He delighted in the idea, liked to think of Ariel pervading the air, the earth, the fire, the water, taking any form that he chose, and going unseen when he chose, but all-powerful. Perhaps he conceived of Ariel as typical of the poetic imagination; there are a number of underlined passages that would lead one to think so.

Another great poet has given us what we may call a criticism of the play, namely, Browning, as has been said, in Caliban upon Setebos; or, Natural Theology in the Island. It is almost characteristic that Keats should have liked the imaginative Ariel, and Browning the vital, grotesque, and poetical Caliban; or it would be if Keats had not liked Caliban too and underlined all his speeches. Caliban, despite his deformities and uncouth roughness, is surely a most attractive creature. Save for his unnatural form (I. ii. 284), I conceive of him as much like a great, hulking, awkward boy, no great figure in society, but very much at home by himself, and with nature. He hated Prospero, not for wickedness, but as boys hate school - for the injustice of the thing; he was wholly loyal to his own self-chosen leaders, just as boys are, until the leaders betray themselves; he was entirely familiar with all the interesting phenomena of nature, as boys generally are, when their attention is not distracted or disturbed by the repressive rules of civilization. Caliban is uncouth, but he is no clown; compare him on the one side with Stephano and Trinculo, on the other with Sebastian and Antonio.

Between these two, Caliban the most animal and Ariel the most ethereal, what a range of character we have in this play! Stephano and Trinculo are the lowest of the human creatures, and, as is unfortunately the case, they are worse than Caliban, who was not honored with the human shape. Then Antonio and Sebastian, who, save for the veneer of civilization and the polish of court manners, are not much better they are rough with inferiors, indifferent with equals, treacherous to friends, unrepentant before their judge. Alonso is at least better in that he has the power of repent

ance; but otherwise he has much of that dignity which seems (in Shakespeare) to come naturally from being a King. Gonzalo, kind-hearted and humorous, whose real goodness is evidenced by his action toward Prospero and Prospero's feeling for him. Then the lovers - Miranda especially, who is to many Shakespeare's most exquisite figure of feminine beauty. And Prospero, the intellect in person, guiding and ruling all.

Prospero and Caliban, these of Ariel

-in spite of Keats's love these are the two great characters in The Tempest. The one is poor, base humanity with coarse vices and rough virtues, the other is humanity lifted up and purged, one would almost say, of the blight of mortality, by the power of the mind. And yet I cannot help feeling, at times, that Prospero had lost some of the good things that Caliban had. In place of the animal sensuality of Caliban, he knew the beauty of unselfish love; in place of the unreasoning folly which bound Caliban to creatures baser than himself, he had succeeded by the calm power of the intellect in lifting himself above even the powers which are superior to most men, but he had lost the honest enthusiasm of the other, and I am sometimes tempted to ask whether he ever listened to those pleasant noises on the island or cared a snap for young scamels or nimble marmosets.

The Tempest is so full of matter that it is hard to stop writing about it. Beside language, metre, phrase, description, plot, character, the readers of this play have seen in it ideas without end, sometimes glimmering here and there under the surface, sometimes guiding and moulding the treatment. So some students have seen in it Shakespeare's ideas on politics, his satire on socialism in Gonzalo's speech, his distrust of democracy as shown in the absurd rebellion of Caliban and the others. Others have seen in it ideas that are almost allegorical, as that Prospero typifies the imagination, Ariel the fancy, Caliban the understanding; or that Prospero is the artist, Ariel his art, and so on. Another sees in it a vision of man's conquest of nature, another a

sort of farewell from Shakespeare to the world in which he had so long been a master. It is not at all improbable that any or all of these ideas may have come to Shakespeare and moulded a speech here or a scene there, or even a whole character. His mind was richly stored and his subject allowed him the very greatest liberty. If he were really at this time thinking of leaving London, it would be most natural that the idea should color the figure of Prospero leaving the scene of his enchantments. If he thought much of science or politics, it would be most natural that he should find here occasion to express his own ideas, either directly or indirectly, by the mouth of one character or another. But what made the play was Shakespeare's instinctive feeling for what was most poetical.

It may be serviceable to add a few of the most available helps to one who would not only enjoy Shakespeare, but study, so that one may enjoy the better. In general, Dowden's Shakespere Primer presents a great deal in a very convenient form. The best general book is Mabie's William Shakespeare. The best biography is that by Sidney Lee. Most suggestive of the studies of the growth of Shakespeare's genius is Dowden's Shakespere: His Mind and Art. The aids to linguistic study are Bartlett's Concordance to Shakespeare, Schmidt's Shakespeare Lexicon (3d edition by G. Sarrazin), Abbott's Shakespearean Grammar, or for those who read German, Franz's ShakespeareGrammatik. As to editions, the "Globe " presents all the plays in one volume, and is generally accepted as a basis for quotation and reference, although one would not want it to read from. There are many library editions, the "Riverside," from which our text is taken, being as good as any and better than most. Very useful to the reader is Bell's Reader's Shakespeare in three volumes, in which the plays, somewhat cut down, it is true, are presented with such suggestions for reading and emphasis as often do much to bring out the meaning.

THE INTERIOR OF THE SWAN THEATRE AS SKETCHED BY JOHANNES DE WITT, A DUTCH SCHOLAR, ABOUT 1596.

(At the rear of the stage, which is uncovered, is the tiring-room, to which the two large doors give entrance. Above the tiring-room extends a covered balcony, now occupied by spectators, but used by the actors, when required, in the presentation of a play. At the door of the chamber near the gallery roof stands a trumpeter to announce the beginning of an act. The flag, with the emblem of the swan, is flying, as a sign to those outside that a play is in progress. The disposition of boxes and galleries is plain, but unfortunately the 99 groundlings are unrepresented in the picture. The form of the building is circular. No other drawing of the interior of an Elizabethan theatre is known to exist, says Dowden. The original sketch was discovered recently in the University Library, Utrecht.)

66

ON THE CONDITIONS OF THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE AND THEIR EFFECT ON SHAKESPEARE.

WHEN we read a play of Shakespeare's, we are apt to read it with our mind full of the idea of the theatre of our own day. When we see Shakespeare on the stage, it is, except in the rarest cases, in a theatre of our own day and under the dramatic conditions to which we are accustomed. The fact is, however, that the stage for which Shakespeare wrote was very different from our own. And although we cannot put ourselves in the position of Elizabethan playgoers, even if we could reconstruct practically an Elizabethan playhouse, yet it is useful in reading to know just what it was that Shakespeare had in mind when he wrote. In that way only shall we appreciate many things that were important in Shakespeare's mind, though they are not perhaps to us, and in that way only shall we avoid trying to find in Shakespeare things of which he had no idea.

An account of the Elizabethan playhouse is, therefore, useful to the student of Shakespeare, and although a complete description is impossible within our limits, yet the main points may be mentioned, and especially may we attempt to get at the effect which they had upon Shakespeare's plays.

In the first place, the Elizabethan playhouse was very different from our theatres in general form. It was commonly round, sometimes octagonal, hexagonal, or square, and had the stage in the centre of it. This was the current idea at the time. The old Mystery Plays had been acted on great scaffolds, in the streets, around which people crowded on all sides. Later, plays were given in the courtyards of inns, where also the audience stood or sat, on the