costumes and accessories will be found to be often grotesquely out of harmony with the play. This separation has been increased by the modern appeal to the Ear through the literary movement in the theatre which marked the late nineteenth and the early twentieth century, first in Germany, then in France and England, and which succeeded in turning the theatre into an arena in which modern literary battles, in the form of debates and discussions, were fought out.

III

Apparently to Wagner belongs the credit of detecting the need and cause of the said unity. He was the first of the moderns to see the necessity of adapting everything in the theatre to help the dramatic illusion by rendering the drama-stuff accessible to every spectator. And it was doubtless the recognition of this need which called forth a vision of the law of antecedent unity in the theatre. In any case he was led to the discovery of the drama as the seed of the unity. To Wagner drama-stuff was sound. In the drama he saw an all-pervading sound-spirit flowing from the universe of emotional reality, which the reciprocal act of the theatre may render accessible to every member of the vastest and most diverse audience. Springing from Drama he saw the eternal motive. Drama makes the motive, and not the motive, Drama. If Drama determines the motive then the motive must determine the will of the spectator. Arguing somewhat in this manner, Wagner set to work to give the motive the widest expression by adapting the objects and agents, seen and unseen, surrounding the spectator-everything in and about the theatre in fact-to operate upon the will, through the feelings, of the spectator. This process would no doubt have been successful had Wagner thoroughly understood the working principle of the unity and employed proper means and instruments throughout. But the principle was not clear to him, with the result that he left gaps in his general design. He omitted, for instance, to introduce the spiritual motive into the scenery and accessories; they did not contain the essential drama-stuff. The omission interfered with the total effect which he desired to obtain by the specially designed auditorium, orchestra, stage and

form of interpretation. It invited distraction and distraction destroyed the harmony of Wagner's system. It prevented the spectator being raised as Wagner desired to the highest point of receptivity.

After Wagner came Gordon Craig, also with a conception of the need and cause, but with a deeper grasp of the principle of unity. He too had a vision of the law of antecedent unity in the theatre. He too was led by his vision to the discovery of the dramatic seed of the unity. On turning to the seed he found what? Here too was an antecedent, a primary motive which he recognized must run thread-like through the theatre till it reached the spectator unconsciously through the senses. This motive or root was motion. To Gordon Craig drama-stuff was motion. It was a wondrous rhythmic motion invisible in space yet ever seeking to become visible through man. When therefore man is determined to act in harmony with this all-present power motion is the result. And as all men are pre-determined to act in harmony with it, by what fitter means than a theatre designed on the principle of rhythmic motion could men be set completely in motion with the eternal dramatic rhythm of the universe? It was sufficient for Gordon Craig to believe this respecting the power of eternal motion to make itself felt through the medium of an appropriate theatre, for him to understand the true nature of the theatre as a temple of art and to conclude therefrom that given a rhythmic theatre a rhythmic form of drama will inevitably follow. But in realizing the nature of his drama-stuff and the part it must play in the eternal growth and development of the theatre, he also realized something which Wagner had overlooked. If he grasped the principle of unity in its entirety he also saw the difficulty of applying it to an institution that had never been subjected to dramatic unity. A great deal of premonitory, preparatory activity would be necessary before everything in the theatre could be adapted to lead up to one big culminating light. For instance the old stage cumber would have to be destroyed and replaced by appropriate scenery and accessories. The work to be done called for a long period of close research and experiment. So it happens that Gordon Craig's theatre has yet to be realized. Perhaps it might

have been nearer realization than it is if the age had understood the real nature of the drama and the theatre, and more men and women had been students and interpreters of the spiritualization of the theatre.

Along with Gordon Craig and assimilating some of his ideas came Max Reinhardt. He too may be said to have had a positive insight into the law of the antecedent unity of the theatre. By this means he was led to the discovery of the unconscious as the seed of the drama, and evolved therefrom a working hypothesis similar to that of Wagner and Gordon Craig. His guess may be stated this way: Drama-stuff is the unconscious. The drama is the expression and the illumination of the unconscious. That is, Drama illuminates its own mystery through the drama. We all have the unconscious element in common. We are linked together by it. Therefore by means of the drama the dramatist and producer alike are able to touch any member of the widest and most diverse audience. So if the unconscious element in the drama appeals universally to the unconscious in the audience the drama should contain as much as possible of the unconscious element. This was Max Reinhardt's guess, which he has been actively engaged verifying by experiment for many years. He has been selecting the most suitable plays from the thousands in the repertory of the world, overhauling them, extracting the dramatic, that is, the unconscious element, and transmitting it to vast audiences in specially adapted theatres. He now aims like Gordon Craig to establish the law of unity in a theatre designed for the purpose. His Theatre of the Five Thousand (of which there is a full account in my Reinhardt book) will have the requisite harmony of all its parts.

So Wagner, Craig and Reinhardt found a theatre burdened and clogged with the tradition of separateness, and each has sought in his own way to reëstablish it as a highly sensitized instrument for receiving and transmitting the drama as the expression of man's fundamental and unending emotions. Their work is bearing fruitful results. To-day we see everywhere in Europe evidences of a very widespread attempt to apply the law of antecedent unity in the theatre. In England there are three pioneers at least who are devoting themselves to the prin

ciple with energy and enthusiasm. Mr. Granville Barker is applying his critical and organizing intelligence and considerable business knowledge to the great problem of the theatre. If he began as a disciple of Otto Brahm, who neglected scenery and decoration in favor of extraordinary perfection of ensemble acting, he has now made a break. He has come definitely into line with Craig and Reinhardt and is linking scenery, decoration and ensemble acting and will ultimately, no doubt, become the champion of a unified and unifying theatre, in which everything shall be subordinated to the one big effect. So also Mr. Martin Harvey is applying his cool and clear intelligence to the same problem. Mr. Harvey began as an enthusiastic disciple of Irving and his improvements in scenery costumes and accessories. He is now a no less enthusiastic disciple of Reinhardt and William Poel and is rapidly accustoming himself to translate the drama and the theatre in terms of the greatly needed unity. Mr. Basil Dean, late of the Liverpool Repertory Theatre, is another follower of Reinhardt who is applying his experience in the new direction. That he has lately been appointed producer at His Majesty's Theatre is hopeful. It may be the means of inducing Sir Herbert Tree to abandon Irving's methods of realistic staging in favor of a more imaginative method of his own. In these three pioneers then we see the champions of the unifying principle of the art theatre which forms the strongest contrast to the separatist principle of the literary theatre.

IV

The new form of theatre then may be said to be springing out of a profound truth, a truth only just discovered and understood by theatre reformers, namely, that the theatre must be an essential part of the representation of the drama. Before it can become fully operative as a highly sensitized instrument for receiving and transmitting the drama it must belong to the action of the drama, as the stem, leaves, blossom belong to the root of a tree. It must in fact be dramatized by being made a part of the dramatic unity to which it belongs. The perception of this truth has given rise to certain ideas of superiority concerning the theatre. The renewed search for intimacy in the theatre is

a sign of superiority. According to this intimacy idea everything in a theatre should be subordinated to one end, namely, that of bringing the spectator into the action of the drama. Arising out of this is the recognition in the theatre of the importance of the scientific discovery that the greater part of man is the unconscious, that something dwells in us unconsciously like a dream, that it is a great flowing power, beyond reason, neither rational nor irrational, but non-rational, and therefore cannot be analyzed. Accordingly it is felt that the real and lasting effect of drama upon an audience is an unconscious one. The drama does not in fact work through the intellect nor sway the spectator by thoughts, however profound or subtle. It works through the emotions and leads man to recognize the greatness or, servility of man in spite of himself. Theatre audiences, like church congregations, are swayed unconsciously. Hence comes the belief that suggestion is mightier than argument, and all in the theatre should make for suggestion. This is another sign of superiority. So in turn has arisen a recognition of the inadequacy of words. There are no words for some emotions. Emotions that are mighty and deep cannot be expressed by inconsequent words. When human beings are carried on the tide of elemental passions, when they experience the feelings, vital, simple and intense, of the life they share in common, when they are borne to the greatest heights and depths, of love, hate, sorrow, hope, fear, speech fails them. At such moments emotion can only be expressed by motion, by music, by line, by color, each working separately yet together, working profoundly and significantly in and out of each other. Then complexity in unity is held to be another means of conferring distinction on the theatre. The coöperation of all concerned in a production should be directed toward one great exalted end. That the theatre is to develop from within instead of being fashioned from without, to spring from its own vital seed of unity and not to be shaped by the immediate playgoing public, is also counted something superior. That the theatre may attain to individuality of type and differ entirely from every other house of entertainment, is yet another sign of superiority. Finally the idea that the theatre, like the earth, is rhythmical adds distinction to the theatre. Everything dances in nature, everything should dance in the