realised that the 
 star actor's insistence on having ' the centre of the stage ' 
 is founded on an optical law which must have obtained 
 in the Elizabethan no less than in the modern playhouse 
 — at all events where anything that occurred towards the 
 back of the stage was concerned. 
 
 Returning now to the essential feature of the alter- 
 nation theory — the 'middle curtain' hung between the 
 pillars of the 'shadow' — let us see how Dr Brodmeier 
 proceeds to deal with it. The main purpose assigned it 
 is to conceal the bringing on of furniture and proper- 
 ties — ^banqueting-tables and chairs, council-tables, beds, 
 thrones, altars, etc. But it is clear that, in the Swan 
 sketch, if you simply draw curtains between the two 
 pillars, most of what passes behind them wiU be visible 
 to something like a quarter of the audience. Better 
 no concealment at all than concealment so imperfect ; so 
 that Dr Brodmeier is forced to run lateral curtains back 
 from the pillars to the wall of the ' inimorum aedcs,' or 
 tyring-house, which shut in the stage at the back. This 
 he is all the more willing to do as there are countless 
 passages in which the two doors shown in the De Witt 
 drawing are flagrantly inadequate to the entrances 
 and exits required, and the lateral curtains provide him 
 with very necessary side-entrances (Seiteneingange). We 
 assume, then, the possibility of boxing in with front and 
 side curtains the quadrilateral between the pillars and 
 the back wall ; but what does this involve in the theatre 
 figured by De Witt? Firstly, front-stage scenes, played 
 with the curtains closed, would be very imperfectly seen 
 or not at all, by those of the audience who occupied the 
 seats, or stood in the * yard,' near the * mimorum sedes.' 
 Secondly, if there were any spectators in the gallery at 
 the back of the stage (and in some theatres, and at some 
 times, thsre certainly were) they would, when the curtains 
 were closed, see all that they were not, and nothing that 
 
THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 453 
 
 they were, intended to see. Thirdly, the side-entrances 
 would be of no use whatever, since the actor could not 
 possibly reach the point at which he had to make his 
 entrance, except by coming on at one of the doors, 
 stealing round the upper end of the side curtain, and 
 coming down the outer margin of the stage, in full view 
 of nearly half the audience, to take his stand at the 
 opening in the curtain, and await his cue. Add to this 
 the fact that whenever the lateral curtains were drawn 
 so as to admit of side-entrances, the ' Hinterbiihne,' thus 
 curtained in, would be wholly invisible to every one who 
 sat, or stood, farther back than the two pillars. 
 
 These difficulties, of course, do not escape Dr Brodmeier ; 
 and how does he get over them ? Simply by abandoning 
 altogether the Swan drawing, and constructing a wholly 
 new form of stage for which there is not an iota of evi- 
 dence. It will be seen from his ground-plan (reproduced 
 facing p. 450) that he entirely encloses his ' Hinterbiihne,' 
 running a wall back on either side from the outer edge 
 of the pillars, which he places (in flat opposition to the 
 Swan drawing) at the extreme margin of the stage. Then 
 from the inner edge of the pillars he runs his lateral 
 curtains back to the tyring-house wall, thus leaving 
 on both sides, between side-wall and curtain, narrow 
 passages to which access is obtained by two new door- 
 ways (of course invisible to the audience) pierced in the 
 tyring-house wall. According to this scheme the two 
 pillars are equivalent to the sides of a proscenium arch, 
 and we have practically a modern stage with very narrow 
 ' wings ' and a very large • apron ' or projection in front 
 of the proscenium. 
 
 Now, apart from the total want of evidence for any 
 such construction, the one determining characteristic of 
 the Elizabethan stage which can be proved beyond all 
 shadow of. doubt is its lack of anything like a proscenium 
 —anything in the nature of a picture-frame interposed 
 between the spectator and the play. Dr Brodmeier's box- 
 like stage, with its proscenium pillars, would have modified 
 the whole evolution of the Elizabethan drama in the 
 most essential particulars. It is quite inconceivable that 
 playwrights should never have discovered the convenience 
 of the tableau ending to an act or scene— the ending 
 which leaves a group of charp^tgrs on the stage and 
 yol. 208.— iVo. 415 2 « 
 
454 THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 
 
 simply draws the curtains on them.* Why should they 
 always take the trouble to make their characters walk 
 off the stage? Why should the typical act- or scene- 
 ending, be ' Exeunt omnes,' and never ' Curtain ' ? Why, 
 above all things, should the playwright almost invariably 
 give careful dit-ections for the removal of dead bodies 
 from the stage ? This, to our thinking, is the ultimate 
 disproof, not only of Brodmeier's proscenium stage, but 
 of the whole alternation theory. If it were possible, 
 in the normal course of things, to shut off the ' Hinter- 
 biihne ' from view, it is inconceivable that bodies should 
 always be carried off. In over a hundred plays which 
 we have minutely examined (including all Shakespeare's 
 tragedies) there is only a small minority of cases in which 
 explicit provision is not made, either by stage-direction 
 or by a line in the text, for the removal of bodies. The 
 few exceptions to this rule are clearly mere inadver- 
 tences, or else are due to the fact that there is a crowd of 
 people on the stage in whose exit a body can be dragged 
 or carried off almost unobserved. We must add that 
 there is another small group of apparent exceptions, to 
 which we shall presently return. In these cases bodies 
 are not removed, because they are lying on a portion of 
 the stage (unknown either to Dr Brodmeier or to the 
 Swan drawing) which can be curtained off, and which 
 is indispensable to the action of nine plays out of ten.t 
 
 * There are, indeed, a few plays — probably not more than about two per 
 cent, of the whole extant body of literature — in which tableau endings 
 seem to be indicated. These plays present a problem which we have not 
 closely examined, and much less solved. But had a proscenium^ closed by 
 curtains been an established feature of the ordinary stage, tableaii endings 
 would certainly have been the rule instead of the rarest of exertions. 
 
 t It may be worth while to point out the extreme lack of thought which 
 characterises Dr Brodmeier's ground-plan. He makes the two doors lead 
 by carefully walled-in winding staircases, to the Upper Stage, to which he 
 seems to conceive, In a vague way, that these stairs form the only ineans 
 of access. If this were so, the two doors would obviously be quite liseless 
 as general means of entrance and exit, and no one could reach the stage 
 from without except by the ' Seiteneingange,' through the lateral curtains. 
 But as he does not explicitly state that the Upper Stage can be reached onlv 
 by the winding stairs, we may give him the benefit of the doubt and 
 assume that he admits other entrances to it. What is the result? Unless 
 the Upper Stage is curtained off (as in many cases it cannot have been) no 
 one can reach the main stage through the doors who has not previously 
 been seen to cross the Upper Stage ; while every one who goes off by the 
 doors must also reappear ' aloft' before he is finally lost to View. The idea 
 
THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE , 455 
 
 Before going on to this part of our subject, however, 
 we must briefly examine the alternation theory from 
 another point of view. We have tried to show that it 
 cannot be put in practice on the ordinary Elizabethan 
 stage, as we are compelled by the whole weight of the 
 evidence to conceive it. Let us now see whether we 
 can gather from the texts any real reason for supposing 
 that playwrights deliberately constructed their plays 
 on the principle of interposing a ' Vorderbiihne ' scene 
 between every pair of ' Hinterbiihne ' scenes. 
 
 This theory has been very ably criticised by Mr 
 George F. Reynolds, of Faribault, Mimiesota, in an 
 acutely reasoned treatise entitled 'Some Principles of 
 Elizabethan Staging.' Mr Reynolds accepts Brodmeier's 
 tests of a ' Hinterbiihne ' or full-stage scene — the appear- 
 ance of characters on the Upper St'agei, entrances and 
 exits through the ' doors,' arid the use of large proper- 
 ties such as banquet-tables, etc-^and then cites a multi- 
 tude of instances in which two unmistakable ' Hiiiter- 
 biihne ' scenes come together, with no trace of a ' Vor- 
 derbiihne' or front scene between them. Most of Mr 
 Reynolds's examples, however, are taken from non- 
 Shdkespearean plays, and many of them from plays of 
 early date by Marlowe, Greene, Peele, and Lodge. Dr 
 Brodmeier (who confines his attention almost exclusively 
 to Shakespeare) riiight conceivably reply that if Shake- 
 speare can be proved to have observed the principle of 
 alternation, that is enough for him, and that the practice 
 may^ have Iseen a symptom of an advance in art, dis- 
 tinguishing Shakespeare from his ruder predecessors. 
 We believe it to be true that a more plausible case for 
 alternation can be found in Shakespeare than in any 
 other dramatist. In our own examination of the ques- 
 tion, so long as we confined our attention to non-Shake- 
 spearean plays, we wondered how the theory had ever 
 arisen ; but on passing to Shakespeare our wonder dis- 
 appeared. Let us, then, meet Dr Brodmeier on his own 
 chosen field, and the field most favourable to his opera- 
 tions. We wiU try to show that while a few scenes may 
 be cited which might exemplify the principle of alterna- 
 
 is absolutely nonsensical.- What becomes, moreover, of the conception of 
 the space behind the doors as a fourth ' Biihnenf eld ' ? Did Juliet, in 
 ' Capel's Moaument,' repose on a spiral staircase ? 
 2 H 2 
 
456 THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 
 
 tion, it is far easier to point to collocations of scenes 
 which set the principle at open defiance. 
 
 One could scarcely find a case more plausibly sugges- 
 tive of alternation than the third, fourth, and fifth scenes 
 of 2 Henry IV, Act v. The third scene, in the quarto 
 of 1600, begins : 
 
 Enter sir John, Shallow, Scilens, Davy, Bardolfe, page. 
 
 Shallow: 'Nay, you shall see my orchard, where, in an 
 arbour, we will eate a last yeeres pippen of mine owne graffing, 
 with a dish of carrerwaies, and so forth. . . . spread, Davy, 
 spread, Davy, well saide Davy . . . now sit downe, now sit 
 downe, come cosin. . . . Give Master Bardolfe some wine, 
 Davy. . . .' 
 
 Davy : ' There's a dish of Lethercoates for you.' 
 
 It is clear that Davy spreads a table, at which the others 
 sit down, while Davy serves them; and they have a jovial 
 carouse, interrupted by the arrival of Pistol with the news 
 of the accession of Henry V. The scene absolutely demands 
 a table and four stools, with various dishes, bottles, cups, 
 etc. The arbour may conceivably have been imaginary ; 
 but as an arbour was undoubtedly a commonly used 
 property, there is every reason to suppose that it, too, 
 was visibly presented. This means that the stage was 
 pretty well cumbered with properties; and when we 
 find the next scene (Sc. 4), a passage of only some thirty- 
 five lines, between Mrs Quickly, Doll Tearsheet, and the 
 Beadles, it looks very much as though it had been inserted 
 to permit of the unseen removal of the arbour, table etc 
 in preparation for Sc. 5, the procession of King Henrv 
 from his crowning. But some sort of interlude was 
 required here for other reasons. Falstaff and his com- 
 panions were to enter at the very beginning of Sc "i" 
 having ridden up from Gloucestershire ; and it was con- 
 venient, if not necessary, according to the convention" 
 of the age, to allow a slight interval for so large a jumD 
 both in space and time. Moreover, a few minutes were 
 required for changes in the costume of the party Af 
 the end of Sc. 3, Falstaff says, 'Boote, boote. Master 
 Shallow,' indicating that Shallow is to get into ridb 
 dress ; and he himself, with his henchmen, was to becom^ 
 mud-spattered and travel-stained. Thus it was desiraW ^ 
 apart from all question of clearing away the propertie^' ' 
 
THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 457 
 
 that a short scene should be inserted between Sc. 3 
 and Sc. 5. It is to be noted, too, that near the end of 
 Sc. 3, Falstaff says, 'Carry Master Scilens to bed.' 
 Had a middle curtain shut off the apparatus of the 
 drinking-bout, there is no reason why Silence should 
 not have been left sleeping in his chair. As it was, his 
 removal had to be effected as part of the dramatic action ; 
 for, while convention allowed of the removal of inani- 
 mate properties in view of the audience by the servitors 
 or stage-hands of the theatre, who were understood to 
 be external to the play, it did not countenance the removal 
 of dead men or drunk men by the same agency. Such, at 
 least, is our interpretation of the passage ; but we do not 
 deny that, were the alternation theory otherwise credible, 
 this sequence of scenes might fairly be quoted in con- 
 firmation of it. 
 
 Another passage, which ought certainly to be a front 
 scene, if front scenes in the altemationist sense existed 
 at all, is 'Richard II,' Act i, Sc. 4. Here we have a 
 quite short scene of few characters intervening between 
 the scene of the lists at Coventry and the scene of John 
 of Gaunt's death. Was it not inserted to permit of the 
 unseen clearing away of the lists and scaffolding, and 
 bringing on of John of Gaunt's couch ? If ever there 
 was an opportunity for the use of a ' middle curtain ' and 
 for a ' Vorderbiihne ' scene, this is certainly it. But, most 
 unfortunately for the alternation theory, the opening 
 stage direction of Sc. 4 in the first Quarto is ' Enter the 
 King with Bushie, &c., at one dore, and the Lord Aumarle 
 at another.' The third Quarto substitutes for ' another ' 
 ' the other.' Now the mention of doors is one of the 
 chief criteria of a ' Hinterbiihne ' scene ; for, on the alter- 
 nationist stage, the closing of the ' middle curtain ' would 
 inevitably conceal the doors. We know from a thousand 
 testimonies, that two entrance-doors at least were in- 
 variable features of the Elizabethan stage ; and it would 
 be unreasonable to doubt that when a playwright said 
 ' door ' he meant ' door.* Dr Brodmeier admits this, but 
 argues that, in the previous scene at Coventry, the ' middle 
 curtain ' was closed at the point where John of Gaunt and 
 Bolingbroke are left alone on the stage, and that the 
 lists were cleared away during their final colloquy of some 
 thirty lines. But why should the poet have adopted this 
 
458 THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 
 
 device (called by some students a ' split scene ') when he 
 had in Sc. 4 a passage which could, without the slightest 
 difficulty, have been acted in front of the • middle curtain, 
 if there was such a thing? Here was a case calhng aloua 
 for a simple application of the alternation principle ; yet 
 Shakespeare, according to Dr Brodmeier, took pains not 
 to apply it in its simplicity. He preferred 'splitting a 
 whole-stage scene to using as a front-stage scene a briet 
 and unimportant passage intervening between two ^^°^^' 
 stage scenes. The argument is excessively far-fetched. 
 A much more probable deduction from the facts is that 
 front-stage scenes, played before a ' middle curtain,' were 
 unknown to Shakespeare's theatre. It is not unlikely 
 that the parting of John of Gaunt and Bolingbroke took 
 place in front of the pillars while the lists were being 
 cleared away behind. But the weight of the evidence is 
 distinctly against the employment of any curtain or 
 curtains to conceal the operation. 
 
 Having now examined two of the cases on which the 
 alternation theory might most plausibly be founded, let 
 us look at one of the countless conjunctures which abso- 
 lutely negative it. 
 
 For the most notable of all, perhaps, we need go no 
 further than the last act of ' Hamlet.' As acted on the 
 modern stage, it presents a perfect example of the alter- 
 nation principle. We have first the graveyard, a long 
 and crowded scene requiring the whole stage. Then 
 there comes a front scene for the conversation between 
 Hamlet, Horatio, and Osric ; and while this is in progress 
 the graveyard is cleared away, and the hall is set for the 
 final scene. On the Elizabethan stage, it is true, there 
 was no graveyard picture; but there was the rubbish 
 thrown out of the grave to be shovelled in again, and the 
 grave-trap to be closed ; while, for the final scene, there 
 were numerous properties (seats, a table, etc.) to be 
 brought on. Here, if ever, vs^as an imperative opportunity 
 for closing the ' middle curtain ' and letting the Hamlet- 
 Horatio-Osric scene take place on the ' Vorderbiihne.' 
 Yet it is absolutely certain that Shakespeare did nothing 
 of the kind. It is true that none of the old copies, even 
 down to the fourth FoUo, is formally divided into scenes ; 
 but that the poet intended the act to consist of only two 
 scenes is manifest from the fact that Hamlet and Horatio, 
 
THP ELIZABETHAN STAGE 459 
 
 haying re-entered immediately after the graveyard scene, 
 never leave the stage until tfee end of the play. That 
 there may be no mistake as to the imagined location, 
 Hamlet says to Osric, both in Q^. and Pi., 'Sir, I will 
 walke heere in tl?,e Hall ; if it please his Majestie, 'tis the 
 breathing time of day with me ; let the Foyles be brought.' 
 Again, in Qj. (tho^gh not in Fi.) a lord enters and says, 
 'My Lord, his Majestie commended him to you by young 
 Ostricke, vrho briiRgs baqke to him that you attend him in 
 the hall. . . . The Kinge, and Queene, and all are comming 
 downe.' Thus Shakespeare seems almost to have gone 
 out of his way to ^sist that, from the entrance of Hamlet 
 and Horatio onward, the locality remains the same until 
 the end. It may perhaps be suggested that the passage 
 was treated as a ' split scene,' the • middle curtain ' being 
 closed before the ejatrance of Hamlet and Horatio, and 
 opened before the e^ntranoe of the Court. If we admit 
 the existence of middle and lateral curtains, this is no 
 doubt conceivable ; but if alternation were an established 
 principle, why adopt the awkward expedient of a 'split 
 scene'? What more simple than to make the Hamlet- 
 Horatio-Osric passage a separate scene (as on the modern 
 stage) by letting Hamlet aa,d Horatio go off at the end of 
 it and re-enter with, or after, the Court ? 
 
 A very conclusive testimony against that ' middle 
 curtain,' on which the whole alternation theory depends, 
 is to be found in the third and fourth acts of 'A Mid- 
 summer-Night's Dream.'* In examining this passage we 
 may find, not only negative evidence in regard to the 
 ' middle curtain,' but affimative evidence on another point 
 of crucial importance. At the end of Act iii Eobin Good- 
 fellow, having led the four lovers' ' up and downe, and up 
 and downe' until they are exhausted, leaves them all 
 asleep upon the ground. On his exit there follows (in 
 the Folio) the significant stage-direction, 'They sleepe all 
 the Aict' — that is to say, all the interact. At the be- 
 ginning of ' Actus Quartus,' ' Enter; Queene of Fairies 
 and Clowne, and Fairies, and the King behinde them.' 
 Titania says to Bottom, ' Come sit thee, downe upon this 
 
 * Even if it be true that ' A Midsummer-Night's, Dream ' was written 
 for performance, during the marriage, festivities of some nobleman, tljere 
 can be no question that it was acted, and was Very popular, on the common 
 stage. 
 
460 
 
 THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 
 
 flowry bed; and there foUows Bottom's famous coUoquy 
 with Pease-blossom, Cobweb, and Mustard-seed, at tne 
 end of which Bottom and Titania fall asleep. Uberon 
 and Puck enter; Oberon frees Titania from the charm, 
 awakens her, and goes ofP with her. Puck removing tne 
 ass-mask from Bottom's shoulders and leavmg him asleep 
 upon the 'flowry bed.' At the exit of Oberon, Titania, 
 and Puck, that there may be no doubt as to the position 
 of matters, there is a special stage-direction, 'Sleepers 
 lye still.' Then, ' Winde Homes. Enter Theseus, l<geus, 
 Hippolita and all his traine.' After the exquisite passage 
 about the 'hounds of Sparta,' Theseus catches sight ot 
 the sleeping lovers. ' But, soft, what nimphs are these ? 
 . . . Goe, bid the huntsmen wake them with their homes. 
 Then follows the curious stage direction, 'Homes, and 
 they wake. Shout within: they all start up.' These 
 stage-directions place it beyond doubt that from the 
 moment the lovers sank down in sleep until they were 
 awakened by the boms, they remained in full view of the 
 audience, and that even through an interact.* If there 
 was a ' middle curtain ' by which at least half the stage 
 could be concealed, what possible motive could there be 
 for keeping them thus exposed to view ? 
 
 But now we have to ask : what has become of Bottom 
 all this time ? At line 107 he has been left sleeping on the 
 ' flowry bed ' ; then follows the whole long scene between 
 Theseus, Hippolyta, Egeus, and the four lovers ; and they 
 all go off at line 204 without having taken the slightest 
 notice of him. Then ' Bottome wakes,' speaks his solilo- 
 quy, and ' Exit.' Can we suppose him to have been all 
 the time on the open stage? For light on this point 
 let us look a little farther back. In ' Actus Secundus ' 
 (modem editions, Act ii, Sc. 2), the fairies having sung 
 Titania asleep, Oberon enters, squeezes the magic juice 
 into her eyes, and goes off. Then ensues a scene of about 
 120 lines between the four lovers, with Puck mischievously 
 intervening, which brings the act to a close ; no one (not 
 even Puck) showing the slightest consciousness of the 
 
 * At private theatres, such as the BlackMars, there was certainly music 
 between the acts. A passage in Webster's Induction to Marston's ' Mal- 
 content' renders it doubtful whether this custom was 'received' at the 
 public theatres. The wording of the above-quoted stage-direction, however, 
 makes it clear that some sort of pause between the acts was contemplated. 
 
THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 461 
 
 presence of Titania. 'Actus Tertius' begins 'Enter the 
 Uownes ' ; and they, with Puck again intervening, have 
 an animated scene of 130 lines before Bottom's song 
 arouses Titania, and she says, 'What Angell wakes me 
 from my flowry bed ? ' Is it conceivable that she, on 
 her • property ' bank, lay on the open stage during two 
 long scenes, while the actors all sedulously made believe 
 to be unconscious of her? Or is it conceivable that the 
 middle and lateral curtains were closed at Oberon's exit, 
 and that the two long and complicated scenes in question 
 were played on the front stage ? Neither of these alter- 
 natives is credible. We must suppose Titania'a 'flowry 
 bed' to have been placed in some recess which could 
 probably be concealed by curtains, or at any rate could, 
 with reasonable plausibility, be ignored by the actors, 
 who would naturally turn their backs to it. In the same 
 recess the same ' flowry bed ' would be placed in Act iv, 
 and there Bottom would slumber peacefully while Theseus 
 was awakening the lovers, and their cross-purposes were 
 being evened out. For our part, we have little doubt 
 that the recess was actually curtained ofE during the un- 
 seen sleep of Titania in Acts ii and in, and of Bottom in 
 Act IV. How ijotably would the comic effect be enhanced 
 if Bottom put his head through the curtains at the line 
 ' When my cue comes, call me, and I will answer ' ! 
 
 Of the existence and frequent use of such a recess 
 there is an overwhelming mass of evidence. It is pos- 
 sible of course to affirm it without denying the * middle 
 curtain ' ; both may conceivably have been employed. 
 But to attempt, like Dr Brodmeier, to operate without 
 any recess, or, in other words, without what we shall 
 henceforth call a Rear Stage (see illustration facing p. 462), 
 is to plunge into a maze of difficulties and impossibilities. 
 
 This is very clearly illustrated by Dr Richard Wegener 
 in his book on ' Die Biihneneinriohtung des Shakespeare- 
 schen Theaters,' which is the most careful and important 
 study of the subject yet published. While Dr Brodmeier 
 confines his examination almost entirely to Shakespeare, 
 Dr Wegener alludes to Shakespeare only incidentally, 
 and goes for the main body of his evidence to the other 
 Elizabethans, He sums up entirely against the * middle 
 curtain,' so far as the 'public' theatres are concerned, 
 but he thinks that at the ' private ' theatres such a curtain 
 
462 THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 
 
 wag occasionally used for convenience in clearing tne 
 stage of properties. He adduces no proof of this distinc- 
 tion, which seems to us highly improbable ; but the pomt 
 need not be here discussed. Any systematic alternation 
 of ' Vorder-' and ' Hinterbuhne ' scenes Dr Wegener shows 
 to be out of the question. On the subject of the Bear 
 Stage he is quite convincing. 
 
 'An assumption' (he says) 'is more than a hypothesis 
 when it enables us to explain the whole body of phenomena 
 simply aud without inconsistency. It then becomes a truth, 
 a fully established item of knowledge. Remove the Rear 
 Stage * and there is scarcely a popular play whose staguig 
 does not become an insoluble riddle. But if we postulate 
 this stage-region, everything explains itself in the simplest 
 fashion, and the poets' design and course of thought become 
 clear and transparent. The popular dramatists of that time, 
 Shakespeare not excepted, had in their mind's eye, at the 
 back of the main stage, a smaller space, or Rear Stage ; other- 
 wise the unanimity would be incomprehensible with which 
 all poets included in their compositions scenes which cannot 
 be placed elsewhere than in such a stage-region.' 
 
 Dr Wegener t slightly exaggerates the universal 
 validity of the Rear Stage hypothesis. It solves an im- 
 mense number of apparent difficulties ; but there remains 
 a residue of problems which it leaves obscure. The 
 existence of such a stage-region, however, may be taken 
 as admitted, even by the more moderate 'alternationists.' 
 Dr Brodmeier is almost the only student of the subject 
 who ignores or denies it. 
 
 It is noteworthy, with regard to this Rear Stage, that 
 the evidence for it runs through the whole Elizabethan 
 drama from its very beginnings. One would not have 
 been surprised to find it a comparatively late refinement ; 
 
 * Dr Wegener calls it ' Unterbuhne,' in contradistinction to the ' Ober- 
 biihne,' the gallery at the back of the stage. 
 
 t Dr Wegener, in his otherwise careful and accurate book, more than 
 once accepts as authoritative the garbled stage-directions of modern editors. 
 In one or two cases, moreover, his argument shows a faulty understanding 
 of his English texts. We would specially urge him to reconsider the 
 suggestion (p. 109) that when Slitgut, in 'Eastward Hoe,' climbed the 
 'famous tree' at Cuckold's Haven, the actor swarmed up a mast specially 
 erected against the side of the Globe Theatre, and had actually before his 
 eyes the river scene which he described. The fact that ' Eastward Hoe ' is 
 not stated to have been played at the Globe, but at the Blaokfriars, is the 
 smallest objection to this theory. 
 
The fortdne Theateb. 
 (Mr Walter H. Godtrey's reoonstraotion from the builder's contract.) 
 
 Dimensions : 
 
 Width ol Main Stage . 
 
 Depth of Main Stage to Bear Stage opening 
 
 Depth ot Bear Stage 
 
 Width ol Eear Stags opening 
 
 Height ot Eear Stage . . ■ 
 
 43 ft. 
 
 37 ft. 6 in. 
 7 ft. 
 17 ft. 
 12 ft. 
 
 [To face page 462. 
 
THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 463 
 
 but it occurs so early that it would seem to have been a 
 legacy from the medieval drama. One of the earliest, 
 as well as clearest, proofs of it (which Wegener over- 
 looks, by the way) occurs in Greene's ' Alphonsus, King 
 of Arragon,' probably produced between 1589 and 1591. 
 Here we read, 'Let there be a brazen Head set in the 
 middle of the place behind the Stage, out of which cast 
 flames of fire.' Almost > contemporary with 'Alphonsus' 
 is ' Dido, Queen of Carthage,' by Marlowe and Nash, in 
 which we find a very curious instance of the use of the 
 Hear Stage. It is true that this play was acted by the 
 Chapel children, and that we do not know it to have been 
 presented at a regular theatre. None the less does it 
 provide valid evidence of the iise which dramatists 
 habitually made of a curtained recess. Near the end of 
 the second act, JBneas, Achates, Ascanius, Dido, Anna, 
 and others, are on the stage. Then we have the direc- 
 tion, 'Exeunt omnes. Enter Venus at another doore, 
 and takes Ascanius by the sleeve.' This means that, 
 vinobserved by the others, she detains the child. Then 
 she coaxirigly takes him in her arms and lulls him to 
 sleep with a song. This done, she says, ' Sleep, my sweet 
 nephew, in these cooling shades. . . . AH shall be still. 
 And nothing interrupt thy quiet sleep, TiU I return and 
 take thee hence again.' Then she ' Exit,' evidently 
 leaving Ascanius sleeping in some place which can be 
 curtained off ; for there follows a long scene of many 
 persons (including Cupid disguised as Ascanius), during 
 which the sleeping child is unseen ; the locality, indeed, 
 being supposed to change to Dido's palace. At the close 
 of this scene, 'Exeunt,' and 'Enter Juno to Ascanius 
 asleep.' This evidently means that at Juno's entrance 
 the curtains are opened, disclosing Ascanius lying where 
 Venus left him. Venus herself presently appears, and 
 she, and Juno, after roundly abusing each other, come to 
 an amicable understanding, Ascanius all the time sleeping 
 peacefully. At the end of the scene, Venus says, « Mean- 
 time. Ascanius shall be my charge. Whom I will bear to 
 Ida in mine arms, And couch him in Adonis' purple down.' 
 • Exeunt.' Now, why should Venus carry off the sleeping 
 child, iwho is quite comfortable where he is? The next 
 scene but one gives us the reason. It opens with the 
 direction, 'The storm. Enter iEneas and Dido in the 
 
464 THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 
 
 cave, at several times.' In other words, the rear stage 
 being required for the fateful cave, Ascanius could no 
 longer occupy it. At the end of the scene the direction 
 is ' Exeunt to the cave ' ; which doubtless means that they 
 did not play the whole scene on the Rear Stage, but, 
 having come forward in the course of their colloquy, 
 returned at its close to the Rear Stage, and there made 
 their exit, instead of going off by one of the two doors. 
 A cave was one of the places constantly figured by the 
 Rear Stage, others being a study, cell, tomb, shop, counting- 
 house, tent, prison, and bedchamber. 
 
 Let us now turn to Marlowe's ' Tamburlaine the 
 Great,' acted, probably, in 1587. Here, in the second part, 
 we have the stage direction : 
 
 ' Actus I [a misprint ; it is in reality Act ii]. ScaBna ultima. 
 The arras is drawn and Zenocrate lies in her bed of state. 
 Tamburlaine sitting by her ; three Physicians about her bed, 
 tempering potions; Theridamas, Techelles, TJsumcasane, and 
 the three sons.' 
 
 Prof. Baker, of Harvard, whose interesting book on 
 ' The Development of Shakespeare as a Dramatist ' con- 
 tains a very well-informed chapter on ' The Stage of 
 Shakespeare,' argues that this direction ' demands a large 
 space,' and that the passage which follows, ' to bfe well 
 seen, must have been given in the space under the 
 " Heavens " ' — another term for the ' shadow.' It is diffi- 
 cult, indeed, to conceive that the ten persons enumerated 
 were all grouped about Zenocrate's bed, and remained 
 there throughout the scene. But Prof. Baker does not 
 notice that only four of the characters (Tamburlaine and 
 the three physicians) are stated to have been ' about the 
 bed,' or, in other words, to have formed part of the 
 tableau revealed by the opening of the arras. The other 
 six may quite well have entered by the doors on either 
 side and grouped themselves round the opening of the 
 Rear Stage. Again, even supposing that all ten were 
 disclosed when the arras was drawn, those not immedi- 
 ately concerned about the dying woman would quite 
 naturally spread outwards, and thus relieve the awkward 
 congestion of the Rear Stage. And here we come upon a 
 very important principle which, so far as we know, has 
 not hitherto been stated. One of the main arguments 
 
THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 465 
 
 against the 'middle curtain' is that it is never used to 
 close upon a tableau, or to save any character, living or 
 dead, from the necessity of walking or being carried off 
 the stage. 'But,' it may be said, 'since you admit that 
 characters could be "discovered" by the opening of the 
 curtains in front of the Bear Stage, why should they not 
 have been concealed from view by the closing of the same 
 curtains ? Would not your argument in disproof of the 
 "naiddle curtain" equally disprove the Rear Stage cur- 
 tains ? ' A little thought will show the way out of this 
 dilemma. It is always easy on the stage for the charac- 
 ters to advance and scatter, difficult for them to retire 
 and cluster together. More briefly, centrifugal motion 
 seems natural, centripetal more or less artificial. A group 
 of characters revealed on the Rear Stage could very 
 easily come forward ; but it would have . been very 
 difficult and ludicrous for them all to retreat to it, and 
 form a tableau upon which the curtains should close; 
 and still more ludicrous would it have been for every 
 one who was about to die to make his or her way to 
 the very back of the stage before consenting to give 
 up the ghost. This principle makes it clear why the Rear 
 Stage curtains could be much more freely used for dis- 
 closing than for concealing anything in the nature of a 
 tableau. Nevertheless, where there was a definite reason 
 for the characters retiring to the Rear Stage, they some- 
 times did so, and the curtains were drawn upon them. 
 When j^Eneas and Dido, for instance, went off 'to the 
 cave,' it was manifestly desirable that the curtains should 
 close ; and in this ' Tamburlaine ' scene, where Zenocrate's 
 bed afforded a point round which the characters would 
 quite naturally gather, the stage direction at the end is 
 not ' Exeunt,' but ' The arras is drawn.' Indeed, it is one 
 of the strongest arguments for the Rear Stage that, in the 
 infrequent cases in which explicit directions are not given 
 for the removal of dead bodies, we have almost always 
 independent reason for believing that they were in this 
 inner recess, where the curtain, arras, or traverse could 
 be closed upon them.* 
 
 * In the sentence above quoted from Professor Baker, he puts his finger 
 on the only real diffloulfcy of the Bear Stage theory, namely, that it is hard 
 to conceive the main portion of so important a scene as the death of 
 Zenocrate acted at the very back of the stage. Dr Wegener suggests 
 
466 
 
 THE ELIZABETHAN STAGfe 
 
 Frequent and convincing evidences of the Rear Stag 
 are to be found in Shakespeare. We select froni an^^^S 
 them one of the most curious : the passage m ' ^°™® 
 and Juliet,' which appears in modem editions as Act iv, 
 Sc. 3-5. Here Dr Brodmeier goes more than usuaUy tar 
 astray. He wiU have it that Juliet delivered her great 
 potion soUloquy on the Upper Stage-an idea unthmkable 
 to any one who can for a moment visualise the scene. 
 But it is not only unthinkable : it is put definitely out ot 
 court by a document which Dr Brodmeier seems to have 
 overlooked— the first Quarto of 1597. The execrable text 
 of this Quarto is generally admitted to be stenographic, 
 so that the stage-directions doubtless proceed from a 
 shorthand-writer who was present (probably several 
 times) at the performance. At the end of the potion 
 soliloquy— 'Romeo, I come, this doe I drinke to thee '—the 
 stage direction is, « She f als upon her bed within the 
 Curtaines.' Then, ' Enter Nurse with hearbs, Mother ... 
 Enter Oldeman [Oapulet] . . . Enter Servingman with 
 Logs and Coales.' Presently the Nurse and Capulet are 
 left alone, when Oapulet, hearing the approach of Paris 
 with his ' musicke,' says, ' Nurse, call up my daughter.' 
 The Nurse replies, 'Goe, get you gone. What lambe, 
 what Ladybirde? fast, I warrant'— and so on for five 
 lines, during which she evidently does not open the 
 curtains. She does so, however, at the line, ' Nay then I 
 see I must wake you indeed. What's heere, laid on your 
 bed, drest in your cloathes and down, ah me, alack the day, 
 some Aqua vitse, hoe.' At her outcries, ' Enter Mother 
 . . . Enter Oldeman . . . Enter Fryer and Paris . . , All 
 at once cry out and wring their hands.' It is evident 
 from the dialogue that they come close up to the bed ; 
 and when their lamentations are over, ' They all but the 
 Nurse goe foorth, casting Rosemary on her and shutting 
 
 (p. 58), and the idea had independently occurred to u'sv that there may have 
 been on the Bear Stage a low platform on wheels which could easUy be run 
 out and run in again. On this platform (analogous to the ekkyklemaot the 
 Greeks) Zenocrate's bed might have been placed, and the main part of the 
 scene thus brought further forward. The chief objection to this theory is 
 that, had the platform been an established institution, we might have 
 expected to find some explicit allusion to it. We are not aware of any such 
 allusion ; yet the not uncommon stage direction, ' A bed thrust forth ' (or 
 words to that effect), seems almost necessarily to imply some contrivance of 
 hfe sort. 
 
THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 467 
 
 the Curtens.' Then ' Enter Miisitions,' the Nurse dismisses 
 them, and ' Exit ' ; and the scene ends with chatter 
 between the Servingman and the musicians. What can 
 be clearer than this whole -proceeding? What more 
 manifest than that the curtains alluded to are not middle 
 and lateral curtains ? The passage, indeed, is an instance 
 of vagueness of place, the main stage serving alternately 
 for Juliet's bedroom and for a public room, hall, or 
 corridor ; but this is quite in the normal order of things. 
 For a final and, to our thinking, absolutely conclusive 
 proof of the Rear Stage, we turn to Webster's ' Duchess of 
 Malfy,' which dates from about 1612, q,n^ was ' Presented 
 privatly at the Black-Friers, and publiquely at the Globe; 
 By the King's Majesties Servants.' We all know the scene, 
 so much extolled by Lamb, in which Bosola and his 
 executioners strangle the Duchess. As soon as. they 
 have done so Bosola says, ' Where's the waiting^woman ? 
 Fetch her: Some other strangle the children.' Then 
 follows, in Dyce's edition, the stage-direction, ' Cariola 
 and the children are brought in by the executioners, 
 who presently strangle the children.' But there is no 
 such direction in the quartos ; and we are glad to be able 
 to clear Webster's memory (sufficiently blood-stained at 
 best) of the atrocity of strangling the children on the 
 open stage. It is absolutely certain, on a close inspection 
 of the text, that Dyce, not understanding the construc- 
 tion of the stage, misread the passage. The quartos give 
 no stage direction at all at this place ; but we know that 
 Cariola is brought on, because Bosola's next words are, 
 ' Looke you, there sleepes your mistris,' and he exchanges 
 half a dozen speeches with the waiting- woman before she 
 is strangled. When that is done, Bosola says to the execu- 
 tioners, ' Beare her in to th' next roome : Let this lie still.' 
 Possessed by the idea that the children were on the 
 stage, Dyce substituted ' these ' for 'this ' ; but the reading 
 of the quartos is certainly the right one : Bosola is 
 referring to the Duchess alone. Ferdinand immediately 
 enters, saying, 'Is she dead?' Bosola replies, 'Shee is 
 what you'U'd have her : But here begin your pitty ' ; and 
 then comes the stage-direction, ' Shewes the children 
 strangled.' It is perfectly evident that the children have 
 not hitherto been visible, and that Bosola here raises for 
 9, moment the curtain of some recess and shows them 
 
468 THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 
 
 lying dead. If the reader has any doubts let him note 
 this further fact: after Ferdinand has gone off the 
 Duchess revives for a moment, and then definitely dies ; 
 whereupon Bosola, soliloquising over her corpse, says, 
 ' Come, I'll beare thee hence And execute thy last will ; 
 that's deliver Thy body to the reverend dispose Of some 
 good women.' The stage had to be cleared ; the Duchess's 
 body could not be left lying about; so Bosola had to 
 carry it off. But no provision is made for removing the 
 children— and why ? Simply because they are not, and 
 never were, on the open stage, but in some curtained 
 recess. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that this 
 recess was what we have called the Rear Stage. It could 
 not have been anything temporarily constructed for the 
 purpose, for in that case how were the children to be 
 conveyed into it and away again unseen ? Still less is it 
 credible that the long and crowded scene was acted in 
 front of a 'middle curtain,' the whole space behind it 
 being reserved for the momentary exhibition of the bodies 
 of two children. 
 
 Observe, now, that this play is stated, with unusual 
 circumstance and emphasis, to have been played at both a 
 ' public ' and a ' private ' theatre. Observe, too, that the 
 very absence of definite and explicit stage-directions tends 
 to show that the author relied upon a well-established, 
 clearly-understood form of stage, in view of which his 
 intentions needed no elaborate exposition. Bearing these 
 facts in mind, together with the fact that few indeed are 
 the plays of the period which do not presuppose the 
 existence of some such recess, we surely cannot resist the 
 conclusion that a Rear Stage, which could be curtained 
 off without impeding the view of the two main entrance- 
 doors, was an indispensable feature of the normal 
 Elizabethan playhouse. 
 
 It is now time that we should describe in general 
 outline what we conceive to have been the structure of 
 the typical stage,* which Shakespeare and his contem- 
 poraries seem almost always to have had in view. We 
 know from the Fortune contract that the stage extended 
 
 • We have chiefly in view the stage of the public or unroofed theatres. 
 These theatres, being by many years the first erected, would establish the 
 type ; and we find no clear evidence of any marked structural difference 
 between the stage of the public and that of the private houses. 
 
THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 
 
 to the • middle ' of the ' yard ' or pit, and was protected 
 from the weather by a 'shadow.' That two doors,* 
 visible to the audience, formed the chief means of 
 entrance and exit, is beyond dispute ; in so far the Swan 
 drawing is borne out. But it is equally beyond dispute 
 that there must have been other means of access to the 
 stage; and here the Swan drawing entirely fails us. 
 Apart from innumerable passages in which more than 
 two means of egress and regress are imperatively 
 demanded, the evidence of the commonest stage-direc- 
 tions speaks for more than two doors. Out of 43 cases, 
 taken at random, in which doors are mentioned, we find 
 that in 11 cases the wording runs, ' at one door ... at 
 the other door,' in 21 cases, 'at one door ... at an other 
 door,' and in 11 cases, 'at several doors,' As 'several' in 
 this phrase means simply ' different,' it carries no implica- 
 tion as to the number of the doors. On the other hand, 
 ' one . . . the other ' implies two only, while ' one . . . 
 an other ' implies more than two ; and of this the plain 
 interpretation surely is that there were, as a matter of 
 fact, three or more doors, but that two were so prominent 
 and so plainly formed a complementary pair that when 
 the playright or stage manager had them especially in 
 mind, he used the definite article, while he used the 
 indefinite article to imply * any convenient door.' It cannot 
 be maintained, by the way, that the different forms of 
 expression point to different theatres, some having two 
 doors only and others more than two ; for ' one . . . the 
 other ' and ' one ... an other ' are not infrequently to be 
 found in the same play. Where, then, are we to place 
 the third f (and ■ the possible fourth and even fifth) 
 
 * The doors mentioned in innumerable stage-directions rmist be con- 
 ceived as visible. A playwright states the point at which an actor is to 
 appear to the audience ; he does not lay down the route behind the scenes 
 by which he is to reach that point. It does not follow, of course, that the 
 doors could never be concealed from the audience, though we hold that the 
 evidence points to this conclusion. 
 
 t Mr 6. P. Eeynolds, on p. 7 of his excellent treatise, has assembled a 
 large number of stage-directions in which three entrances are explicitly 
 referred to. For in.stance, 'Enter three in blacke clokes at three doors' 
 (' Four Prentices of London ') ; ' Enter Joculo, Frisco, and Mopso at three 
 severall doores' (' Maid's Metamorphosis '). An often-quoted example occurs 
 at the beginning of ' Eastward Hoe ' : ' Enter Maister Touch-stone and 
 Quick-silver at Severall dores. ... At the middle dore, Enter Golding 
 discovering a Gold-smith's shoppe.' 
 Vol. 208.— No. 415. 2 i 
 
470 THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 
 
 entrance? The Eear Stage, or recess between the two 
 main doors, which we have seen to be so indispensable in 
 other respects, comes to our aid here as well. It is certain 
 that there were some means of access to the Eear Stage 
 from behind, since the cases are innumerable in which 
 persons or objects are revealed or concealed^ upon it. 
 There must, then, have been at least one opening to it ; 
 and a little reflection will show us that in all probability 
 (since bulky ' properties ' had often to be placed upon and 
 removed from it) access to it would be as little obstructed 
 as possible. Thus there is every reason to suppose that 
 it was not in any true sense of the word a 'niche or 
 * alcove,' but rather a corridor, some six or seven feet deep, 
 and open at each end. Nor can we see any reason to 
 doubt that there would be a largo door in the middle of 
 its back wall. Why should the Elizabethan playwright 
 have denied himself such an obvious convenience ? Apart 
 from stage-directions naming, or clearly pointing to, a 
 ' middle ' door, we conceive that this door was habitually 
 used to figure the gate of a town or castle of which the 
 Upper Stage had served as the battlements. For example, 
 it was probably by the middle door that Henry V entered 
 Harfleur. The two other doors had been used for other 
 entrances ; it would have been absurd for the Rear Stage 
 curtains to figure the gates of a town ; and for Henry 
 and his army to go off by one of the side-entrances to the 
 Rear Stage would have been, under the circumstances, 
 wholly ineffective. Dr Wegener believes that the whole 
 Rear Stage could not only be curtained ofif, but shut off 
 with doors. The reasons he adduces are plausible ; but 
 there are almost insuperable architectural difficulties in 
 the way of this theory. 
 
 The existence of an Upper Stage to figure battlements, 
 balconies, windows, etc., is admitted by all parties. There 
 is, indeed, a considerable number of plays in which there 
 is no evidence of its being used; but we cannot assign 
 plays which require the Upper Stage to one theatre and 
 plays which do not require it to another. It seems to 
 have been always there for the playwright to use if he 
 chose. There are some plays, however, which seem to 
 demand that characters placed on the Upper Stage should 
 be able to see what was passing on the Rear Stage ; and 
 this is the primary reason which has induced Mr Walter 
 
THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 471 
 
 H. Godfrey, in his recent reconstruction of the Fortune 
 Theatre (p. 462), to bring the Upper Stage forward at both 
 ends, thus placing the main entrance-doors in oblique 
 panels of wall, and providing over each of them a balcony- 
 like projection. There are several othei^ arguments of 
 considerable force for this oblique position of the en- 
 trance-doors ; but it cannot as yet be said to be proven. 
 That the stage was provided with traps is certain ; also 
 that they were freely used. It is certain, too, that some 
 sort of windlass was: placed in the upper regions (no 
 doubt in the lower part of the turret) by means of which 
 gods and other aerial beings could be lowered and hauled 
 up again. When we add that the walls were draped with 
 arras hangings, and that the boards themselves were 
 generally strewn with rushes, we have given, perhaps, 
 as clear an outline of the typical Elizabethan stage as 
 the imperfect nature of the evidence permits of our 
 attaining. 
 
 Postscript. — ^Too late for full discussion in this article, a 
 remarkable pamphlet has been published by Mr Victor E. 
 Albright, of Columbia University, entitled 'A Typical 
 Shaksperian Stage' (New York, The Knickerbocker Press). 
 Working, in part at least, from different data, and by different 
 methods, Mr Albright arrives at conclusions very similar to 
 those embodied in Mr Godfrey's Fortune Theatre design 
 (p. 462). His essay is one of the ablest studies of the 
 Elizabethan Theatre that have yet appeared. 
 
 William Akchee. 
 
( 472 ) 
 
 Art. IX.— THE IDEAS OP MR H. G. WELLS. 
 
 The Time Machine. London: Heinemann, 12,Q5.— When 
 the Sleeper Wakes ; Love and Mr Lewisham. London : 
 Harper, 1899, 1900.— Anticipations ; Mankind in the 
 Making. London: Chapman and Hall, 1902-3.— T/ie 
 Food of the' Gods; Kipps. London: Macmillan, 1904-5. 
 —A Modem Utopia ; The Future in America. London : 
 Chapman and Hall, 1905-^.—Socialism and the Family. 
 London: Fifield, 1906.— In the Days of the Comet. 
 London: Macmillan, 1906. — A^et« Worlds for Old. 
 London : Constable, 1908. 
 
 Remarkable as Mr H. G. Wells is as an individual 
 author, he is still more remarkable as a representative 
 figure. He exhibits in a striking manner the virtues and 
 defects of a new and increasing class in the English 
 bourgeoisie. He is a revolutionary fanatic with that 
 doctrinaire cast of mind which, as it used to be more 
 common in France than in England, is sometimes re- 
 garded as a mark of race, but which, in matter of fact, is 
 merely the product of a certain kind of intellectual at- 
 nxosphere and a certain kind of training. He is the child 
 of an age of schwdrmerei, with the qualities of that age 
 enhanced by a scientific education of a peculiar sort. 
 No inconsiderable part of his originality is due to the 
 fact that he happened to appear in a period of unsettle- 
 ment, when the English mind was, for the first time, 
 losing hold of the world of experience and groping wildly 
 in a world of theory. 
 
 From the epidemic of frantic sciolism produced by 
 the eighteenth century movement of enlightenment, the 
 English middle classes escaped somewhat lightly. Their 
 knowledge was the fruit of experiment rather than of 
 deduction; and a happy play of circumstances enabled 
 them to elaborate, out of their own affairs, the principles 
 of modern industrial civilisation. But their exemption 
 from the general disease of thought of their age was pur- 
 chased at a heavy price. Having initiated, as a matter of 
 practice, the movement of illumination which the spokes- 
 men of the French bourgeoisie adopted as a matter of 
 theory, they acquired a dangerous contempt for mere 
 ideas. Their placidity of mind soon degenerated into