327
The Saturdav Review.
15 March, 1913
a residential quarter of the modern English town.
are ihe repetition upon a small contemporary stage
Schnitzler has written comedies of sex upon à tacit
of blunders perpetrated by six or seven gencrations
understanding that society is based upon sex relations
of English erities upon English comedy at large.
between men and women terminated at will. These
There are two periods in the history of the English
relations are governed by a positive morality of their
theatre when English drama reflected the tempera¬
own. It is not the morality of marriage—Christian or
ment of English life. The first and greatest was
secular. But it is none the less definite; and so long
the period of Elizabeth; the second was the period
as Sehnitzler’s people keep within shelter of Schnitzler’s
of the later Stuarts. The second period was quite
lnws his comedy is consistent and morally inoffensive.
unlike anything within English historical experience
His English eritics would have him wind up with a
before or since. It was unique, brief, and brilliant—
moral in favour of English family lise, not perceiving
so unique that it had to invent a special sort of comedy
that this would destroy not only the artistic but the
for its expression, quite unlike anvthing in native or
moral value of his comedy. It is conceivably of no
foreign literature; so brief that within a single genera¬
moral advantage to know that, when nitric acid is
tion of its flourishing the attitude of its pcople was
poured into copper, the result is a red fume, which is
entirely lost; so brilliant that even the critics who
nice or nasty according to taste: but it quite certainly
failed to recover the temperament of the period had
does not make for anybody’s moral improvement to
to make all sorts of excuses for their admiration.
be told that there is no reaction whatever.
This comedy, being an imaginative reflexion of lise,
Let us pursue the English historical analogy a little
was in its best examples the perfect expression of a
further. Schnitzler, like Congreve, expresses in his
very definite and positive morality. But it was not
comedies a definite attitude towards lise; and his
the morality of the critics who afterwards wrote about
comedies are founded upon a positive system of
it. The criticism of the small-fry of two hundred
Having expressed himself in an entirely
morality.
years to#k one of two lines. Either they described
natural and unaffected manner, Schnitzler, like Con¬
this natural artistic product of a period they did not
greve, is asked to be less artificial''; and to“ let
understand as“ artificial?'; or they described it as
alittle fresh air?’ into his comic scene. It so happens
What exactly did they mean by
immoral?
that English Farquhar has done precisely what
Partificial?'? Artificial art is either a pleonasm, or
Viennese Schnitzler is invited to do. Farquhar is sup¬
it simply means art which you do not happen to like,
posed to have let fresh air into the artificial comedy of
art which is false, and therefore not art at all; in
Cengreve; and hie has for generations been praised for
fact, the term “ artificial'’ signilied nothing but the
improving the morality of a corrupt theatre. What he
critics' vague displeasure. The term“ immoral’ was
achally did was to turn the morality of the comic world
worse. It presupposed that these English comedies
of Congreve into the immorality of the comic world of
were a bounder’s week-end in Paris; that they were
Mr. Brockficld. There is no moral offence in the loves
a deliberate breach of the understandings upon which
of Mr. Brisk and my Lady Froth. There is very
society of the time was founded; that the sentiments
grievous moral offence in the loves of Mr. Archer and
of Mirabell were elaborate exercises in impiety. The
my Lady Sullen. Farquhar’s fresh air was an English
two schools of criticism suggested in the terms arti¬
fog, not yet dispersed.
ficial'’ and“ immoral'’ have between them utterly
This Schnitzler matinée and the wav in which the
killed the reputation of their victims. They determined
English crities have reccived it is a flat challenge to
that readers of this comedy, instead of realising that
every self-respecting person who has ihe least en¬
its people were observing a code ofltheinown, should
thusiasm for good work, English or foreign. I shall
Very Clearly realise that its people were breaking the
return tothe“ Comtesse Mizzi upon the first possible
code of somebody else.
opportunity—also to the sccond Schnitzler play of
This is precisely what has happened to Schnitzler.
Monday last, which in a wonderfully different way is
The historical method has in vain been invented. The
equally a work of genius. It is useless talking about
art of criticism has in vain been brought at least within
a regeneration of the English theatre when every suc¬
reach of a few elementary first principles. Queen
cessive production of the least consequence is the occa¬
Anne is dead; but the“ Times?' to-day might be the
sion for a further exhibition of incompetence on the
“ Tatler?' this time two centuries ago. Viennese
part of persons who are supposed to lead the public
Schnitzler perfectly reflects the attitude towards life
taste. There have been precisely three occasions mthe
of just such a group of social figures as frequented
last two vears when, for critics, there was an oppor¬
Covent Garden in the ’eighties and 'nineties of the
Lunity for good work. The reception in London of the
seventeenth century in England. At all points we are
first translations of Tchekoff, Strindberg and Schnitzler
driven back upon the seventcenth century. For an
make it quite clear that, despite the fashion which
atmosphere delicately suggested we must go right
prevails in newspapers to-day of periodically publishing
back to Etherege before in England we can find any¬
mechanical eulogies of lbsen, plays of genius are no
thing of equal refinernent; for a positive morality logi¬
more likely to be understood now than they were half
cally coherent through every word and deed of its sub¬
a century ago.
scribers we must go back at least as far as Congreve.
For an equally beautiful expression of a piece of life,
ASPECTS OF ROME IN 1913.
presented with the minimum of affectation, we must
go back, halting not even at Sheridan, to the one great
Bv ALIcE MEYNELL.
age of English comedy. Such is the“ Comtesse Mizzi
PHEchief novelties exposed to the reluctant eyes of
of Arthur Schnitzler, who is this weck solemnly invited
visitors to Rome, after an absence of two years,
br the critics of England to be less “artificial''; to
arethe finished tempie to the" Divine?' Victor
square his values, moral and artistic, with the ideals
Emanuel—to give the monument on the Capitoline a
of a Victorian middle-class interior; to be decent and
title fit for the antiquity it imitates; and the newly
natural and truc.
opened bridge about midway among the bridges of
Schnitzler gives local habitation and a name tothe
Rome.
impression left upon his imagination by the Viennese
The temple is not without beauty, but in one respect
life of his time; and his artistic sincerity gives to his
it imitates antiquitv faultily; it is so huge in its mass
work a moral consistency which is in itself a kathartic
and in the scale of its detail as to dwarf the little Forum
for the feeling and intelligence of anyone not
lving low behind it, the whole little Forum, its two
thoroughly besotted with the shams of modern English
historic arches, its pillars—Byron’s, no longer“ with
play-making. But the English critic brings to this
the buried base '’—and the rest of the graceful ruins.
work a dead imagination and an active conscience.
All these were dutiful in their proportion, in relation to
The laws determining the conduct of Schnitzler’s
the little hills of Rome and in relation to the stature of
people are not laws whereby his own conduct is deter¬
man, our one rod of measurement, which antiquity,
mined foris et domi. It is enough. It is the end of
while it was wise, respected. The new temple respects
comedy and of all art to show by instances that the
it not at all. Thus it crushes not present Rome only,
only life worth living is life of a desirable residence in
The Saturdav Review.
15 March, 1913
a residential quarter of the modern English town.
are ihe repetition upon a small contemporary stage
Schnitzler has written comedies of sex upon à tacit
of blunders perpetrated by six or seven gencrations
understanding that society is based upon sex relations
of English erities upon English comedy at large.
between men and women terminated at will. These
There are two periods in the history of the English
relations are governed by a positive morality of their
theatre when English drama reflected the tempera¬
own. It is not the morality of marriage—Christian or
ment of English life. The first and greatest was
secular. But it is none the less definite; and so long
the period of Elizabeth; the second was the period
as Sehnitzler’s people keep within shelter of Schnitzler’s
of the later Stuarts. The second period was quite
lnws his comedy is consistent and morally inoffensive.
unlike anything within English historical experience
His English eritics would have him wind up with a
before or since. It was unique, brief, and brilliant—
moral in favour of English family lise, not perceiving
so unique that it had to invent a special sort of comedy
that this would destroy not only the artistic but the
for its expression, quite unlike anvthing in native or
moral value of his comedy. It is conceivably of no
foreign literature; so brief that within a single genera¬
moral advantage to know that, when nitric acid is
tion of its flourishing the attitude of its pcople was
poured into copper, the result is a red fume, which is
entirely lost; so brilliant that even the critics who
nice or nasty according to taste: but it quite certainly
failed to recover the temperament of the period had
does not make for anybody’s moral improvement to
to make all sorts of excuses for their admiration.
be told that there is no reaction whatever.
This comedy, being an imaginative reflexion of lise,
Let us pursue the English historical analogy a little
was in its best examples the perfect expression of a
further. Schnitzler, like Congreve, expresses in his
very definite and positive morality. But it was not
comedies a definite attitude towards lise; and his
the morality of the critics who afterwards wrote about
comedies are founded upon a positive system of
it. The criticism of the small-fry of two hundred
Having expressed himself in an entirely
morality.
years to#k one of two lines. Either they described
natural and unaffected manner, Schnitzler, like Con¬
this natural artistic product of a period they did not
greve, is asked to be less artificial''; and to“ let
understand as“ artificial?'; or they described it as
alittle fresh air?’ into his comic scene. It so happens
What exactly did they mean by
immoral?
that English Farquhar has done precisely what
Partificial?'? Artificial art is either a pleonasm, or
Viennese Schnitzler is invited to do. Farquhar is sup¬
it simply means art which you do not happen to like,
posed to have let fresh air into the artificial comedy of
art which is false, and therefore not art at all; in
Cengreve; and hie has for generations been praised for
fact, the term “ artificial'’ signilied nothing but the
improving the morality of a corrupt theatre. What he
critics' vague displeasure. The term“ immoral’ was
achally did was to turn the morality of the comic world
worse. It presupposed that these English comedies
of Congreve into the immorality of the comic world of
were a bounder’s week-end in Paris; that they were
Mr. Brockficld. There is no moral offence in the loves
a deliberate breach of the understandings upon which
of Mr. Brisk and my Lady Froth. There is very
society of the time was founded; that the sentiments
grievous moral offence in the loves of Mr. Archer and
of Mirabell were elaborate exercises in impiety. The
my Lady Sullen. Farquhar’s fresh air was an English
two schools of criticism suggested in the terms arti¬
fog, not yet dispersed.
ficial'’ and“ immoral'’ have between them utterly
This Schnitzler matinée and the wav in which the
killed the reputation of their victims. They determined
English crities have reccived it is a flat challenge to
that readers of this comedy, instead of realising that
every self-respecting person who has ihe least en¬
its people were observing a code ofltheinown, should
thusiasm for good work, English or foreign. I shall
Very Clearly realise that its people were breaking the
return tothe“ Comtesse Mizzi upon the first possible
code of somebody else.
opportunity—also to the sccond Schnitzler play of
This is precisely what has happened to Schnitzler.
Monday last, which in a wonderfully different way is
The historical method has in vain been invented. The
equally a work of genius. It is useless talking about
art of criticism has in vain been brought at least within
a regeneration of the English theatre when every suc¬
reach of a few elementary first principles. Queen
cessive production of the least consequence is the occa¬
Anne is dead; but the“ Times?' to-day might be the
sion for a further exhibition of incompetence on the
“ Tatler?' this time two centuries ago. Viennese
part of persons who are supposed to lead the public
Schnitzler perfectly reflects the attitude towards life
taste. There have been precisely three occasions mthe
of just such a group of social figures as frequented
last two vears when, for critics, there was an oppor¬
Covent Garden in the ’eighties and 'nineties of the
Lunity for good work. The reception in London of the
seventeenth century in England. At all points we are
first translations of Tchekoff, Strindberg and Schnitzler
driven back upon the seventcenth century. For an
make it quite clear that, despite the fashion which
atmosphere delicately suggested we must go right
prevails in newspapers to-day of periodically publishing
back to Etherege before in England we can find any¬
mechanical eulogies of lbsen, plays of genius are no
thing of equal refinernent; for a positive morality logi¬
more likely to be understood now than they were half
cally coherent through every word and deed of its sub¬
a century ago.
scribers we must go back at least as far as Congreve.
For an equally beautiful expression of a piece of life,
ASPECTS OF ROME IN 1913.
presented with the minimum of affectation, we must
go back, halting not even at Sheridan, to the one great
Bv ALIcE MEYNELL.
age of English comedy. Such is the“ Comtesse Mizzi
PHEchief novelties exposed to the reluctant eyes of
of Arthur Schnitzler, who is this weck solemnly invited
visitors to Rome, after an absence of two years,
br the critics of England to be less “artificial''; to
arethe finished tempie to the" Divine?' Victor
square his values, moral and artistic, with the ideals
Emanuel—to give the monument on the Capitoline a
of a Victorian middle-class interior; to be decent and
title fit for the antiquity it imitates; and the newly
natural and truc.
opened bridge about midway among the bridges of
Schnitzler gives local habitation and a name tothe
Rome.
impression left upon his imagination by the Viennese
The temple is not without beauty, but in one respect
life of his time; and his artistic sincerity gives to his
it imitates antiquitv faultily; it is so huge in its mass
work a moral consistency which is in itself a kathartic
and in the scale of its detail as to dwarf the little Forum
for the feeling and intelligence of anyone not
lving low behind it, the whole little Forum, its two
thoroughly besotted with the shams of modern English
historic arches, its pillars—Byron’s, no longer“ with
play-making. But the English critic brings to this
the buried base '’—and the rest of the graceful ruins.
work a dead imagination and an active conscience.
All these were dutiful in their proportion, in relation to
The laws determining the conduct of Schnitzler’s
the little hills of Rome and in relation to the stature of
people are not laws whereby his own conduct is deter¬
man, our one rod of measurement, which antiquity,
mined foris et domi. It is enough. It is the end of
while it was wise, respected. The new temple respects
comedy and of all art to show by instances that the
it not at all. Thus it crushes not present Rome only,
only life worth living is life of a desirable residence in