The Theory of the Theatre | Page 8

objective acts.
In all these general ways the work of the dramatist is affected by the
fact that he must devise his story to be presented by actors. The specific
influence exerted over the playwright by the individual performer is a
subject too extensive to be covered by a mere summary consideration
in the present context; and we shall therefore discuss it fully in a later
chapter, entitled The Actor and the Dramatist.
At present we must pass on to observe that, in the second place, the
work of the dramatist is conditioned by the fact that he must plan his
plays to fit the sort of theatre that stands ready to receive them. A

fundamental and necessary relation has always existed between
theatre-building and theatric art. The best plays of any period have been
fashioned in accordance with the physical conditions of the best
theatres of that period. Therefore, in order fully to appreciate such a
play as Oedipus King, it is necessary to imagine the theatre of Dionysus;
and in order to understand thoroughly the dramaturgy of Shakespeare
and Molière, it is necessary to reconstruct in retrospect the altered
inn-yard and the converted tennis-court for which they planned their
plays. It may seriously be doubted that the works of these earlier
masters gain more than they lose from being produced with the
elaborate scenic accessories of the modern stage; and, on the other hand,
a modern play by Ibsen or Pinero would lose three-fourths of its effect
if it were acted in the Elizabethan manner, or produced without scenery
(let us say) in the Roman theatre at Orange.
Since, in all ages, the size and shape and physical appointments of the
theatre have determined for the playwright the form and structure of his
plays, we may always explain the stock conventions of any period of
the drama by referring to the physical aspect of the theatre in that
period. Let us consider briefly, for purposes of illustration, certain
obvious ways in which the art of the great Greek tragic dramatists was
affected by the nature of the Attic stage. The theatre of Dionysus was
an enormous edifice carved out of a hillside. It was so large that the
dramatists were obliged to deal only with subjects that were
traditional,--stories which had long been familiar to the entire
theatre-going public, including the poorer and less educated spectators
who sat farthest from the actors. Since most of the audience was
grouped above the stage and at a considerable distance, the actors, in
order not to appear dwarfed, were obliged to walk on stilted boots. A
performer so accoutred could not move impetuously or enact a scene of
violence; and this practical limitation is sufficient to account for the
measured and majestic movement of Greek tragedy, and the convention
that murders and other violent deeds must always be imagined off the
stage and be merely recounted to the audience by messengers. Facial
expression could not be seen in so large a theatre; and the actors
therefore wore masks, conventionalised to represent the dominant
mood of a character during a scene. This limitation forced the
performer to depend for his effect mainly on his voice; and Greek

tragedy was therefore necessarily more lyrical than later types of
drama.
The few points which we have briefly touched upon are usually
explained, by academic critics, on literary grounds; but it is surely more
sane to explain them on grounds of common sense, in the light of what
we know of the conditions of the Attic stage. Similarly, it would be
easy to show how Terence and Calderon, Shakespeare and Molière,
adapted the form of their plays to the form of their theatres; but enough
has already been said to indicate the principle which underlies this
particular phase of the theory of the theatre. The successive changes in
the physical aspect of the English theatre during the last three centuries
have all tended toward greater naturalness, intimacy, and subtlety, in
the drama itself and in the physical aids to its presentment. This
progress, with its constant illustration of the interdependence of the
drama and the stage, may most conveniently be studied in historical
review; and to such a review we shall devote a special chapter, entitled
Stage Conventions in Modern Times.
We may now observe that, in the third place, the essential nature of the
drama is affected greatly by the fact that it is destined to be set before
an audience. The dramatist must appeal at once to a heterogeneous
multitude of people; and the full effect of this condition will be
investigated in a special chapter on The Psychology of Theatre
Audiences. In an important sense, the audience is a party to the play,
and collaborates with the actors in the presentation. This fact, which