before one and then the other. The contrast is certainly effective.

That Shakespeare used his stage to present in rapid sequence scenes in widely remote places is evident from our study of Macbeth. A similar freedom in the use of place is apparent throughout all his work, notably in "Julius Cæsar," and "Antony and Cleopatra." We, with our modern respect for the unity of place, find this freedom something of a tax upon our artistic sense when a play is represented upon a stage. In reading a play we are not so troubled, however, and doubtless on the rapidly moving Shakespearean stage there was also little difficulty arising from this cause. Mr. John Corbin's insistence upon the stage as a stage rather than as a representation of place cannot too constantly be borne in mind.

Shakespeare's adoption of the dramatic custom of his time in the use of comic scenes to diversify serious or tragic action has been mentioned several times. A study of Shakespeare's contemporary dramatists reveals the same use of comedy, but nowhere does Shakespeare shine more than by contrast in this respect to his fellow craftsmen. Marlowe's great play, "Dr. Faustus," is a seemingly impossible combination of profound tragedy and broad farce. The result is extremely inartistic. In Shakespeare the comic parts are used to good effect and are usually a legitimate part of the drama. Particularly is this the case with the Court Fools, such as Touchstone, and the Fool in "Lear." Comedy is here used to heighten the effect of serious and tragic action and from the lips of the irresponsible Fools fall many wise and pertinent sayings. In the comedies the farce element such as the Dogberry and Verges scenes in "Much Ado❞ is often the most effective part of the play. Such development of traditional dramatic technique shows Shakespeare at his best.

Minor modifications in the structure of Shakespeare's plays due to the requirements of his stage are revealed upon a detailed study. Perhaps a few instances will serve to in

dicate the nature of such problems which the practical playwright of all times is obliged to consider.

"Hamlet" concludes not with the death of the hero but with the entrance of Fortinbras who bids the bodies of the slain be carried from the stage. The conclusion is a noble one, more in keeping we like to think, with a high conception of life than would be a drop curtain falling dramatically upon the scene. Shakespeare's tragedies do not close with death. The thread of life is picked up by the survivors and we see the story, so to speak, concluded in a human perspective. This noticeable characteristic of all the plays is conspicuous in "Hamlet." Yet the necessity back of the dramatic expedient is no more than the clearing of a stage which lacked a drop curtain. The instance is a striking one, for it illustrates the artistic use that can be made of a mechanical limitation.

A second instance illustrating another modification of structure due to stage conditions may be cited from Scene 1, Act III of "Antony and Cleopatra." This scene follows immediately upon the elaborate galley scene which concludes Act II and precedes a scene in Cæsar's house at Rome. It is of no importance in itself and the theory has been advanced that it is merely a stop-gap which permits any necessary alteration of stage properties to be made on the back stage. A better explanation is that it serves to break the suddenness of the transition from Misenum to Rome, A sharp change of place is not in itself incompatible with Shakespeare's method but a change of scene which involves the presentation of the same characters in widely remote places has to be artistically managed. At Misenum and at Rome some of the same characters appear. Their exit from Misenum followed immediately by their entrance at Rome would certainly be rather confusing. The discordant note is softened by the scene of Ventidius. It is possible, too, that a little time was required for the actors to change costumes. Whatever reason is assigned the conclusion is the same that Shakespeare felt obliged to pad his play either to get an

artistic effect or to avoid a mechanical complication. The instance is a good one in that it shows the limitations of the Elizabethan stage and the effort which Shakespeare made to overcome them. Similar examples can be found in other of his plays.

What effect the use of boy actors for women's parts may have had upon Shakespeare's treatment of female characters, seems a matter of dubious speculative value. It is not probable that the custom affected his conception of character at all. But it in all probability influenced him in his construction of plot, for the use of boys' costumes for feminine disguise was undoubtedly stimulated by the custom of

boy actors. The Elizabethan drama contains many instances of such feminine masquerading, and the familiar instances of Rosalind, Viola, and Imogen come to mind at once. Doubtless the boy actors found skirts an impediment and rejoiced in their own male attire. Doubtless, too, they made very good looking boys when but indifferent maidens. A successful dramatist no doubt bore these points in mind while writing his plays.

To conclude this brief consideration of the influence of stage conditions upon Shakespeare's construction of plays we may summarize the results of our discussion:

The Elizabethan stage, itself the descendant of the medieval stage, retained certain characteristics of the cruder drama. The use of men and boys as actors of women's parts, the peculiar convention of stage distance, and the intermingling of serious and comic elements in plays are the most important traditions exerting an influence on the Elizabethan drama. The peculiarities of the Elizabethan playhouse had also their influence on dramatic structure. In this connection the lack of a drop curtain, and the scantiness of equipment, particularly the lack of scenery, are the most im portant points to bear in mind.

Shakespeare was influenced by these various traditional and contemporary stage conditions. A study of his plays will reveal the effects, good and bad, which they had upon his dramatic technique. Our conclusion must be, therefore, that Shakespeare was not merely a great poet but also a practical playwright who strove to make his art fit the stage conditions of his day. This he did excellently, for the most part. If we would understand his success we must bear in mind, constantly, the effect at which he aimed, and the difficulties which he was obliged to overcome.