INFORMATION TO USERS

This malarial was produoad from a microfilm copy of tha original documant. Whila tha most advanced tachnological means to photograph and reproduce this documant have bean used, tha quality is heavily dependant upon tha quality of tha original submitted.

Tha following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1. Tha sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from tha documant photographad is "Missing Pags(s)". If it was possible to obtain tha missing paga(s) or section, they are spliced into tha film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. Whan an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that tha photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure end thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the pegs in the adjacent frame.

3. Whan a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pegsa you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 900 North ZM b Rood Am Alter, Michigan 41108 KRAMER, William Case, 1929- GQRDGN CRAIG: UBER-DIRECTOR, MAJOR INFLUENCES ON CRAIG'S THEORY AND PRACTICE. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1974 Theater

University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan

© Copyright by William Case Kramer

197**

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. GORDON CRAIGt UBER-DIRECTOR. MAJOR INFLUENCES ON CRAIG'S THEORY AND PRACTICE

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By William Case Kramer. B.A.. M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University 197*

Reading Committee> Approved by Dr. Roy Bowen Dr. George Crepeau Dr. John C. Morrow

Advisor Department of Theatre ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express sy appreciation to the members of ay committee, Professors John C. Morrow, Roy Bowen, and George Crepeau for their sincere interest, guidance, and perceptive evaluations during this period of research. Each made his own very special contribution. This study was enriohed by a Research Travel Fellowship awarded by , the Department of Theatre of The Ohio State University for study in Europe, under the dynamic leadership of Professor Morrow. For the warm friendship and' materials they have contributed, I am grateful to Gordon Craig's daughter and son, Nelly and Edward Craig. A special thank-you must go to Professor Arnold Rood, a Craig scholar, for his inval­ uable help. And to that most gifted theatre man, Dr. Milton Smith of Columbia University, who first aroused my interest in Craig, I am deeply grateful. Lastly, the invaluable aid, unflagging spirit, and sense of humor of my wife, Lis, have made the completion of this research possible.

ii VITA

19*9 B.A.» University of Virginia( Charlottes­ ville, Virginia. *• 1955 M.A., Columbia University, New York. 1955-1961 Assistant Professor, Department of Theatre, Towson State College, Baltimore, Maryland. 196*-196? Associate Professor, Department of Speech and Drama, University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point. 1969-1972 Academic Adviser in University College, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

1972-1973 Director of Theatre, Madison College, Harrisonburg, Virginia.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Fieldt Theatre Studies in Theatre Historyt Professor John H. McDowell (Ohio State University). Studies in Dramatic Literatures Professors John C. Morrow and John Harold Wilson (Ohio State Univer­ sity), and Walter Scott (Northwestern University). Studies in Directings Professor Roy Bowen (Ohio State University). Studies in Actings Alvina Krause (Northwestern University), Lee Strasberg (Actors Studio). Studied in Technical Theatres Theodore Fuchs (Northwestern University).

ill TABLE OP CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ii VITA ...... iii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS...... vli INTRODUCTION...... 2 Chapter I. INFLUENCES ON THE NATURE AND WORK OF GORDON CRAIGi ELLEN TERRY AND EDWARD GOD'/IN. . . . 13 II. EDWARD GODWIN'S INFLUENCE ON THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF HIS SON...... 25 Early Architectural Achievements The Terry-Godwin Family Affair Financial Reverses The Uber-Architect and the Morris Movement The Victorian Japanese Vogue Decade of Theatre Production The Merchant of Venice Other Collaborations As You Like It Helen In Trov III. THE INFLUENCE OF CRAIG'S EARLY ACTING EXPERIENCE, 1889-1897...... 60 Introduction First Lyceum Season i 1889-1890 First Summer Touri The Haviland and Harvey Company Second Lyceum Season Third Lyceum Season Summer with the Sarah Thorne Company Fourth Lyceum Season and Marriage Initial Experience as Producer-Director Major Roles with the W. S. Hardy Shake­ speare Company iv Chapter Page Depressioni Personal and Professional Major Roles with the Sarah Thorne Company Hamlet and Romeo in London Final Days with Irving at the Lyceum i 1896 Success in the Ben Greet Hamlet in London Acting* Craft or Art? Irving's Misfortunes More Tragedy Despair and a Vision

IV. THE EVOLUTIONARY NATURE OF CRAIG'S THEORY OF THE UBER-MARIONETTE 1 1905-1915...... 112 Introduction The Victorian Theatre Craig's Criticism of the Victorian Actor Economic Conditions in 19th Century England Characteristics of the Star System Reactions to the Star System Imprecision of the Spoken Dialog Effect of the Actor's Personality The Eyelid-School of Acting Realismt The Popularization of Ugliness Rejuvenation of a Decaying Art The Great Abstraction, the Actori A Source Evolutionary Nature of Craig's Uber-Marionette Theory Communication Through Movement 1905i More Than a Puppet 19081 A Dichotomy 19081 Exit the Actori Enter the Marionette 1909t Life-Size Movable Figures 19121 The Marionette as Metaphor Symbolic Theatre of the East 1915i Recantation The Durable Theatre 1 Ritualistic The Perishable Theatre 1 Improvizational Henry Irving 1 Uber-Marionette The Mask-like Face Patterns of Motion Physical Definition of Character

«

v Chapter Page Y. GORDON CRAIG'S DIRECTIONS TO THE ACTOR...... 18? Cralgt Practical Man in the Theatre* 1889-1928 The Craig 'Pictures' The Craig Screens at the Abbey Theatre* 1911-1951» From Yeats to Bentley Revealing Character with Physical Objects More Ideas for Acting Hamlet Craigt The Actor's Champion The Moscow Art Theatre 'Method' Craig Rehearses Opera Craig Rehearses the Victorian Actor Craig's Directions for Acting Macbeth The Supernatural Elements The New York Macbeth Advice for Playing the Role of Lady Macbeth Costume Selection Is Shakespeare Unactable? The Craft of Acting The Secret of Acting Shakespeare Craig's Final Thought on the Actor* 1963 VI. CONCLUSIONS...... 225 APPENDIXES A. DESCRIPTION OP CRAIG'S PROJECT FOR "THE BACH ST. MATTHEW PASSION"...... 239 B. CRAIG'S LETTER TO KARL MANTZIUS REGARDING THE ISADORA DUNCAN CONCERT...... 2ADOLPHE APPIA REGARDING PLAGIARISM...... 2Mf E. SOME REACTIONS TO CRAIG'S WORK AT THE ROYAL DANISH THEATRE...... 2*t8 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 269 4 I

Vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Plate Page I. Gordon Craig Conferring with the Author* Vence* 1963...... • • . . 1 II. Gordon Craig at 1 8 ...... 17 III. Gordon Craig with Daphne Woodward* about 1935* 18 IV. Gordon Craig at 93 with his daughter Nelly* 1965 ...... 19 V. Edward A. Craig (Carrick) with Howard Burman and the author ...... 22 VI. Edward Godwin's Japanese Inspired Sideboard* 1 8 6 ? ...... 38 VII. Blue Chair Designed by Godwin* 1880...... 39 VIII. Walnut Cabinet Designed by Godwin* 1876. , , . 40 IX. Piano Painting by Godwin's Associate* Edward Burne-Jones...... 41 X. Gordon Craig as Hamlet* about 1895 ...... 97 XI. The Masked Figures of Clytemnestra and Cassandra in the Tyrone Guthrie production of The House of Atreus. 1967...... 175 XII. Eric Bentley at the Abbey Theatre* 1951* examines a model of the Craig "Screens" • . • .194 XIII. Craig*8 Design for Lady Macbeth's Sleep- Walking Scene...... 197 XIV. Leonid Pasternak Drawing of Gordon Craig* Moscow* 1 9 1 2 ...... 20tt XV. Gordon Craig in 1962* Fifty Years After His Historic Production of Hamlet at the Moscow Art Theatre...... 205

vii Plate Page XVI. Program Cover of the Craig New York Macbeth. 1928...... 215 XVII. Erling Schroeder, Actor-Director, Royal Danish Theatre ...... 250 XVIII. Sven Johansen* Danish Theatrical Designer. • 255 XIX. Adam Poulsen at 8 9 ...... 258

%

viii PLATE I

"If only I had been powerful, intriguing or rich, all would have been different." - Gordon Craig July 4, 1963 THE AUTHOR CONFERRING WITH CRAIG AT HIS HOME, "LE MAS ANDRE," VENCE, IN THE SOUTH OF PRANCE.

1 INTRODUCTION

"Theatre— vague— clear— crazy— bad— good," wrote Craig in one of his notebooks in 1955.1 Both critics and champions of Craig would agree that his assessment of theatre might also be applicable to his own prolific writings extending over a period of sixty years. There was certainly nothing vague* however* in his life-long struggle against the pillars supporting the theatre of realism. To Craig the commercial theatre of pure imitation nothing but an alarming demonstration of the abundance of life and the narrowness of Art • • • To the true Artist common life is a marvel and Art more abundant* more intense and more living than life itself. True Art is always discovering the marvel in all that does not seem to be mar­ velous at all* because Art is not imitation* but vision.2 Craig's vision of what the theatre-of-the-future could be* was revealed in his idealistic dialog* The Art of the Theatre, which first appeared in print in 19P5I the impact

1Arnold Rood* ’’After the Practice the Theory," Theatre Research, 2-3 (1971), p. 96. 2 Alexander Hevesi. "Introduction," in Edward Gordon Craig* On The Art of the Theatre, pp. xvii-xviii.

2 3

and the reverberations, however, are still very much with us. Many inspired leaders of the theatre movement in Eur­ ope, from the turn of the century to the present (to mention but a few), Reinhardt, Duncan, Duse, Stanislavski, Meyer- hold, Copeau, Artaud, Brecht, Tyrone Guthrie and Peter Brook, all have come under the stimulating (but unsettling) influence of the prophet Gordon Craig in varying degrees. Of what does this influence really consist? Craig's insistence upon the concept of abstraction was to be a major tenet in his life-long creative endeavor. In the arts he regarded a lack of abstraction, a lack of styli­ zation, to be symptomatic of a denial of the artist's freedom to interpret his reality rather than merely to represent it.^ within this mode of theatrical abstraction, Craig's Artist-of-the-Theatre-of-the-Puture was conceived as an omnipotent director who would design and control all elements of production and either invent the play or con­ trol its inventor. The materials included the Uber-Marion­ ette, the play, and the scene, all of which were envisioned as entities totally responsive to the creative will of the master-artist, the Uber-Director, The Uber-Marionette

^John Bielenberg, "Scene DeBign At The Comedie Francaise, 1901-1920," p. 223. if replaced the actori the play was envisioned as motion- oriented rather than word-oriented* and scene was char­ acterized as a mood-provoking architectural environment. A point that needs to be stressed at the beginning of this study is the concept of movement, the motivating idea which underlies much of Craig's work. As the art of Isadora Duncan exists today only in words, photographs and sketches, so the art of Gordon Craig lives only in words, drawings and engravings. In both cases, much of what was written or recorded pictorially in no way commun­ icates the motivating idea which lies behind these inanimate symbols i the idea of motion.^ For example, he envisions an ideal theatre in which could be created a type of symphonic drama. His project for Bach's "St, Matthew Passion," for instance (see Appendix A for a reconstruction by his son), is a theatre experience( consisting of sound and music accompanied by patterns of movement, formed by changing patterns of light with arch­ itectural forms providing an environment for dance-like figures and choreographed groups of figures. Perhaps the dance theatre of Martha Graham closely approaches his ideal. Theatre ritual originated, not with the poet, but with the dancer, insists Craig,

it Hood, op. cit.. p. 81. 5

Purpose and Scope

The first purpose of this study is to investigate the thoughts and forces at work in the late Victorian era which combined to produce Craig’s theory and practice of the art of acting in relationship to the Artist-of-the- Theatre-of-the-Future, What were the origins of Craig's ideas? The influence of a number of artists can be seen in the work of Craig. This study will limit itself pri­ marily to the contributions! both negative as well as posi­ tive. by his father Edward Godwin, his mother Ellen Terry, and his mentor, the actor-manager Henry Irving, The second purpose of this study will be to show that one of the experiences affecting Craig most strongly, was his rigorous early training as an actor for almost a decade with Henry Irving in London and with several thea­ tres in the provinces. It will point up a new interpreta­ tion! his scorn for the practices of the typical Victorian actor, including even some of those of his beloved mother, contributed strongly to his theory of the Uber-Marionette. The third purpose of this study will be to explore Craig's concept of the ideal actor, culminating in the theory of the super-puppet. This exploration will show that his flight from the superficiality of the Victorian stage to the extreme idea of the Uber-Marionette. finally brought him back to the realization that there must be room 6

for two types of theatrei the theatre of ritual and the theatre of improvization. The time required for the con­ ception , birth, and growth of this theory covered a span of ten years. Our interest will be in the evolutionary process of this concept and also with some of its inherent contradictions. Concluding this research investigation will be a section devoted to an examination of Craig's attitude toward some of the problems facing the very human actor. He understood these intimately because of his early train­ ing. His sympathy for* and interest in, the problems of the performer is an area of study that apparently has been ignored in the literature about Craig.

Influencesi Ellen Terry and Edward Godwin

The beloved English actress, Ellen Terry, exerted a powerful influence on the nature and temperament of her son, Gordon Craig. From Terry, Craig inherited a tendency toward a Celtic temperament, a vivid imagination, a fierce independence, and a love of the fanciful and the poetic. Like his famous mother, the son possessed a compelling personality and a handsome demeanor. He was also totally emancipated from the conventions of the period, as was she. 7

Likewisef the influence of his father* Edward Godwin* was revealed in the nature and work of his son. Godwin is said to have been elegant and erudite but he also possessed an enigmatic personality which caused his brilliant career in architecture to fluctuate greatly. Prom the father's concept of the function of the master-artist embodied in the Uber-Architect* must have come the son's idea of the Uber-Director, Godwin's desire for* and means of* achiev­ ing organic unity and harmony in architecture and in thea­ tre are evident in Craig's theory and work.

The Concept of Abstraction

Whether it was in the realm of acting* costume or scene design* the artistic bent of Craig's father leaned toward realistic accuracy while Craig's impulse was toward imaginative expression. And Craig's vision of an ideal theatre could best find expression in the mode of abstract creation. Irene Corey expresses well the inherent power to be found in abstraction. The poet condenses a large idea to a few lines • . • [to] increase its power . . . An actor reduces the monotonous daily actions of man into those movements which reveal character. In all cases when literal content is submerged* allowing only highly selected details to form the visible top of the iceberg of meaning* a much greater potential is suggested.5

^Irene Corey* The Mask of Reality, p. 5. 8

Thus, Craig's predilection for abstraction led to the advocacy of the mask and culminated in the symbol of the Uber-Marionette. Because "an artist is one who perceives more than his fellows, and who records more than he has seen,"*’ abstraction was the style chosen by Craig to re­ lease most effectively the hidden essence within the thea­ trical experience.

A Theory of Acting

What were the circumstances which led to the formula­ tion of Craig's theory and practice of the art of acting? How literal was Craig to be with the concept of the Uber- Marionette? It should be noted that with a visionary gen­ ius like Craig, probing among the stars for eternal truths and answers (and sometimes shooting off on tangents), his enthusiasms occasionally were erratic and his conclusions sometimes contradictory, regarding the nature of the ideal actor. His association with the "royal" acting couple of the English stage, Henry Irving and Ellen Terry, over a period of almost a decade toward the conclusion of the last

^Gordon Craig, "The Actor and the Uber-Marionette," The Mask. I (April, 1908), p. 12. 9 century, aroused passionate feelings as to what the art of acting should and should not be. We shall be made aware of the diametrical opposition between the acting styles of Irving and Terry as seen by and interpreted by Craig as well as by the critics.

Influence« Henry Irvine

At the Lyceum Theatre Craig's musical Irish nature responded to the poetic English drama to which he became a life-long devotee. A fascination for mood and atmosphere was sparked by the sentimental melodramas of the day. During these formative years with Irving, Craig was to ponder the secret of achieving organic unity in theatre production, and the secret of achieving perfection in the performer. During this training period Craig also learned, after much anguish, of the great sacrifices required to achieve success. After progressing from apprentice to professional actor, Craig culminated his career by playing the title role of Hamlet in five different productions, the last of which was enthusiastically hailed by most of the London critics. Shortly after the conclusion of that engagement, something happened* Craig abruptly quit the acting pro­ fession, never to perform again on any stage. Why did Craig give up, when on the threshold of a very promising 10

career? An analysis of the conditions relating to his early training will help to explain his decision.

The Uber-Marionette Theory

There have been some misconceptions about Craig's theory of the Uber-Marionette mainly because critics of Craig grasp at only one feature of the theory when in fact

it went through» several stages of development. John Mason Brown tells us that To some of the actors . , , its coming must have seemed an insult, a threat to the supremacy of their profession and a thorn in the side of their personal vanity. They had heard about this Gordon Craig, of course, and his silly notions about banishing actors from the stage and putting Uber- Marionettes in their place. They may not have added that their hearing was largely hearsay and their reaction principally due to misquoted state­ ments or misinterpreted intentions, because many of them had not read their Craig.7 Craig's most vitriolic critic was the well-known designer and writer, Lee Simonson, While some of his criticism may contain shreds of truth, much of it consists of misinter­ preting Craig's intentions and misquoting statements. Some of Simonson's assertions are patently false, however. (See Appendix •) He declares that Craig "will be the sole

^John Mason Brown, Upstage. p. 137, 11 ruler of the theatre of tomorrow . . . he will rule over mechanical dolls.M Simonson contrives that "the super­ marionette is born of Craig's desire to revenge himself Q on the actor who haunts him [Henry Irving]," Simonson quotes Craig's statement, "The actor must go and in his place comes the . • • Uber-marionette," and then concludes that "after this preliminary [proclamation of 1908] nothing more was heard of the supermechanism.Actually a great deal was heard of the Uber-Marionette in The Mask for months and years to follow. If the distraught theatre workers had really known Craig's thinking, they would have realized that it was a theory put forth in 1908 and recanted by 1912. In fact in 1909 Craig was praising the virtuosity of the great emotional actor Giovanni Grasso,

In order to penetrate the smoke surrounding this flammatory issue, and to dispel some of the notions, a discussion of some of the characteristics of the typical Victorian actor will be followed by a descriptive analysis of the resulting evolutionary nature of the Uber-Marionette theory. Craig's ideas changed and developed with experience

Q Lee Simonson, The Stage is Set, p. 3^7.

9Ibid.. p. 3H5i 12 and maturity. The theory was not a consistent one. It resulted from the incompatibility of the nature of acting with the nature of the fine arts. Dissatisfied with many of the late Victorian actors, Craig sought a solution to the problem of the human performer by inventing the concept of the super-puppet. Maeterlinck along with Wagner and Anatole Prance seem to have exerted a considerable influ­ ence on Craig at this period.

Concern for the Actor

In addition to revealing the extent of the influence of certain artists on the work of Craig, another purpose of this research (which I believe to be an original contribu­ tion) is to disclose the extent of Craig's preoccupation with, and his concern for, the problems facing the actor j in rehearsal and in performance, Craig's concern is most logical, considering the traumatic as well as the fruit­ ful acting experience he underwent as he progressed from apprentice to professional. Most of the critical writing about Craig ignores this concern and fancies him as an "actor-eating ogre," creating beautiful but impossible-to- execute scenery of outlandish proportions. This study will seek to dispel this misconception by presenting mater­ ial based upon letters, personal interviews, and Craig's own essays. CHAPTER I

INFLUENCES ON THE NATURE AND WORK OF GORDON CRAIGi

ELLEN TERRY AND EDWARD GODWIN

"So many things influence one, so many people. So often one stumbles about* as it were in a dark room*" observes Edward (A. Craig) Carrick, Craig's son,

then someone else or something else opens a curtain or blows it aside and then one sees. What influenced one to see? The person who pulled aside the curtain? The wind that blew it? Or the light that entered? His mother, Ellen Terry, was poetry itself. She loved everything and therefore radiated joy. There­ fore, everyone loved her and so believed in her. She was Irish.1 Bernard Shaw wrote that she (Ellen Terry) was "a new and irresistibly attractive species of womankind • • . her combination of beauty with sensitive intelligence'was unique," Mrs. Patrick Campbell admired her grace, "no one ever had her magical step— that extraordinary happy haste."

Edwtird Carrick's letter of October 17, 1955# quoted by] Charles J, Miller in "An Analytical and Descriptive Study of the Contributions of Edward Gordon Craig to Modern Thea­ tre Art," p. 50. Edward Carrick in recent years, now uses his family name, Edward A. Craig.

13 I k

And James Barrie pretended that in her era "all the men of imagination proposed to their beloved in some such frenzied words as these, 'As I can't get Miss Terry, May I have you?'"2 [Gordon Craig's] father, Godwin, was an archeolo- gist-architect , . . was a brilliant worker, was always striving after 'beauty' and fighting against the vulgarity of his times. His best friend was Whistler,3 Carrick concludes that both Terry and Godwin exerted a considerable influence on their son's "nature," And when Craig grew up and became acquainted with his father's ideas and works through his extensive writings and through his architectural achievements, it would seem that Godwin exerted a considerable influence on his son's work as well. Carrick points out that his grandfather, Godwin, "loved few people— liked fewer." Craig scarcely knew his father as Godwin deserted his wife and children when Craig was only three years oldi as a result he was "Brought up in a circle of doting females who worshipped his mother" and never came under a father's influence as a child. In reaction Craig fled from home at twenty-one, got married

2 Hallam Pordhara, John Gielgud— An Actor's Biography in Pictures, p. 123.

^Carrick, ot>. cit. 15

(legally, the only time in his life), and fathered the first four of his many children— and saw less of his mother there­ after. "And he was perfectly right. He had to save his soul. Make no mistake about it," says Bernard Shaw. Ellen Terry with all her charm and essential amiability, was an impetuous, overwhelming, absorbing personality. She could sweep a thousand people away in a big theatre* so you can imagine what she could do with a sensitive boy in a small house . . . Isadora Duncan ran away from him exactly as he ran away from his mother . . . He still resents the great Ellen Terry, the woman who would have swallowed him up if he had stayed within her mag­ netic field.^ As a result, "it put him off women as possible helpmates in the future and, in fact, set him against them. Thus, he lost a bit of humanity in his make-up," writes his son. "But the loss of humanity made him seek out the heroic in' life— that is, in his life . , . the Theatre," All Craig's designs, except for one or two, are for the great, heroic drama. The small, "comfortable . . . lovely-kind plays never seemed to appeal to him,"^

^Bernard Shaw, Shaw On Theatre, ed. by E. J. West, p. 207,

^Carrick, o p . cit,. p. 51* 16

Unsuccessful Lover

Carrick laments the lack of love and the resulting loss of humanity in a letter to this writer. Butt poor mant he was such a notoriously » unsuccessful lover, Only by distorting the truth, can one show him as anything but a rather over-sexed young man with very little love in his make-up— i.e., Godwin's son. All his love went into his work— and the dead and wounded piled up on all sides!16 Like his father, Craig had a particular fascination for, and was unusually attractive to young, talented women who were uncommonly devoted to the dashing and fiery genius. As a result of these numerous love affairs Craig fathered at least nineteen children during a span of over forty yearsf his first child was b o m in 189^ and the last (to my knowledge), just before the fall of Paris when Craig and his mistress and baby were interned by the Nazis in 19^0.

^Edward A. Craig (Carrick) personal letter of March l*f, 1970 to author. 17

PLATE II

'*•- .St# GORDON CRAIG AT 13 HAD BKGlffi A PROMISING ACTING CAREER WITH HENRY IRVING'S LYCEUM COMPANY, 1691), THREE YEARS BEFORE HIS FIRST MARRIAGE, 18

PLATE III r

W

if-5 YEARS LATER IN 1935 CRAIG WITH HIS DEVOTED COMPANION DAPHE WOODWARD WHO, IN 1966, MADE THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OP DENIS BABLET'S BIOGRAPHY EDWARD GORDON CRAIG. MRS. IPAN KYRLE FLETCHER WHO PROVIDED THIS PHOTOGRAPH, IDENTIFIED THE MAN ON HER LEFT AS HER BROTHER. PLATE IV

,l l i/.u .V'

Vi <'

COR20N CRAIG CE'LXSrtATING His 93RP BIRTHDAY WITH KIS DAUGHTER KELLY« ONE YEAR BEFORE HIS DEATH IN 1?66, 20

One Love— The Theater

As Craig's daughter, Nelly (Carrick's sister), explained to this writer, her father had only one love during his life— and that was "the theatre— Theatre ~ THEATRE." If you mean women— then the one who went right through his life was my mother— Elena Fortuna Vera MEO, You might think that it was Isadora Duncan— but, she was part of the Theatre— father thought that I. D, would leave her work & be one of his workers— & I. D. would not, & wanted E. G, C. to give up everything and be her little manager, and give up my mother also.7 So— and a very big SO they parted . , . All the rest, as they call 'his loves'— he could not get men to work for him for nothing— but women he could, if he made love to them, and by giving them a child, he thought that they would not leave him— but— he did not care— quite simple— not very nice— rather sordid— and the truth— but then the truth is sometimes very uglylilllll Father's wish was ever to be remembered as 'THE. man of the theatre.'8 Essential in the life and achievement of Craig, God­ win, Terry and Irving and other great artists, is the

?See Appendix B for Gordon Craig's letter to Karl Mantzius regarding arrangements for the Isadora Duncan dance concert in Copenhagen. Q Nelly Craig (Mary Ellen Gordon Craig) personal let­ ter of December 15* 1969 to author. 2 1 artist's fundamental endowment of vitality* passion in the broadest sense. "In him there is a fountain of life welling up." And what constitutes the fundamental source of art inquires Stark Young? Depth of feeling* the vivid­ ness of the impulse* sensitiveness and cerebral vigor are requisite qualities.9

Devotion to Art

The intense concentration and devotion to art demanded by the dedicated artist are all too apparent in Craig's career. As his daughter Nelly Craig says* "he did not care" what happened to his lovers and his children* unless they could be of service to him in his project of the moment. (Ellen Terry supported more than one of her son's cast-off mistresses and children.) This was the - situation with Edward Carrick* who after serving as his father's assistant in Italy until he was twenty-one* felt that he* too* had to free himself from the dynamic and compelling personality of.his father* as Craig had done from Ellen Terry*

^Stark Young* Theatre, ed. by E. J. R. Isaac* p. 27*

I 22

PLATE V

ED'.VARD A. CRAIG (CARRICR) DISCUSSES THE WORK OF HIS FATHER, GORDON CRAIG, VttTK OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCHERS, HOWARD BERMAN (RIGHT) ANO THE AUTHOR, AT THE VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM, LONDON, 1960, 23

Terry speaks to the same point when she describes a characteristic which she abhors in the personality of the artisti in this case the artist could be her first husband (of ten months duration), the distinguished portrait painter, George Frederick Watts* or her partner for a quarter of a century, Henry Irvingi or her lover, Edward Godwin* or their son, Gordon Craig. She declares "it is the mark of the ar­ tist to love art before everything, to renounce everything for its sake, to think all the sweet human things of life well lost— if only he may attain something, do some great work." She concludes if that be the case then I was never an artist. I have been happiest in my work when working for someone else . . . I have the simplest faith that absolute devotion to another human being means the greatest happiness. That happiness for a time was mine . , . I admire those impersonal people who dare for nothing outside their own ambition, yet I detest them at the same time.10 Is not Ellen Terry saying that she has been happiest in her work, "to love her art before everything" when work­ ing for someone else, for Henry Irving, for her art through him, with him? Because of the strenuous, demanding schedule imposed on her by the Lyceum management, were not her

10Ellen Terry, The Storv of Mv Life, p, ?8. 24 children* Edith and Gordon* and her second husband* the actor Charles Kelly unavoidably neglected?11 Fulfilling the responsibility involved as Irving's brilliant leading lady* partner and hostess for many years* is not this an absolute devotion to her art in the service of Irving? And even more so with Craig* fulfilling his responsibility to his art--"to love art before everything, to renounce everything for its sake . , , if only [to] do some great work." And so* "the dead and wounded piled up on all sides."

Marguerite Steen, A Pride of Terrvs, p. 185, After their short marriage and subsequent separation* Kelly drank himself to death by 1885, CHAPTER II

EDWARD GODWIN'S INFLUENCE ON THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF HIS SON, GORDON CRAIG

A man who was to have considerable influence on the professional work of Gordon Craig was an elegant, enigmatic, dark, romantic figure who was to love his mother, Ellen Terry, and also to cause her much sorrow during six tumul­ tuous years of "elopement." Possessing boundless assurance and supreme confidence in his own capacity, Edward Godwin believed that "if a man was an artist there was no limit to his creative powers," By the raid-1860's Godwin had claimed the right to design furniture and to decorate the walls and floors as the province of the architect, as well as to design costumes and make themi to act and to criticize acting, costume and sceneryi to lead and direct all these activities in the present, and to theorize and talk about the same in the past.l It was an "integration of all the arts that combined to provide man with his environment," an organic unity that Godwin sought and that his son, later, was to espouse.

^Dudley Harbron, The Conscious Stone, p. 1*0.

25 26

Godwin was unique in his time* he wanted to encompass total design* architecture, landscaping, interior decoration, furniture, wallpaper, tapestries, utensils and the costume of the inhabitants. Although he shared the attitude of William Morris, he did not share his taste. The business* men of his home city, Bristol, decided that this artist was a practical man— even though he did read Shakespeare and sew costumes I

Earlv Architectural Achievements

Before Godwin was thirty years old, he had established for himself the reputation of an energetic, gifted young architect. At eighteen, he had helped to illustrate a book, The Architectural Antiquities of Bristol and Neighborhood, v/hich brought him and his associates considerable renown. And in his late twenties, he had won a competition among eight architects to design and build the Northampton Town Hall, It was a triumph for the new style he had adopted, that of the Italian Renaissance, entirely founded on

2 Roger Manvell, Ellen Terry, p. 67.

^Harbron, op. cit. 27

Ruskin's The Stones of Venice. His reputation was made. The following year Godwin was elected a Fellow of the Bris- k tol Architectural Society, Construction on the Northampton Town Hall began in 1861 and by the time it was completed in 186^f Godwin had been awarded yet another contract, this time to create a Town Hall for the city of Congleton in Cheshire. The excellence of design for these two public buildings merited him recognition in Charles Eastlake's The History of the Gothic Revival in England.

Among those modern architects whose work has always aimed at a refined and elevated standard is Mr, E. W, Godv/in, The Town Hall at North­ ampton . • • is an excellent sample of his early taste • . . simple and ingenious . . . At this period the designer was strongly influenced by the then prevalent taste for Italian Gothic and by the principles of design which Mr, Ruskin had lately advocated . . • A few years later [Godwin] was employed to erect the Town Hall at Congleton, and a marked difference is at once observable in the character of the work . . . a French element predominates in [this] design, which is simpler and more ascetic in its character. This tendency to shun the minutiae of decorative detail, to aim at effect by sturdy masses of unbroken wall space, and by artistic proportion of parts, is perhaps the main secret of Mr, Godwin's artistic power.5

ii Manvell, op. cit., p, 31.

^Charles Eastlake, History of the Gothic Revival in • England, p. 358. 28

The characteristics of Godwin's design* avoidance of minutiae* effects achieved by masses of unbroken wall space* and the artistic proportion of parts are certainly prophetic of Craig's future work. Godwin's domestic life at this time seems to be one of prosperity and tranquility. He is happily married in 1859 to Sarah Yonge* a beautiful* artistic but ailing wife* several years his senior. A leader of the artistic and intellectual society in Bristol* his home was a salon for kindred spirits who shared his taste for Shakespeare* for books* plays* and costumes. It was at this time* 1862, that Godwin* impressed with two* new. unknown but vivacious and beautiful actresses appearing at the Theatre Royal in Bristol, invited the fifteen year old Ellen Terry and her sister Kate to participate in evenings of reading Shakes­ peare, held at his home. When Godwin's invalid wife died in 1865* he relocated in London. Prosperity continued during this era as archi­ tectural commissions kept Godwin gainfully occupied. He designed another mansion, Glenbegh Towers in County Kerry, Ireland* and restored the Castle Ashby for the Marquis of Northampton,^ About 1868 Godwin's fortunes as architect

6Ibid.. p. 406. 29

and artist began to fluctuate. He designed the impressive and controversial Dromore Castle in Ireland for the Earl of Limerick. Eastlake's volume documents the castle as "a well studied and most successful work, in the execution of which the architect was consulted on every point, from the choice of site to the design of furniture," The rooms of the castle featured rich wood carvings, "stained and painted glass, ornamental tiles, marble inlay and decorative paint­ ing," The castle's banqueting hall measured 30* by 56' with a ceiling 3 6 feet high. The keep tower of the castle soared 85* high which looked down upon the main gateway, 60 feet tall. The walls wore up to six feet thick and con- n structed of local limestfine enclosed with a brick lining,' Upon completion, Godwin remarked that it was about as charm­ ing a thing as ever he saw in his life, Eastlake again praises Godwin's achievement at Dromore Castle, "one of the most picturesque and interesting examples of domestic Q architecture which has yet graced the [Gothic] Revival," Eastlake's statement that.the architect Godwin was consulted on every point, from the choice of site to the design of furniture for the entire enterprise, would seem to fore­ shadow Craig's theory over a quarter of a century later,

7Ibid.. p. *122 -Ibid.. p. 359 'ft . A* 3 0 of the position of the omnipotent director in the theatre» the master-artist controlling all the components* 9

The Godwin-Terrv Family Affair

During this two year period of construction* Godwin's personal and professional life was beginning to undergo some drastic changes. The year 1868 marked the commence­ ment of a period of great ecstacy and great bitterness for the thirty-five year old Godwin and his twenty-one year old mistress* Ellen Terry* who slipped away from a London thea­ tre after a performance one Saturday night* to establish a home with him in the country* or to live-in-sin in the eyes of contemporary Victorians* for the next six years* Their first child* Edith* was born the following year in a cottage in Hertfordshire* one night while Godwin was away on business. According to a long time associate of

* * * Ellen Terry* biographer Marguerite Steen confides Actually Godwin was • • . little capable • . * of truly loving a woman. Completely egotistical* obsessed with medieval castles . . . he v/as roman­ tically attached to Nelly* but blind to her sensi­ tivity* and quite incapable of imagining what* at this time* she was suffering of personal humilia- • tion and artistic frustration. Nelly needed com­ forting* and this was the last thing Godwin* soaked in his own interests* could offer her* 31

Godwin never recognized the need in Terry for tenderness and care of which* according to Steen* he was incapable. She speaks of him as "A monumental egoist* taking feminine adulation for granted* his increasing professional prestige gradually taking precedence over his attachment to Nelly. During this period* he had become a Fellow and a mem­ ber of the prestigious Council of the Royal Institute for British Architects, spending much time in London. As his commitments took him all over England, Scotland and Ireland as well, Terry spent much time alone with her baby, in the remote cottage tending the garden* the ducks and chickens and the pony. Just three years later in 18?2, a cherubic, blond little boy v/as bom, to be named legally much later, Edward Henry Gordon Craig. Even Terry's talented.sister Kate who had retired from the stage and married the wealthy Arthur Lewis, would not permit her "disgraced" sister and her illegitimate children to visit her home and family. It was impossible for a young woman who had "lost her char­ acter" to be received under the roof that sheltered Kate's innocent sons and daughters*10

^Steen, on. cit.. p, 11*1-,

10Ibid., p. 115. Kate Terry was to become the grand­ mother of John Gielgud. 32

Both parents had grown uneasy and insecure by the time their second child was born, Godwin was still very ambitious but nervous and dreadfully overworked and most impractical where finances were concerned. He had con­ structed a large, expensive homo for his new family, Terry, later, was to write Bernard Shaw, that during this period of upheaval and financial stress, she had to feed her fam­ ily and run her household on the sum of three pounds a week, A few years later, Gordon Craig v/as to react exactly in the manner of his father to the women with whom he was in love. When the infatuation diminished and especially v/hen the babies appeared, Craig like Godv/in became un­ settled, restless, and irritated. The diapers, the crying, the mundane distractions destroyed his concentration and interfered with the pursuit of his work and art. Craig, even to a greater extent than Godwin, was totally emancipated, morally and spiritually, from the conventions of the age . . , [he was] utterly charming and utterly without principle, He admitted no moral obligations apart from those of his work,11

11Ibid., p, 23^. Financial Reverses

Godwin's domestic tribulations were reflected unfor­ tunately in the upheavals of his professional work, In 1871, he terminated his partnership with his associate* a Mr. Crisp. The elaborate frescoes on the walls of Dro­ more Castle in Ireland began to peel and blister because of dampness and leakage despite the three to six foot thick­ ness of the walls. Godwin left the problem to be solved by Crisp. Money irregularities involving royalties on the Godwin-designed furniture came to light. The owner of the mansion Glenbegh Towers threatened to sue Godwin and Crisp because building coots had exceeded the estimate. He also charged that the roof and walls leaked. At this precarious time when Craig was born* Godwin had to mortgage Harpendon, the large* expensive home he had built for his family at Fallows Green. And when the brokers appeared and took 12 possession of the furniture, Terry, in self-defense, decided to return to London in 18?4 to earn a living in the theatre for herself and the children. Meanwhile, desolate and lonely, Godwin accepted an apprentice to study archi­ tecture in his office— and two years later, she, Beatrice Philip, became his wife.

^^Manvell, on. cit.. p. 7 2 . 3^

The Uber-Archltect and the Morria Movement

The unity of the arts under the control of the master artist' the architect' Godwin's theme, implied the enlarge­ ment of the scope of the architect to that of the Uber- architect. Godwin's concept was to foreshadow his son's declaration that it be one omnipotent director guiding and fusing all of the disparate theatrical arts to achieve a work of art in the theatre-of-the-future. Godwin, like Craig, insisted that the designer of the whole should be the author of the parts. It was fortuitous that the work of Godwin and the "movement" initiated by William Morris occurred at about the same time. Although Morris launched his career as a Pre-Raphaelite painter, his interest soon shifted to "art for use" principally concerned with domestic architecture and interior decoration. It was in 1857 when the twenty- four year old Godwin was on the threshold of architectural recognition, that Morris and Sdward Burne-Jones joined forces in revolt against the ugly decor and furniture reigning smugly in Victoria's England, Godwin( like Morris "was an apoBtle of simplicity,"1^

1^H, W. Janson, History of Art. p, 500, 35

Max Beerbohm refers to Godwin as "that superb arch­ itect , . , the aesthete of them all,*’11*' Godwin's fellow aesthetes who formed the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, and whose champion was John Buskin, sought to counteract one of the deadly effects of the Industrial Revolution begun in the eighteenth century. Machinery had replaced the handmade, the truly manufactured product, and thus, all of

the arts were affected. For the vast majority of the workers it took away the creative faculty and the ideal of craftsman­ ship that was vital because it was part of life. Art was now fast becoming something apart, some­ thing that was looked upon as a luxury, to be enjoyed at certain times and in certain places rather than as an integral factor of life,1^ During this period of social and economic readjustment,

good taste declined markedly. Godwin's versatility was encouraged by the activity of his friends Morris, Burne-Jones and other members of the Brotherhood who sought "to break away from the bad taste and empty artificiality of the times . . • and to

substitute real ideas • , • and sound craftsmanship" and to cause a return of "the old ideal of the craftsman who could make things not only useful but beautiful in shape,

14 » Max Beerbohm quoted by Harbron, on. cit.. p, 151,

^Helen Gardner, Art Through the Ages, p. 374. 36 lino, pattern and color." In the artistic vacuum of Vic­ torians, Godwin and his fellow artists who "were driven to make everything themselves," were noted for their creation of stained-glass windows, furniture, textiles, dyes, decor­ ated walls, painted panels, designs for wallpaper and tapestry as well as for printed and illustrated books. ^ "Still, the notion that there might be beauty and not mere utility in the products of engineering made head­ way very slowly," However, the real value of the movement was its protest against the results of the segregation of art from life, and in its efforts to make art again a vital, spontaneous expression-manifesting itself in the chair and the book as well as in the building and in the statue. The reform ideas of William Morris did begin to bear fruit in England in domestic architecture and interior design. "The boldest innovations, however, came not from members of [Morris*] immediate circle but from Edward V/m, Godwin."1^

The Victorian Japanese Vogue

Godwin preferred the Oriental style and v/as mainly 4 Q responsible for the Victorian Japanese vogue. He had been

1^Ibid., p. 355. ^Janson, on. cit.. pp. 553-5**. 18 "Edward William Godwin," Encyclopedia Britannica. 1967, X, 518. 3? greatly impressed "with the simplicity of Japanese interior furnishings, which he knew mainly from the colored woodcuts that had recently become available in the V/est,"1^ One of Godwin's bold innovations in furniture design referred to is the remarkable sideboard designed by him in lq6? (which formerly stood in Ellen Terry's house at Small- hy the, now housed at the Victoria and Albert Museum with 20 his other pieces of furniture). Art historian Janson describes the Godwin Japanese-inspired sideboard as being composed of 'boxes* within a framework of straight 'sticks,' and its elegance is achieved by its finely balanced proportionsi applied ornament has been kept to a bare minimum. At the same time, it has been planned for ease and low cost manufacture, Thb material used was inexpensive wood painted black, fea­ turing silver-plated hardware with imitation leather panels. 21 Maintaining steadfastly as his son was to do, that the designer of the whole should be the author of the parts, Godwin, in addition to designing the furniture for the structures he built, planned the designs for wallpaper patterns as well, introducing Oriental motifs of sunflowers, birds in flight and interlaced bamboo.

^Janson, o p . cit. 20 Nelly Craig's remark to the author, London, 1968,

21 Janson, o p . cit. 38

PLATE VI

BLACK SIDEBOARD - 18o7

EDWARD GODWIN'S JAPANESE INSPIRED SIDEBOARD COMPOSED OF •BOXES' WITHIN A FRAMEWORK OF STRAIGHT 'STICKS,' IS CONSTRUCTED OF EBONI2ED WOOD WITH SILVER-PLATED FITTINGS. THIS SIDEBOARD DATES FROM 186?, THE YEAR BEFORE GODWIN AND ELLEN TERRY ELOPED. 39

PLATE VII

BLUE CHAIR ~ 1380 THIS BLUE CHAIR, DESIGNED ALSO BY GODWIN, V/AS MADE BY WILLIAM Y/ATT ABOUT 1880. IT IS CONSTRUCTED OP EBONIZED OAK WITH UPHOLSTERED SEAT AND BACK; SOME TURNED DECORATION ADORNS THE LEGS. bO

PLATE VIII

>*•

WALNUT CABINET - 1876 THIS PIECE,- DESIGNED 3Y EDWARD GODWIN, IS DESCRIBED AS WALNUT WITH JAPANESE CARVED BOXWOOD PLAQUES INSET, THE JAPANESE CARVED HANDLES ARE IN THE FORM OP MONKEYS. THE CABINET DATES FROM 1876, THE YEAR AFTER CRAIG'S FATHER AND MOTHER SEPARATED. PLATE IX

I860 T O PIANO IS INCLUDED ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT DESIGNED BY GODWIN, THE PAINTING WAS DONE ABOUT i860 BY EDWARD 3UHNE-J0NE3, AN ASSOCIATE OP GODWIN’S. TJiE PAINTED DESIGN IS IKS "CHANT D•AMOUR"| BELOW ARE FIGURES OF FEMALE MUSICIANS AND DEATH. bZ

Johnston Forfces-Robertson at twenty-one paints a vivid picture of the interior decoration of Godwin*s drawing room whan he .recalls his first visit with Ellen Terry during her sixth and final year of living with Godwin. Ho describes the Oriental straw-matting covering the floor and there was a dado of the same material* Above the dado were white walls, and the hangings were of cretonne with a fine Japanese pattern in delicate grey-blue. The chairs were of wicker with cushions like the hangings» and in the center of the room was a full-sized cast of the Venus of Milo, before which was a small pedestal, holding a little censer - from which rose, curling round the Venus, ribbons of blue smoke. The whole effect was what art stu­ dents of my time would have called 'awfully jolly.* Presently the door opened, and in floated a vision of lovelinessl In the blue kimono and with that wonderful golden hair, she seemed to melt into the surroundings and appeared almost intangible. This was my first sight of Miss Terry.22 Godwin's desire for harmony and unified effect had a pro­ found influence upon his son and daughter. As children "everything commonplace and Victorian were kept away from Teddy and Edy." The nursery was hung with Japanese prints and the children were first exposed to Walter Crane's prints and picture books. Unsuitable books and toys were promptly burned.2*^

22 Johnston Forbes-Robertson, A Player Under Three Reigns, p. 66.

2*Wnvell, ot>. clt. 43

As master of the total design, Godwin the Uber- architect also insisted upon the appropriateness of his wife's and children's costume in the particular setting. In a period when every woman was blown out with horsehair and tight-laced to the limit of breathing* and children wore dreadful little imitations of grown-up people's clothes* Edy and Teddy in their Japanese kimonos [dark-eyed Edy 'looked as Japanese as everything that surrounded h e r ' ] * 4 and Ellen in her Viollet-le-Duc tabards must have been antic figures in Bloomsbury.25

The Japanese flavor and style of Godwin's designs (although he attributed the same characteristics to Celtic influences) were the result of much devotion to the study of Japanese art and its principles from i860 onwardt pre­ viously his concentration had been upon medieval research.

Living and working in the lovely harbor city of Bristol for the first thirty-two years of his life, Godwin had many friends among the skippers of sailing ships and it was they, who brought to him from the Far East* many of the 26 exotic furnishings for his home. The blue china and the Oriental rugs were two items that first caught the attention of the young Terry girls* Kate and Ellen* when they first were invited to the Bristol

24Ibid., p, 80.

2^Steen* on, cit.. p, 138.

26 Edward A, Craig* Gordon Craig, p. 3^, home of Godwin and his first wife in 1862, The sisters had never seen anything like it before. "The pale lofty rooms hung with Japanese prints, the polished floors sparsely scattered with Persian rugs," provided an elegant setting for the carefully selected pieces of antique furniture. This was to be "Nelly's first conscious encounter with beauty as applied to the domestic scene" and the experience "made an indelible impression on her," Never again was she "to be contented with the plush-and-bobbles, the over- stuffed furniture and deep carpets that stood for pros­ perity in the mid-Victorian age,"2^

In the year 1868 when Godv/in and Terry established a home, he also became a furniture designer for the manu­ facturer William Watt, by whom it was made and sold. God­ win's preference for the Greek and Japanese motifs are to be seen in the following examples. Two bookcases were painted with classic panels, themes derived from Jason, Medea, Acteon and Hercules, Another bookcase was decorated with delicate leaf panels of herbs in the Japanese manner. Although Godwin preferred plain walls decorated in soft shades as he found them restful, he was willing to try to use the same tints in a design for a generation so fond of

2?Steen, on. cit.. p. 83. 45

28 pattern. Nevertheless, the honeymoon cottage in the country to which he and Terry eloped* is described by the young mistress, "The walls were painted pale yellow and the woodwork whitei the furniture designed by Godwin* was slender and black,"2^ The selection of slender, black furniture against a pastel background in the heyday of cumbersome* dark* gin­ gerbread, was a cause for rejoicing by Max Beerbohm, God­ win, the Morris Movement, the aesthetes were emerging tri­ umphant in their quest for beauty-and-simplicity, Beer­ bohm describes the reaction against traditional Victorian furnishings when "they hurled their mahogany into the streets," In his essay "1880," he declares* They favored a less cumbersome style than their parents. As to the background, the wall became less aggressive and the pictures dispensed with their fruitful gilded frames , , , [Godwin and] the aesthetes substituted simplicity for multi­ plicity, 30 Again* the father's preference for simplicity was to fore­ shadow the son's preference for the same. Although Godwin preferred the simplicity of Japanese domestic interior design* his inclination for stage design was toward the

28 Harbron, o p . cit., p. 8 1 .

2^Edward A. Craig, op. cit., p. 39.

•^Beerbohm quoted by Harbron, o p . cit.. p. 151. 46 archeologically correct which was hardly the orientation of his son, Godwin in his insistence upon pictorial rea­ lism probably would never have agreed with his son*s poetic and symbolic approach.

Decade of Theatre Production

Although Godwin continued to practice architecture until 1875# the year after he left Terry and his children, he began to devote more of his time and energy to the theatre. Like Serlio, Sabbatini, Palladio, Bernini and

Inigo Jones before him, Godwin, too, was to pass from architecture to theatrical art. In fact, he is said to be the first English architect since Jones to design for the British theatre,^ Let us examine the activity of the last eleven years of Godwin's life which were devoted to theatrical art to determine whether any major 'influence on the work of his son can be discerned. Although primarily engaged in architecture, the study of Japanese and Greek art, furniture design and interior decoration during the previous twenty years, as we have observed, Godwin's cur­ rent interest in theatre was no new acquisition. Beginning in 1857 Godwin served as a theatre critic in Bristol for the Western Daily Press where his reviews, "Jottings," continued

^Enid Rose, Gordon Craig and the Theatre, p. 6. 47 to appear intermittently until 1861*. 32 a contributor of theatrical criticism he received no fee* It must be remembered that during this time he was also a successful and busy architect. Godwin in 1862 first wrote of the prom­ ise of two talented new actresses in the company of the Theatre Royal, Bristol, Kate and Ellen Terry* On previous business trips to London, Godwin had been impressed by a remarkable young performer, Ellen Terry, in the role of Puck in the Charles Kean production of A Midsummer Night*s Dream. An avid researcher and archeologist, Godwin in 1858, had offered Charles Kean some theories and suggestions about the staging of Macbeth. Kean's cool reply reads as follows* "10 March 1858 "My dear Mr. Godwin* "Many thanks for your kind offer. I shall stick pretty nearly to Macbeth with some slight alterations of the old scenery . . . but I am sure Mr. Grieve will always be glad to see you, and I shall always be glad to hear you have been seen. I send you a ticket for 'The Corsicans' and another for the last night of 'The Midsummer* and the Pantomime. "Sincerely yours, "C. Kean"33

32Kathleen M. D, Barker, "The Terrys and Godwin in Bristol," Theatre Notebook. (Autumn 1967), p. 31,

^Carrick, o p . cit.. p. 50* 48

Years of scholarly research culminated in 1875 when Godwin published a comprehensive and historically detailed series of articles entitled, "The Architecture and Costume of Shakespeare's Plays" (which Craig was to reprint years later in the Mask), Henry Irving, Beerbohm Tree and Augustin Daly, according to Craig, "were greatly indebted to the author, who may be said to be practically the founder of a very successful period in theatrical production."^

"The Merchant of Venice"

The Godwin article on The Merchant of Venice appeared at the time of the Bancroft revival at the Prince of Wales

Theatre in 18?5» which came at a most propitious period in the anguished lives of Terry and Godwin. When Squire Ban­ croft's wife approached Terry with the offer to play Portia she found Terry alone in an empty drawing roomi the furni­ ture had just been repossessed by the creditors and only the massive Venus de Milo remained, Godwin's work had temporarily come to a standstill and the couple were con­ templating a separation. After Terry gratefully accepted the role of Portia, Mrs. Bancroft suggested that the despon­ dent Mr. Godwin be selected to serve as the artistic advisor for The Merchant. This was the first great theatrical

•^Gordon Craig, The Mask. I (May-June, 1908), p. 75, 49 opportunity to come to Terry or to Godwin. As Terry and the Bancrofts . began rehearsals* Godwin got to work on the production at once* "consulting with [George] Gordon* the scene painter [formerly of the theatre in Bristol] whom he dispatched to Venice . . . to obtain the necessary local colorr"*^ Godwin's previous archeological study influenced every aspect of the production. And Terry, incidentally, "knew every detail of that period of Venetian splendor in which the action of the play takes place.The Godwin erudition produced "not only a masterpiece of archeology but a perfect welding together of the arts of the actor and the designer,"^7

Although The Merchant of Venice had a limited run due to a poorly miscast Shylock, Terry's brilliance as Portia brought her to the attention of Henry Irving. She was acclaimed for her "utter naturalness of manner" and for revealing the human side of Portia. Years later Terry was to remark that, "the production of Merchant displayed as none of his previous achievements had done, the wide range of Godwin's artistic genius."^®

•^Harbron, o p . cit.. p. 104.

^Rose, op. cit.. p. 8 .

^Steen, o p . cit,. p. 140, -^Ibid. 50

Craig in discussing the work of his father explains why Godwin chose to design in the realistic tradition instead of in the suggestive, symbolic manner. Either the producer was to present that purely imaginative realm of the poetic drama removed from all realities, furnished and peopled with purely imaginative forms, OR to give a reflec­ tion of reality as clear as the reflection of Narcissus in the pool* and, whichever method was adopted, it was to be beautiful. But although he admitted the two alternatives, Godwin seems to have felt that it was a safer thing to begin the reform by securing the decora­ tive accuracy than by seeking for imaginative expression.39 The news that Godwin was devoting his energies to the service of the theatre distressed some of his colleagues, one of whom wrote,

the loss to the profession of those who are continually crying out for better buildings and design, cannot be too highly estimated when the most accomplished living architect in England is expending his tried powers over the trappings of a play.hO

Why did Godwin devote a considerable portion of time during the remaining decade of his life to theatrical enter­ prise? Perhaps he had come to the conclusion that in the theatre "poetry, music, architecture, painting, and sculp­ ture meet in undisturbed harmonyi it is only in the theatre

^Gordon Craig, on. cit.. p. 55. ho Harbron. op. cit.. p. 106, 51 that we see (or rather might see) the noblest results of civilization."**1

Other Collaborations After the artistic acclaim accorded Squire Bancroft's production of The Merchant of Venice. Phelps and Coleman invited Godwin to assist them in producing Henry V at the Queen's Theatre. This production led to still further commissions. The contribution of Godwin to the Wilson Barrett pro­ duction in 1883 of Claudian v/as said to have "rivalled that 4 2 of the artist-scholars of a sixteenth century Accademia," After extensive archeological activity, Godwin "created the marvellous loveliness of the first act of Claudian," writes Oscar Wilde, and showed us the life of Byzantium in the fourth century, not by a dreary lecture , , . not be a novel which requires a glossary to explain it, but by a visible presentation before us of all the glory of that great tovm. Admonished Wilde, "Only the foolish called it pedantry, only those who would neither look nor listen spoke of the passion of the play being killed by its paint," He concludes that it was "a scene not merely perfect in its picturesqueness, but absolutely dramatic also,"**^

ho Ibid. Rose, o p . cit.. p. 11,

^Oscar Wilde, "The Truths of Masks," Literary Criti­ cism of Oscar Wilde, ed. by S. Weintraub, p. 142, 52

Again, Godwin was called upon to assist Barrett at the Princess' Theatre in 1885 with a new production of Hamlet. After a trip to Copenhagen for research at Elsinore Castle, Godwin decided to place Hamlet "In the period to which the story refers, 'when England's cicatrice looked raw and red after the Danish sword'— at the beginning of the eleventh century." Protesting against the anachronisms prevalent in Victorian theatre practice, Godwin again cries out for a harmony, a consistency, an organic unity within a production when he declares, Let the play be presented in the modern costumes of today, or in the costume of Shakespeare's day, or in the costume of Hamlet's day, but in the name of all ages spare us an invented costume whether by Hr. Irving or another, Not that Godwin undervalued imaginative design, but "he insisted that the imaginative had to be arrived at through LL knowledge of the actual," At the request of Ellen Terry, Irving offered Godwin the opportunity to design the costumes and props for the

Lyceum production of The Cup by Tennyson. Godwin accepted this assignment. The Cun was enthusiastically received and said to be most memorable.

lib. Rose, ot>. cit.. pp, 9-10, 53

"As You Like It"

Another great personal as well as artistic success awaited Godwin in 1884 when he produced, directed and designed an open-air pastoral production of As You Like It for Lady Archibald Campbell on her estate near Wimbleton, An ardent admirer of Godwin's talent was Oscar Wilde who reported that every character in the play was given a perfectly appropriate attire, and the brown and green of the costumes harmonized exquisitely with the ferns through which they wandered, the trees beneath which they lay, and the lovely English landscape that surrounded the Pastoral Players, The perfect naturalness of the scene was due to the absolute accuracy and appropriateness of every­ thing that was worn. Nor could archeology have been put to a severer test, or come out of it more tri­ umphantly. The whole production showed once and for all that, unless a dress is archeologically correct and artistically appropriate, it always looks unreal, unnatural, and theatrical in the sense of artificial, •* And it must be mentioned that Lady Archibald Campbell "looked bewitchingly lovely in her costume as the hero, Orlando," Godwin himself appeared in some scenes in the role of a friar. The play was considered a great success and the audience at the opening performance included royalty, 46 the Prince and Princess of Y/ales.

^•/ilde, o p . cit.. p, 154.

Harbron, o p . cit.. p, 168, Again* the following year, Godwin was chosen to pro­ duce Fletcher's The Faithful Shepherdess for the same organ­ isation. And again the beautiful Lady Campbell played a leading role* that of Peregot. At the conclusion of the premier performance, the Prince of Wales congratulated Godwin* and the cast was presented to the prince. ". . .we can not speak too highly of the whole performance," reported The Graphic on the fourth of July, 1885^ It is important to note that in the eighth decade of the nineteenth century when Henry Irving and other actor- managers reigned supreme in their kingdoms of theatrical enterprise, when plays were especially written, adapted, rearranged, cut and edited for the star-manager-perforraer, Godwin like Saxe-Meiningen, was asserting the importance of the producer, the master-artist controlling and unifying all elements of production. In reaction to the abuses encouraged by the prevailing star system, Godwin endowed with his special gifts, was able to function as producer, director, and designer to achieve an artistically harmonized product. Practicing this concept with the Pastoral Players in productions of As You Like It. The Faithful Shepherdess and climaxing his efforts the following year with Helen In Trov anticipates Craig's proclamations in The Art of the Theatre by almost twenty years. However, at this time of Godwin's successhis thirteen year old son was launching his theatrical career* making his debut in Chicago with Terry and Irving while on an American tour v/ith the Lyceum company.

"Helen In Troy”

Godwin's importance as a pioneer and innovator was brilliantly revealed in one of his last productions in 1886, Helen In Troy, an adaptation of Sophocles by John Todhunter, In the spirit of Craig in later years, Godwin himself adapted the script, selected the actors, designed the ||Q scenery and costumes and directed all the rehearsals, thus revealing himself to4 be Uber-director of the English theatre in the '80's. An inspired feature of the production was the place of performance, not a theatre, but instead, a circus. Hengler's circus had just been completely rebuilt and was a handsome structure indeed. Godwin transformed it into a theatre with the architectural» • features of a Hellenistic theatre, with its circular orchestra and its raised stage upon which Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree, then comparatively unknown, was featured as Paris, Craig commented in The Mask that the illustration in The Graphic (June 5» 1886) produced a feeling of harmony.

|iR Denis Bablet, Edward Gordon Craig, p. 5* 56

The picture painted by Mr. H. M. Paget, shows how this theatre with its chorus of Greek women and its principle characters, scene, light, and properties, looked* and for all its accuracy, the primary impression created is not so much of something correct as of something beautiful. The scene and the figures have beautiful propor­ tions and the whole makes a simple appeal. It seems to have a unity , , . a natural result of being the work of one artist instead of being the joint production of a ndmber of incompetent trades­ men.^

Although the setting was an example of archeological reconstruction, "it was also an important contribution to the search for forms of theatrical architecture independent of the Italian [renaissance] stage structure." Denis Bab- let points out that "Godwiriis. concern with archeological exactitude relates him to the Meiningen company, which had presented Julius Caesar in London in 1881," while his pro­ duction techniques in Helen In Troy clearly foreshadowed the experiments of Craig as v/ell as those of Reinhardt.^0 A production might be presented in one style or in another, but Godwin insisted that it should be consistent, :*ir unified, and "not a medley."* It should be a clear reflec­ tion of reality or wholly imaginative. Godwin's preference was for the realistic while Craig chose the imaginative.^1

liQ ^Gordon Craig, The Mask. Ill (October 1910), p. 56.

^°Bablet, on. cit. ^Rose, op. cit. 57 Comments made by Godwin referring to the pictures at the Royal Academy in 1865* seem to summarize his theory of theatrical production, "The accessories in pictures* whether on canvas or on the stage, should be altogether wrong or wholly right," Altogether wrong, is most illumi­ nating, says his son, because it shows that [Godwin] realized that in the art of the theatre, accuracy of detail is of no importance whatever provided it be entirely inaccurate. But one or the other , . , wholly right or altogether wrong , . , these accessories should be , , , and which­ ever method was adopted, it v/as to be beautiful,52

Oscar Wilde wrote that "it was for the archeologist to supply the facts which the artist must transmute into effects." And it v/as Godwin v/ho not only could supply the facts but also could transmute them into effects— beautiful effects. Some have said that he had the qualities of an artist of the Renaissance, Although he v/as neither painter nor sculptor, yet so well had he mastered their relationship with architecture, that he might be said to belong to all three branches of art, and in that sense he resembled the Renaissance artists.53 Craig records in The Mask the influence that his father v/as to have on the practice of Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree and other theatrical producers.

-^Gordon Craig, on. cit. ^Rose, on. cit.. p, 12, 58

[Godwin's] theatrical successors have enjoyed the dividends . . . and forgotten to whom they were indebted for the stocks. In fact Sir Her­ bert . . . has been* in the long space of time since Godwin's death, one of the only persons connected with the theatre to pay homage to his memory, Craig relates that in a speech in 1900 before the Oxford Debating Society, Tree told how he had successfully employed Godwin's methods in his productions of Julius Caesar. King John and A Midsummer Night's Dream. The many thousands of people in attendance "were undoubtedly attracted to the theatre by Sir Herbert's method of staging Shakespeare in the manner inaugurated by Edward Godwin,"^

This chapter has sought to trace the influence on Craig of his father's early architectural achievements, his innovations within the Morris Movement, his advocacy of simplicity of the Japanese vogue of interior decoration, his turning to theatre production in his later years, and his opportunity to translate his ideas of the Uber-Architect of earlier years and to apply them to theatre practice in his final productions. The discussion has centered on, among other things, Godwin's concept of the Uber-Architect and its effect on Craig's concept of the Uber-Director in

^Gordon Craig, on. cit.. p, 5^, 59 hie ideal Theatre-of-the-Future, To be considered in the next chapter is the influence of Craig's training as a young actor on his theory of acting which was to culminate later in the concept of the Uber-Marionette. CHAPTER III

THE INFLUENCE OF CRAIG'S EARLY TRAINING

AS AN ACTOR, I889-I897

Introduction The purpose of this chapter in the study of Gordon Craig, Uber-Director. is to investigate the thoughts and forces at work which combined to produce Craig's theory and practice of the art of acting. His association in the 1890*e with the ruler of the London theatre, Henry Irving, produced positive as well as negative feelings as to what the art of acting could be and should be. Craig has always been aware of the problems facing the performer in rehear­ sal and in performance, from his first production of deMusset in 1893 'to his last, the New York Macbeth in 1928. This is understandable and only natural since several years of intensive acting experience were the very first phase of

Craig's training for the theatre. Much of the writing about Craig ignores this fact and casts suspicion on his prac­ ticality in designing as though he were more interested in the stage setting per se and resented the intrusion of the

60 61 performer. Vocal proponents of this opinion were Bernard

Shaw and Lee Simonson. Actually the Uber-Marionette con­ troversy lasted less than ten years.

The scope of this chapter will be to describe* dis­ cuss and analyse the. experience that Craig underwent during his extensive and vigorous eight years of actor training as an apprentice and as a professional. This experience influ­ enced his theory and practice of directing and acting and also provided Craig with the background to become the cham­ pion of the actor. In addition to acting, subsequent exper­ iences included his productions of opera* of Ibsen (with

Terry* Duse* and the Poulsen brothers)* the New York Macbeth, and his masterpiece Hamlet for Stanislavski at the Moscow

Art Theatre. This varied exposure made Craig aware of the extent of the problems of the actor. His concern for the performer is an original feature of this study. Other research does not consider this fact. Craig is usually presented as an impractical theorist* a visionary unschooled in the basics.

Let us consider some of the influences which shaped

Craig'8 conception of the theatre. From Irving* Craig became imbued with the idea that only an omnipotent pro­ ducer-direct or could achieve an organio unity in theatre practice by controlling all elements of the production and by either inventing the play or by controlling its inventor. 62

As ruler of the Lyceum, Irving functioned in this uncom­ promising (and highly successful) manner, supervising close­ ly the dramatist-in-residence, the composer, the designer of scenery and costumes, the lighting effects as well as drilling his team of actors unceasingly. In certain re­

spects Irving was Craig's model for the Artist-of-the-

Theatre-of-the-Future. As most performers of the era, according to Craig, were personality and passion-ridden,

Irving, by contrast with his technique and discipline, was later to become Craig's model for the animate Uber-

Marionette.

Craig learned from Irving that in order to be success­ ful "Art was before everything! CIrving] gave his goddess all that she demanded." Nothing was. to be allowed to inter­ fere with his life's work, the theatre. (Irving separated from his wife and two sons after three years of marriage.)

In this period the young Craig was exposed to and developed a life long love for poetic drama through

Irving's productions of Shakespeare and Tennyson. From the melodramas he developed a fascination for mood and mystery, an inclination for the Gothic-romantic, Craig was also' to become a producer of deMusset in the Irving manner at this time. With maturity, he was to reject some of the Irving principles. 6 3

* , t During a three year period Craig had the opportunity to play Hamlet in five different productions between 189*1 r and 1897. This influence provided the groundwork for

Craig's encounters with Hamlet during the next thirty years 0 of his career. After his last and most successful appear­ ance as Hamlet at a major theatre in London* Craig abruptly deserted the stage and never acted again. Something was missing in the profession of acting. Did acting belong to the fine arts or was it merely a craft? Why did Craig lose his belief in his old religion9 his actor's art? What caused the actor within Craig to slowly wither and die?

This chapter will discuss and analyse the influence of

Craig's early training as an actor on his theory of the art of acting.

Prom Apprentice to Professional Actor First Season at the Lyceumt 188Q-Q0

To understand Craig's theory and practice of the art of acting* first* let us examine the evolution of the seventeen year old Craig from apprentice to professional actor playing the role of Hamlet in a professional London playhouse. His acting career actually began with a walk-pn ‘ at the age of six* but it was an audience in Chicago in

1885 that witnessed his debut at thirteen in a speaking role and walking on in other plays in which Terry acted i

Twelfth Night. Hamlet. Much Ado About Nothing, while on 6k

tour with Henry Irving1a company. Pour years of intensive

training under the exacting eye of Irving in the repertory

company at the Lyceum Theatre began in September I889 when

Craig made his London debut as Arthur St. Valery in The

Dead Heart, a Tale of Two Cities type melodrama by Watts

Phillips as adapted by Irving. (Craig "received a princely

salary of five pounds a week."1)

The following month Irving declared that elocution

lessons were in order for his protege and weekly instruc­

tion was begun with a distinguished old member of the com­

pany who had performed with Charles Kean. As Craig admits

the one hour sessions consisted mostly of "funny stories"

and little study. With the advent of the new year of 1890v

Irving arranged for Craig to begin taking French lessons.

During the spring Irving cast Craig in the role of Moses

in Olivia, based on The Vicar of Wakefield, which starred

Irving, Terry and his "pal" Will Terriss, "I . . . enjoyed

every performance of this play." April of that year found

the young apprentice in rehearsal for Ravenswood and Two

Roses during the day and performing The Dead Heart at night which celebrated its 185th and last performance on May 9,

1890. During the spring an ironical forecast appeared in

^Edward Gordon Craig, Index to the Story of M y Days. P. 97. 6 5 a London newspaper. The Globe featured a picture of the outstanding London theatre stars of the time* and alao

"myself as a very prettified young man* with the caption underneath* 'The stage of the future* represented by

Gordon Craig.'"2

Reflecting on the intensity and productivity of the workers at the Lyceum during his first season* Craig began to feel the juices of creative life stirring gradually within him. He was coming alive after his cloistered youth*

"smothered by a houseful of women." The vitality of a great producing theatre gradually penetrated and excited Craig's consciousness.

This year— this Irving— this theatre work— all this slowly begins to wake me up. Slowlyi for I am seventeen • • • and should be wide awake by now* but I am not yet. Now it begins. And it is mostly due to the spectacle of H. I. at ~ work at rehearsals that 1 ever woke up. 1 watch him closely* day by day.

The culmination of the past season's work had produced for

Craig a beginning. He confessed that although he did not understand much* he realized that he "had a receptive organism— only t h a t , * ^

2Ibld.■ pp. 98-118, 3Ibld. 66

The First Slimmer Touri Haviland & Harvey Company Aware that he had an eager, receptive pupil in his midst, Irving sought to devise a plan whereby Craig could gain some much needed experience quickly. As of June first, 1890, Irving arranged for Craig to tour the provinces with the Haviland and Harvey Company, carefully selecting the roles in which he wished Craig to appear. He specified the characters of Glavis, Maynard, Biondello, Sir Almerik, and Caleb Deecie.

A local newspaper reported that as Caleb Deecie in Two Roses "Mr, Gordon Craig's impersonation of the blind [man] was touching, true to nature, and Mr, Craig is cer­ tainly a finished actor in every respect.M During that summer Craig also had the opportunity to appear in The Corsican Brothers and to play the role of Lord Rivers in Day After the Wedding and Gaspard and the First Officer in The Ladv of LyonB. Eager to succeed, Craig was most grate­ ful to receive instructions from his mother who wrote, Glad you are going to do 'Gaspard'— you should try to be in deadly earnest, the earnestness of a moody discontented reserved nature, I think perhaps it should be quiet with the fires under­ neath breaking out through the eyes, and fists, and quivering lip— it's a wonderful little part- very difficult [to play properly] and you should get into the mood, before you go on the stage— Remember,^

it ^Edward A, Craig, Gordon Craig, pp. 72-7^. 67

In addition to becoming acquainted with a number of new roles, Craig got to see much of England as the itinerary included Coventry, Cheltenham, Swindon, Portsmouth, Newport,

Cardiff, Swansea, Wolverhampton, Shrewsbury, Leicester, and

Northampton, a town which held a particular fascination for him. He went directly to the Town Hall which his father,

Edward Godwin, had designed back in 1861. The final stop on the tour was at Ealing which saw their productions of

The Taming of The Shrew and Two Roses.3

Craie’s Second Season with Irving's Company

At the conclusion of the summer tour Craig, only sixteen days later, appeared at the opening night of the

Lyceum Theatre's new season. The production selected by

Irving was Ravenswood. (based on a novel by Sir Walter

Scott) which had been put into rehearsal prior to the summer vacation. Craig portrayed the part of Henry Ashton while his mother and Irving appeared in the leading roles.

In regard to this popular Lyceum production, Craig noted that one of Irving's great admirers, the Prime Minister

William Gladstone, saw the play on December 2, 1890, from a carefully selected location backstage, just behind the proscenium arch, as was his custom. "He sat in his usual corner behind the scenes [0. P. comer] made into a little room with red hangings for him,"^

G. Craig, on._cit.. p. 121, ^Ibid.. p. 122, 68

In addition to Ravenswood the young apprentice saw action in five other principal productions during his second year with the company. A revival of Much Ado About Nothing in which ferry appeared in one of her most brilliant roles* provided her son an opportunity to double as the Messenger and the Watchman. Again Gladstone returned to his favorite theatret Craig recalls the prime minister's striking appear­ ance. "I remember it all— his eyes— nose like a beak— and voice . . . "7

Later that spring Craig appeared in the revival of

Olivia in his former role of Moses. Again he commented on the satisfying experience associated with the sixteen per­ formances of the revival. "Oh* how I enjoyed them!" He also relished preparing a play on very short notioe when* to keep peace among some members of the company, his mother agreed to prepare the premier of her Nance Oldfield. "We prepared it in seven days*" recalled Craig. The circum­ stance surrounding this hurried production was the objec­ tion of some of the company to the time and work involved in preparing a curtain-raiser to precede an elaborate pro­ duction of The Corsican Brothers. Craig understudied the role of Maynard and assures us that "every care was taken" and that Bllen Terry supervised the production of the one- 8 act play very closely. In a revival of Nance Oldfield at

7Ibid.. p. 124. 8Ibid. 69

a later date* a newspaper reviewer noted that in the role

of Alexander Oldworthy* Gordon Craig "has mannerisms* hut

he has the true gift, He acts from within.Craig was

learning to work quickly under pressure and was benefiting

from the critical notices he was receiving.

On the heels of this production came the farce comedy*

A Regular Pix. Craig was delighted with his sixth new part

of the season* that of Abel Quick* which was created by

Maddison Morton whom he considered to be one of the very best farce writers of his day. Of his performance in ^

Regular Fix Irving enthusiastically wrote Ellen Terry that

"Ted is first rate. He*11 be a splendid comedian in time and a genial one.** Craig points out that his mother was a b o m player of farce. "Farce is the essential theatre.

Farce refined becomes high comedyi farce brutalised becomes tragedy*" according to Craig,10 Following A Regular Fix was a revival of Much Ado which closed the season at the

Lyceum on July 25th. Four days later Craig signed with the company of lliss Sarah Thome for his second summer season of touring. He was cast in the roles of Charles Surface and the Second Gravedigger. This repertory lasted one month as Craig was to join Irving's tour of the provinces

% . A. Craig* on. clt. 10E,. G. Craig* on. clt.. 125, . 7 0

in early September. The second season provided Craig with

no major rolest however* the variety of these six parts

helped him to learn his trade and gave him considerable

opportunity to observe the work of seasoned performers.

The Third Lvceum Season ,

January 5* 1892 saw the opening of the Lyceum season

with Shakespeare's Henry_VllI. Zn his third season with the

company Craig was excited to have the fine opportunity to

interpret the character of Cromwell "in a very expensive

company" which included his favorite Will Terriss in the

title role, his mother as Katherine of Arragon* and Irving

in another of his triumphant parts as Cardinal Wolsey.

Forbes Robertson and John Martin Harvey were also in this

celebrated cast which had the opportunity to perform Henry *

VIII for over six months. According to Irving* Craig in

the part of Cromwell "was splendid last night,"11 . » Still zealously pursuing the profession of acting with the Lyceum company but desiring to gain more experienoe as well as extra money* Craig and a friend from Irving's

company* Violet Vanbrugh* in March of 1892* began to give

recitals in wealthy homes consisting of recitations and

duologues, "We were to do a recitation apiece— this became our usual programme--and a couple of duologues* one of

“ llU ., P. ,189. 71 which* by Austin Dobson* was called 'If I Were You* • • .*

Registered with an agency in Bond Street as entertainers*

Craig and Miss Vanbrugh received a fee of fifteen pounds 12 which they shared. As the recitals were usually held in the afternoon* Craig appeared regularly as Cromwell in

Henrv VIII for 172 performances* which closed the season on July 30* 1892. Craig was making use of every opportunity to further his career in the acting profession.

Summer with the Sarah Thorne Company

For his third summer season Craig rejoined Sarah

Thorne at the Theatre Royal at Margate where she operated a repertory company. One attraction of the engagement was being based in Margatei no strenuous touring was involved.

Another attraction was the chance to play'Ford in The Merry

Wives of Windsor. Charles Surface in The School For Scandal.

Modus in The Hunchback, and Petruchio in The Taming of the

Shrew. Craig also enjoyed renewing some old friendships from the previous summer. One* however* that he found rather dull* was Harley Cranvllle-Barker. Craig considered him to be nervous* sickly* and uninteresting as a person­ ality and an amateur as an actor. MX never found anything to talk of with Barker*" was Craig's comment.13 The main contribution of the third summer was the opportunity to concentrate on some good major roles.

12Ibid.. p. 131, I3Ibld.* p. 137. 72

Fourth Lyceum Season and Marriage» Beginning of the End

At the conclusion of the Sarah Thome engagement •

Craig returned to Irving's company in London. The season

of 1892-1893 was to be the beginning of the end for the

Irving-Craig professional relationship. The reasons for

the mutual disenchantment will soon become apparent. The

season started off well enough with Craig cast in the minor

role of Oswald to Irving's King Lear which both played for

seventy-two performances. Craig thought that Irving,

although unique in certain scenes, was overtired due to the

long, demanding rehearsals. "As Oswald it seems I was not

too bad." Many thought the outstanding feature of the

-^tragedy was Ellen Terry's luminous portrayal of Cordelia.

With the close of King Lear came one of the finest

triumphs of Irving and Terry, The Merchant of Venice.

Terry had dazzled London in the role of Portia almost twenty

years earlier for the Bancrofts. Craig was anxious to be a

part of this sumptuous production but when cast as Jessi­

ca's lover, Lorenzo, he became despondent. He disliked

the part, he disliked Jessica, and he acted poorly. A

contributing factor at this time may have been that Craig

"the careless youngster of talent" as he refers to himself,

was greatly preoccupied with thoughts of May Gibson, the

^biq. 73

lass he was to marry In two short months, "For if ever I

hated being anyone in any Shakespearean play, it was when

I played Lorenzo, X played it without conviction--super-

ficially light and gay— -and what's morev X hated Jessica."

The critic from the London Globe agreed with Craig and

recorded# "Mr, Gordon Craig was at his best in the small

part of Lorenzo. It is a pity his best is so bad."*^

Craig agreed this rebuke was appropriate and needed.

Three weeks later saw Craig as the young Templar when

Irving gave one of his finest performances in Lord Tenny­

son's Beeket. Critic William Archer declared the produc­

tion of Becket to be one of the triumphs of Irving's career# noted for its artistic delicacy and strength, "So long as

he is on the stage# we are interested# fascinated# movedi

. . . when he is not on the stage# that is Tennyson's fault

not his," Archer observed that there is so much more than mere personality in Irving's Becket# "there is imagination#

there is composition# there is . . . dictionl" Comparing

Irving*8 portraits of Cardinal Wolsey in Henry VIII with

that of Becket# the critic noted that the two men are

clearly individualized and contrasted,

1^Ibid., pp. 137-40, 74

Wolsey was above all the statesman-priesti Becket is the hero-priest, Craft, policy, personal ambition, love of power, were the ruling forces in the Cardinal, the Arch* bishop is animated by an intense, simple minded, almost fanatical devotion to the Church, untainted by either subtlety or self-seeking . . •

The history may be bad, the dramatic quality . . . is none of the highest--but [Tennyson's] writing is exquisite. And to this exquisite writing Mr. Irving does ample, almost perfect justice. Oh, the difference between his dic­ tion in Becket and in LearI Here he gives us • * • clear-cut, beautiful English speech in smooth flowing, delicately cadenced, poetic periods • • •

Archer concludes his praise with, "Irving's lines . . . a

16 * joy to the ear," Not so with Craig's lines. With an impending marriage less than two months away, Craig was more preoccupied than ever. On opening night, he was so upset that he missed his few lines as the youngest Knight

Templar. "I • . , had etage fright and fluffed my three lines,

A command performance in mid-March of 1893 took

Irving and his company to Windsor Castle to perform Becket before Queen Victoria in the Rubens Roomi the event was an

*^William Archer, Theatrical 'World* for 1803. pp. 46-51.

17E. G, Craig, o p . cit.. p. 141. 75

unqualified success. But Craig was disturbed by a situa­

tion that has been typical of most English monarchs for

centuries. Arriving at Windsor Castle, he was dismayed

to discover that "there was no fixed stage and no perma­

nent auditoriumi in fact there was no theatre" at all, In

most continental countries, unlike England, the reigning

King, Prince or Duke had his own special theatre for the

entertainment of his guestsi but not in England, Reflect­

ing, on the Becket journey and royal patronage, Craig wrote,

"But' although books tell us about the importance of the

Theatre to the aristocracy . . . it has not been quite 18 understood by anybody of authority in England," Bio­

grapher Marguerite Steen is even more emphatic when she writes

Victoria, who like the rest of her ancestors (with the distinguished exception of George XV), is totally indifferent to literature and the arts* an indifference she is to pass down to her descendants. When young Mr. Dickens, young Mr, Thackeray, young Mr. Tennyson and their con­ temporaries became famous, she is pleased to confer on them her royal patronage. No member of the Royal Family since the first Elizabeth has had sufficient knowledge of, or interest in, the arts to discover, and to help, the artist who is not yet fashionable and expensive,i9

^Ibld. ^Marguerite Steen, A Pride of Terrvs. 76

The week of July 14, 1893 proved to be a logical termination of four years of labor# love and apprehension with Irving*s company. During that week# the twenty-one year old Craig had the opportunity to perform seven differ­ ent roles on seven different nights# a type of training possible only in repertory. He bade his unwitting farewell in Olivia. The Lvons Mail. Becket. The Merohant of Venice.

Much Ado. Charles I . and Nance Oldfield, the culmination of the work of four seasons. Let us examine the circumstances that led up to Craig's series of farewell performances. In January# Irving had written a letter to Craig.

"I have heard with regret that you do not think of going with us to America— -Is not this a pity? You have a prospect of playing some splendid parts# which would certainly give you a great experience.

"Should you take another engagement in London# you will be tied down# as now# to one part and could not possibly get the practice which you would have with us • • •

"I hope you will think better of it and come with us— but if you should be married . . . there would be nothing but to leave your wife behind in England.

"The hard work and anxieties of such a tour, as ours . could be very great and to drag about a young wife on such an expedition would be positively dangerous— a responsibility I would not undertake with anyone in whom I was interested. Say you had to leave your wife behind# in a town# there would be great risk in that— and if you stayed behind it would cause the greatest inconvenience to us."

Irving reminds Craig that the proposed tour will place a great strain on Ellen Terry and that his presence would be of great comfort to her. 77

"Now X would advise you to leave your wife behind or wait for your marriage until you return— -when you would have less work, less anxiety and less discomfort , • • I should not only like you to be with us for my sake but more for your mother's 20 and your own . , , God Bless you old fellow . . v

Nevertheless, Craig having reached his twenty-first birth-

day, eloped with May Gibson in late March, an act which he

was later to regret. When September came, Irving and com­

pany set sail for its fourth American tour but without the

promising young actor, Craig later lamented,

I was not in the company at this time. A wife was the reason. [Irving] had warned me . • . but like a fool I went on [and got married]. He was right and I was wrong. But having been brought up by women . . . I did not pay atten­ tion. [Irving] offered me parts and glory and money . • • but I needed a woman. In conse- 2i quence I married which was the wrong thing to do.

To paraphrase Craig he was twenty-one going on sixteen and

this marriage proved to be a mismated affair. This com­ plete break with his former associates caused Craig to set out upon a new course of action.

First Experience as Producer-Director

September found Craig quite alonei his friends and associates in the Lyceum company had departed and his bride was now two months pregnant. He needed a new project.

20 £• A. Craig, on. cit.. pp. 80-1. 21 E. G. Craig, o p . cit.. p. 1^8. 78

Although he was grateful for the many small parts Irving

had given him, Craig knew that he was capable of more

demanding worki the previous summer seasons playing major

roles had reinforced his conviction. Why not produce,

direct, act and also, why not explore the field of design?

He decided to follow the example set by Irving,

This was something he had seen Irving do so brilliantly. You took a play with a good plot and cut it, then rewrote whole passages, trans­ posing lines, and finally produced what you considered to be a good play from the actor’s point of view. After all, you argue, it was meant to be performed, not read in a corner, Garrick had set the example some time before by slashing Shakespeare's Macbeth and Taming of the Shrew to ribbons, and then, by intro- ducing music and ballets here and there, had actually made the great bard popular in the 18th century,22

October and November found Craig in a frenzy of activity as he prepared to produce for charity at the Town

Hall in Uxbridge, a translation of the deMusset play. No

Trifling_wlth love. He designed, built and painted the

scenery and "rehearsed the piece." Craig also played

Perdican, and Italia Conte (later to be the teacher of Noel

Coward) was his leading lady, Camille, Tom Hesslewood was

in the cast, and old friend Violet Vanbrugh performed the

Austin Dobson duologue with Craig on the same bill. It is

22 E. A, Craig, on. cit., p. 8?. 79 interesting to note that at this tine Craig was concerned with "painted cloths" as a scenic element which he was later to scorn* The experience of being in command of the entire project appealed to him immensely* This was a first* a taste of wanting to do more in the theatre* The deMusset production was a happy period in the theatre for

Craig* It was stimulating and was an escape from the tribulations of home lifei "the insipid wife»" the expec­ tant mother* the doctors* the constant interruption of his artistic pursuits! all this was compounded by what Craig refers to as his "delayed development*" The production was deemed successful* and working with three gifted* attractive women (Italia* Violet and "Jimmy*" the Baroness

Overbrook* who composed the music and conducted the orches­ tra) made the production a sheer pleasure. Little is known about the reaction to this production* but Craig wrote his mother that although he knew he had made mistakes* he had enjoyed himself immensely because he was "in charge*"2^

Maior Roles with the W. S. Hardv Company

For the next eight months Craig was at loose ends* depressed* restless* December to the following August was a long time for a young actor to be at liberty or out of

23E. G, Craig*.,.oT>. c i t . . p, 1^9, 80 harness as Craig put it. His mother, Irving, and friends at the Lyceum did not return from America until mid-March*

And to compound his misery* Irving did not invite him to rejoin the company for the remainder of the spring season in London. The birth of his first daughter just a week before the Lyceum reopened in mid-April brought him little joy. Craig notes that Faust celebrated its 500th perform­ ance in June without him in the cast.

Ted had already noticed that Irving seemed to be losing interest in him and his future* and he could not understand why. When Ellen had tried to got him a part in Faust. Irving had said* 'No* it is better for him not to come back to the Lyceum* at least for a w h i l e . '2^

Craig was itching to return to work by this time* to tackle some of the really important roles* roles which would determine his mettle as an artist and which would impress

Irving* Deep inside he desperately longed to know if he had the makings of a great performer or would he merely develop into a pale copy of his master* Irving. Thumbing through a trade journal* he saw an advertisement for a company that was going on tour and was auditioning for more actors. This seemed to be the opportunity for which he was searching! he applied for the job. The W. S, Hardy Shakes­ peare Company offered him several fine parts including

2 L E. A. Craig, op. cit.. p. 197, 81

Romeo* Cassio* Charles Surface* Gratiano* Buckingham* and

parts in Richelieu and The_Lady of Lyons. But the piece

de resistance wag the chance at last to portray Hamlet, He

took the job and reported for work at Hereford the end of

August in 189*K

The first day of rehearsal proved to be incredible

when Craig learned that the tour would commence in just one week* Three days of rehearsal were allotted for Hamlet#

three days were given over to Romeo and Juliet and the last

day to The Lady of Lyons. ^ What a contrast to the care*

fully prepared rehearsals at Irving's theatre* The tour

opened on schedule with Craig appearing as Romeo with just

three days of rehearsal behind him* The next evening*

September 4* 189^, Craig made his debut in the title role of Hamlet* These two attractions alternated nightly the-

first week while the days were given over to rehearsing

The Lady of_Lyons. Notice must be taken of the conditions under which Craig and the company rehearsed during the first week at the Theatre Royal in Hereford* Reporting for the first rehearsal* they looked in disbelief to see that the stage was almost completely occupied by a huge tank of water* « ’

25E. G. Craig, o p . cit.. p. 152, 82

This was because Miss Ida Millais . • • was performing in some melodrama called* I imagine* Ida's Escape or The Last Leam for in the last act she* the heroine* had to jump from a big rock into this tank of water . . . And then the villain jumped in after her and the hero jumped in after the villain* and finally she came up drenched* and the body of the villain floated down to the green room* Craig admired the fortitude of the director W. S. Hardy and the company because during that initial week of rehearsal they "had only a yard or a yard and a half" of stage floor in front of the water tank "to go through all the hither- and-thither of the five acts of Hamlet and the five acts of Romeo and Juliet." It was difficult* Craig recalled* but they got through the rehearsals somehow. After playing the two leading roles in alternation the initial week* Craig concluded that "to play Hamlet and to play Romeo is* after all* very difficult* and if we knew how difficult it was* 26 we shouldn't go on at all." The pleasure of acting Hamlet was sublime for Craig but portraying Romeo was quite a dif­ ferent situation* one that recalled Irving's stormy appren­ tice days in Dublin. It seemed that the management made Irving take the place of a popular young actor who had just been fired* and the Irish audience reacted to this "out­ rage" by trying to drive Irving off the stage in a shower < of hisses and catcalls for a period of three straight weeks. j

26Ibi_d.. pp. 15^-156.

. ■ ‘i. ' •.'*4>4 83

Craig recollected the lack of compassion* in fact the downright scorn* with which the tender love scenes were received by these small town audiences. Craig was not comfortable in the role of Romeo and neither was.the aud- ience of "roughs and their girls." Romeo and Juliet was always a nerve-wracker for the audience— and for me. They didn't like the love-making— neither did I. They would whoop end catcall at anything because it got on their nerves. And when Romeo* after getting the poison from the apothecary* tells the sky he is going back and will lie with Juliet tonight— meaning* naturally* that he will kill himself with her* they whooped as though we had somehow slipped through the fine net of the oensor of plays. A similar situation was about to happen during a perform­ ance of Hamlet one night in the little village of Salford in Lancashire. Craig relates that Claudius in the beginn­ ing of the play had stopped "bellowing" and had asked Hamlet to say a word. The king "got from me a gentle* negative sort of mumble to the effect that I was a little more than kin and not at all kind." At that signal a great commotion started in the auditorium for some unknown reason. As the storm of dissent was increasing* a husky voice from a great hulk of a man thundered suddenly* "'Sit down theret' Then* turning to me* the voice cried* 'Go on* yong mon.'" And from that moment on* Craig reported* no audience could have been more attentive. At the curtain call* Craig observed swarms of glowing faces "proving that tragedy is the best way for people to pass the evening if they want to enjoy 84 themselves." Aware of the artistic limitations of the

W. S. Hardy Shakespearean Company during the tour* Craig mused while staying at an Elizabethan inn in Ludlow* "and what a privilege to be allowed to live in a Shakespearean

Inn while murdering Shakespeare in the nineteenth century."

As Craig came to realize later

Unless . . • you can invest these well-known fig­ ures with visible characteristics that have never been seen before* you will never arrest the • . . spectators who have to be arrested in order to lis­ ten. If boredom set in . . . they and you are practically doomed to suffer instead of being stimulated,2?

On went the tour of the provinces* from Hereford

(Garrick's birthplace) to Wrexham* Wolverhampton* Rugby*

Walsall* Salford* Rhyl* Ludlow* Uxbridge and many more towns until mid-December of 1894. Craig and the other young actors were gradually learning the craft of acting by acting* under duress* joy* tension* pleasure and threats* before all types of audiences* often meager in size but spirited in response. Before the conclusion of the tour*

Craig played the role of Cassio in Othello for the first time* commenting "it's not at all easy*" and Richmond in

Richard III. This character was "even more difficult* and

I failed utterly with the role." The part of Gratiano*

Craig considered "more or less easy." Playing before

27lbid.. pp. 157-60, 85 audiences of varying size* the company experienced their most scanty group of patrons one night at Wellingborough during a performance of Othello. Although the ticket prices ranged from six pence to two shillings six pence per seat* box office receipts for the evening totaled barely eighteen 28 shillings. We cannot vouch for what Craig learned about acting from this season but he certainly became aware of the problems of a novice troupe performing in the provinces•

Depression! Personal and Professional

The Hardy tour was now over* the Christmas holidays of 169** came and went. Irving opened the big* new produc­ tion of Tennyson's King Arthur at the Lyceum with Ellen

Terry as Guinevere* Forbes Robertson as Lancelot and* of course* Irving as the King. Irving commissioned Sir Edward

Burne-Jones to design the scenery* Sir Arthur Sullivan to compose the music and Comyns Carr to provide the script.

Craig noted* "I was not in the company" and had not been for almost two years now.

Still restless and still searching for satisfaction*

Craig mentions several "females in my life at that time— none of them helped me— they only fogged me. I was still utterly puzzled by the problem of sex* I saw no solution,"29

28Ibid. 29Ibid., p. 168. 86

With a personal life that he considered to he unsatisfac­

tory* he determined to keep busy* to keep acting.

In February he found an engagement in the La Toeca

company of Hubert Evelyn and his wife Mina Leigh which

lasted until late June* touring sixteen different towns.

Relishing the inherent melodrama in Sardouvs play* Craig

describes the achievement of one of his harrowing effects

as the character of Cavaradossi* by drenching his long hair

for a crucial scene. "There was a scene . . . in which I was tortured . • • and for that scene I would wet the long

straggling locks (of my red wig)— and they had a suggestion of something horrible.'*3°

After playing several major roles in repertory with the Hardy Company* Craig enjoyed the relative leisure of touring for three months in only one play and appearing in only one role. Reading* drawing* designing* and an occa­ sional trip to London now occupied his time. In London* he attended the opening of Irving's The Storv of Waterloo and

Don Quixote in early May of 1895. He had no regrets at not being a part of the great theatrical company at this time. On opening night "I was in the stalls. At the time

I felt no great sadness at not being in my place on the stage of the Lyceum Theatre." The following day* his estranged wife presented him with their second child* his

3°U2id.. P. 130. 8?

first son. Robert. But son or no son* Craig was off again to continue the tour of La Tosca and to resume his relation­ al ship with a very pretty member of the company* Lucy Wilson. Still searching for his real niche in life* Craig at twenty-three pondered the future and bemoaned the existence of the actor. NI see now what an empty* idle life' the stage offered us in those days. In the old stock company years much work kept the actors well occupied) [now] the actor had. days of time on his hands." But Lucy Wilson helped to ease his restlessness. Six days after the conclusion of the La Tosca in June* Craig and Lucy were off to Paisley where they landed jobs for the summer with a repertory company. Their first assignment was The New Magdalen featuring Lucy in the title role and Craig as the Rev. Grey. The Streets of Lon­ don was presented nexti Craig said he was "no good" in the role of Badger. Next in the repertory came Camille with the lovely Lucy playing opposite the Armand Duval of Craig. His critique* "Both bad." Next came The Lady of Lvons with Craig acting the major role of Claude Melnotte. His comment* "Word-perfectI" For the Gordon Craig benefit night, he selected his favorite part* Hamlet. The last play to enter the repertory was called Francois Villon with Craig in. the role of the dashing poet, "It went well. I acted better."3^

31lbid.. pp. 171-73. 32lbid.. pp. 173-7**. 88

At the conclusion of this tour, Craig had,.the chance to play his former part in La Tosca for a week's engagement at New­ castle, and he accepted it at the end of September. It was no secret that Craig allowed his infatuation for Lucy Wilson to interfere with his work and concentration. Perhaps it was experiences such as this, which caused Craig to declare later that he always felt women to be a disruptive element in the theatre.

More Ma.ior Roles v/ith the Sarah Thorne Company

October found Craig back home with his wife and two children. After several months of touring, Craig found playing the role of father to be extremely uninspiring, in fact, downright tiresome. His emotional and artistic life during these autumn months Craig refers to bleakly as "an empty life," despite the novelty of having the opportunity to get acquainted with his baby son and daughter. Four months later Craig again fled from the restraints of family life by joining the Sarah Thorne repertory company at the Opera House in Chatham. With seven years of acting exper­ ience in his possession and with his association with Irving's company, Craig was in a position to bargain, and bargain he did— for featured billing and for major roles. The manager. Miss Thome, agreed to pay Craig two pounds a week and to feature him "on all the posters and programs as coming from 'The Lyceum Theatre, London.'" The spring 89 season saw Craig playing the major roles of Petruchio# the .

Corsican Brothers# Macbeth and the beloved Hamlet, The local press seemed enthusiastic about Craig's work record­ ing# "Mr. Craig is a splendid actor . . . this popular actor . # , consumate ability # . , a born actor," In spite of the challenging parts# the rehearsals and the considerable amount of work involved# Craig was still restless. Looking back at the entire spring season at

Chatham# Craig reflected# "I was bored by the whole thing,"

Fortunately# he found solace in extensive reading and in designing posters. In an effort to escape further boredom

Craig gladly accepted Henry Irving's proposal to rejoin the Lyceum company after an absence of three years. He would be touring Manchester# Glasgow# Edinburgh and New­ castle during May and June of 1896# playing his former roles of Lorenzo and Sir Porcival,^ It might be concluded that Craig felt the need of Irving's leadership to challenge and stimulate him. Craig needed a more competitive situa­ tion than the one provided by Miss Thome,

Hamlet and Romeo in London

When the tour was completed a producer# Gilbert Tate approached Craig with an offer to appear in London for a

33Ibld.. pp. 177-79 90

one week engagement starring in Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet

during the latter part of July* Again* Hamleti he was over­

joyed. A week of rehearsal preceded a week of performance*

After his first taste of producing the deMusset play three

years earlier* Craig was now entertaining ideas about pro­

ducing again. During the Hamlet rehearsals* he became 'so

"insistent on how this and that should be done that Tate

suggested he rehearse the whole company himself, which he was only too glad to d o . " ^ Now Craig could refer to the

group of actors as "my company." In the audience on open­

ing night was the renowned critic for the Illustrated London

News. Clement Scott* who praised the portrayal of Romeo and

recorded

I was told that his Hamlet was a still more remarkable and promising performance. But the Romeo was good enough* and all that the young actor has to do now is to forget that he has been under the strong acting influence of Sir Henry Irving* so much as to occasionally imitate his style with far too much fidelity.35

In an earlier production of Romeo and Juliet, a news­ paper critic's reaction sheds additional light on the ability of Craig in the role of Mercutio*

3

■^Clement Scott* Illustrated London News (August 1* 1896). 91 His rendering of the character of Mercutio was instinct with life and spirit. His laugh was natural and catching, and he fairly revelled in the v/it and fancy that the mastermind of Shake­ speare has put in the mouth of the gay gallant , , . Another reviewer reported, He has much of his distinguished mother's talent, and he loves the profession he has chosen with the love of an enthusiast . . .Mr, Gordon Craig is tall, has a fine voice and good presence, and there is a world of progress before him,3° However, according to Craig, "the press was far too kindly and uncritical,"^ Craig seems to have had the good sense not. to allow fulsome praise to go to his head* he was aware of some of his own shortcomings.

Final Davs with Irving at the Lyceum* 1896 In August at the close of the Hamlet— Romeo and Jul­ iet production, Craig was immediately back in rehearsal with Irving and his mother preparing an elaborate new Lyceum production of Cvmbeline opening in late September. Irving played lachimo, Terry Imogen, and Craig was given the role of Arviragus. He was not satisfied with himself in the part. Bernard Shaw concurred, writing that Craig was a hopeless failure. A contributing factor to Craig's frustration was that he had left his wife and two young­ sters » Lucy Wilson was still very much on his mind. He

^E. A. Craig, op. cit.. pp. 73-71*.

^E. G. Craig, op. cit.. p. 180, 92

found that living again in Ellen Terry's home was discon­ certing to both him and his mother. His unsettled personal life had an unsettling effect on his artistic life. His performance in C.vmbeline was rather futile. "Playing about with Arviragus," he refers to himself, "I no more knew how to perform this part--how to speak those miraculous lines . . ."3® Bernard Shaw confirms this when he wrote Mr. Gordon Craig and Mr. V/ebster are desperate failures as the two noble savages. They are as spirited and picturesque as possibles but every pose, every flirt of their elfin locks, proclaims the wild freedom of Bedford Park, They recite the poor maimed dirge admirably, Mr. Craig being the more musical of the twain , , . but their utter deficiency in the grave, rather sombre, uncivilized primeval strength and Mohican dig­ nity so finely suggested by Shakespeare, takes all the ballast out of the fourth act, and com­ bines with the inappropriate prettiness and sunrii- ness of the landscape scenery to handicap Miss Ellen Terry most cruelly in the trying scene of her awakening by the side of the flower-decked corpse,

Shaw also adds that Miss Terry "invariably fascinates me so much that 1 have not the smallest confidence in my own judgment respecting her,"^

After Craig's conspicuous failure in Cvmbeline. the following words of Henry Irving may have had a sobering

38ibld-

-^George Bernard Shaw, Our Theatres in the Nineties. p. 200, 93 effect on the distraught young actor as he rehearsed for the next production* Richard III, Let your ambition be ever precious to you, and next to your good name, the jewel of your soul, I care nothing for the actor who is not always anxious to rise to the highest position in his particular walk* but this ideal cannot be cherished by the young man who is induced to fritter away his time . , , Never forget that excellence in any art is attained only by arduous labour, unswerving purpose, and unfailing discipline. The disci- line is, perhaps, the most difficult . . , for ft involves subordination of the actor's person­ ality in every work which is designed to be a com­ plete and harmonious picture,**0 In Irving's revival of Richard III in December of I896, Craig was given the challenging task of interpreting the elderly king, Edward IV, Perhaps in regard to Irving's advice about the subordination of the actor's personality, Craig made elaborate preparation for the make-up of the role. He secured a photograph of Edward Godwin and took great effort to resemble his father. "It seems I managed [well] and I looked very like him," Regarding the inter­ pretation of the part Craig said, "I played • . • not too badly." But Bernard Shaw disagreed, labeling the per­ formance incredibly bad. He thought that Craig's delicate

hn Henry Irving, The Drama 1 Addresses, p, 76. lil E, G. Craig, op. cit., p. 181, 9**

temperament was expended on the wrong rolei if he had been cast as Henry VI or as Richmond* Craig might have achieved great success. Another mistake in the casting of the play was Mr. Gordon Craig’s Edward IV. As Henry VI, Mr. Craig, who wasted his delicacy on the wrong part, would have been perfect. Henry not being available, he might have played Richmond with a considerable air of being a young Henry VII. But as Edward he was incredible» one felt that Richard would have had him out of the way years ago if Margaret had not saved him the trouble by van­ quishing him at Tewkesbury,**2 Young Craig had "put his heart and soul into the part of Edward IV. He wanted to prove to Irving that he could do a good job and act the part of a much older man.But fate intervened. Irving, arriving home in the early hours of the morning after the opening night festivities, "struck his knee against a chest which stood upon the landing" and ruptured "the ligatures of his knee cap." Because of the knee injury, Irving was confined to bed and would not be able to appear for some time, and thus, Richard III was forced to close down after one performance. Terry was

ti 2 Shaw, oo. cit.. p. 290. 43 E. A. Craig, o p . cit.. p. 290, iiti Laurence Irving, Henry Irving, p. 596. Irving was out for two months. Although the Lyceum was dark part of this time, Irving continued to pay his acting company and staff full wages. Refunds were made on the advance cash sales which resulted in a financial loss for the season amounting to 10,000 pounds. 95 in Germany at this period being treated for an eye condi­ tion. Craig was doubly lonely and "bitterly disappointed to be able to give only one performance over which he had labored so hard and prepared so thoroughly . . . Once more [he was] at a loose end.After an absence of three years from the Lyceum* Craig played only four roles upon his return in 18961 in May that of Lorenzo and Sir Per- cival, in September Arviragus, and in December Edward IV. A brief revival of Cvmbeline on December 26 and closing January 7, I897 (without Irving and without Terry) appar­ ently marked Craig's final appearance at the Lyceum Thea­ tre (although in his memoirs Craig says that December of 1897 ended his apprenticeship with Irving). The year I897 was destined to be the final year that Craig was to appear on anv stage* While the Lyceum was closed most of the month of January* Craig reunited with Lucy Wilson to present a double bill of Francois Villon and The New Magdalen at the theatre Royal at Croydon "under my management" during the week of January 18th, Again* Lucy played Mary* the new Magdalen opposite the Curate of Craig, the Rev. Grey. Craig notes that by the end of February Irving had recovered, and his revival of Richard III received a tremendous London reception. "The public

^ E . A. Craig, on. cit. 96 adored him," But Craig did not appear in the revival, "Someone else took the part of Edward IV." Irving was no longer keenly interested in the progress and career of Craig whom he felt was self-centered and self-indulgent. Irving disapproved of Craig’s liaison with Lucy Wilson when his wife and children urgently needed him.

Success in Ben Greet*s London Production'of "Hamlet" Craig's next to the last performance of his profes­ sional acting career occurred unexpectedly on May 1?, 1897 when producer Ben Greet frantically contacted Craigt an actor playing Hamlet in his company was suddenly taken ill. After barely a few hours notice* Craig was rehearsing Hamlet for a performance on the same evening at the Olym­ pic Theatre in London. His mother was concerned and hoped that this opportunity might be the turning point in the career of her son. So excellent was the public reaction that she brought Irving to a matinee with her. The ver­ dict of the grateful producer* Ben Greet* was "an amazing­ ly beautiful rendering by a young man of twenty, almost the hn ideal representation of the Prince in mind and body," T

G. Craig, op._cit.. p. 182. hn rWinifred Isaac, Ben Greet and the Old Vic. p. 1*2, 97

PLATE X

GORDON CRAIG PLAYED Trt'E TITLE ROLL OF HAMLET IN FIVE DIFFERENT PRODUCTIONS IN THE.PROVINCES AND IN LONDON BETWEEN 189'+ AND 1897, . 98 "He gave a magnificent performance and carried on for seven kg more," wrote Craig's son. Actually, there were some dif­ ferences of opinion although most of the notices were very favorable. A proud Ellen Terry recorded, "Unconsciously he did everything right— I mean all the things over which some of us have to labour for years. The Honorable Gil­ bert Coleridge recollected years later that "because of its youth, intellect, faultless elocution and in particular its air of impromptu," Craig's performance of Hamlet was "the finest of many great performances of the part."^0 In Men and Memories. William Rothenstein says, "How good an actor he was I don't know, I saw him act once as Hamlet . . . and never had I seen such a touching and beautiful figure."^1 Edward F. Spence recalled that his first memory of Craig is of his Hamlet at the Olympic in 1897, when he was an extremely handsome young man of twenty-five. To this day I remember vividly his admirable work in the first act. I think none of the scores of Hamlets seen by me have been so good in that part of the tragedy.

kg E. A, Craig, op^.cit... p. 101. iio 7Ellen Terry, The Story of Mv Life.

^Gilbert Coleridge, London Sunday Times. August 19, 1923 cited in Denis Bablet, Edward Gordon Craig, p, 24,

^William Rothenstein, Men and Memories. I, p. 276, *>2 J Edward F. Spence, Bar and Buskin cited in Bablet, on. cit.. p. 25. 99

The conservative reviewer for The People accused him of "being excessively modern* saying that if he wished to leave his mark on the theatre of the future he should keep to the tradition and beware of innovations." The Era im­ pressed with

Craig's easy* expressive style and his intelli­ gent rendering of the part* hailed him as the 'diligent student of the new school of acting as opposed to the stilted* ranting delivery and often mechanical methods of the old.*53

In ,spite of a few negative comments on his portrayal of

Hamlet* Craig had won much praise for his subtlety* grace* and intelligence. This performance revealed that he was making constant progress and his potential seemed to be unlimited.

Craig's next appearance in a production of She Stoops to Conquer in July of 1897 at the theatre at Kingston-on-

Thames* featured Craig as the young Marlowe and his old acquaintance* Harley Granville-Barker as Hastings. With the final curtain call of Goldsmith's comedy* Craig gave up acting once and for all and never was he seen on any stage again. 100

Acting! Craft or Art?

After playing more than forty roles within a period of eight yearsf four-and-a-half of which found Craig on the payroll of Henry Irving, what led Craig to abandon his profession for which he had worked so diligently? "I who was a born actor— -fruit of the tree from which all the

Terrys came and son of Ellen Terry • • . Three circua* stances contributed to this decision. First* for months

Craig had been struggling in his own mind to determine- whether the actor belongs in the field of fine arts. Is acting strictly a craft or does it belong to the arts?

Something was missing and Craig* after eight years felt a gnawing dissatisfaction. Did the trouble lie within Craig or in the craft-art of acting itself? After completing an engagement at the theatre in Croydon the previous January with Lucy V/ilson* Craig felt that the other actors in the company "seemed a useless* conceited crowd after the well* drilled members of the Lyceum Company. He confides to his sister* "I wish I were dead at the present moment. All seems agoing wrong— work— affection— position . • • can do nothing,"^

ek J E. G. Craig, ot>. cit.*. p. 218.

A, Craig, on. cit.. p. 100, • 101

An article by Charles Mathews which Craig had marked in his notebook, seemed to reflect Craig's thoughts about the transitory nature of the actor's position. . . . of all earthly things the actor's tri­ umphs are the most fleeting, the least demon­ strable. There is nothing-positive that can be established respecting his talent, no point of excellence that can be proved, beyond the questionable opinion of contemporariesi . . • Authors, painters, sculptors leave behind them positive evidence of the genius which obtained for them the admiration of the public of their day . . ,56

"Writing is . . . in the soul of the writer— and it only issues as the pulse beats . . . it is near to magic. Paint­ ing too, and all the Fine Arts," writes Craig, He explains that he gradually became despondent, unfit to attend to his duties as an actor, "as I became slowly aware that something was not with us, as it was . , . with men who practice the fine arts,"^ Craig was losing his belief in his old religion, his actor's art. A second phenomenon began to unsettle Craig's well­ being, After years of perfect memory for learning dialog, he began to miss lines in performance. This was just the beginning, for later he was unable to learn a moderate size part in three or four weeks. Although he was letter perfect during rehearsals"when rehearsal was over [the lines]

5^Ibid.. p, 101. ^ E , G. Craig, on. cit. 102 vanished* slipped out of.my head and I couldn't remember a word,"^0 The trauma in his personal life* no doubt* inter­ fered with his stage work, During the preceding autumn* Craig's wife had delivered their third child* Philip. Craig had been with her at the time but returned to Lucy Wilson the next day* and to their current tour. As a re­ sult* Craig's mother felt the responsibility of supporting Craig's wife and children with a three pound contribution every week as her son's interests were now elsewhere, Ellen Terry writes 1 look upon this three pounds per week as helping May and your babies* and you must not put it to any other use— and for yourself you must make your own living . . . Do you see the doubled respon­ sibilities which await you in the near future? Give up dreaming of the future* and make your bread and butter for today. The rest will follow if you do this now— not else I You will have your wife— and you will have your children. Well* they are joys— then work for them* deny yourself other joys— books and pictures* and feed and wash them yourself— 1 did— and it did me more good than any other thing. They are helpless— when you were helpless I was your servant— 1 had no servants for you— and I cooked and baked* and washed and sewed for you— and scrubbed for you* and fainted for you* and got well again for you* as my mother did for me. You talk and talk* and don't do. 'He who would rule the day* must greet the morn,' There is no hour to lose.59

^ Ibld. ^ E . A. Craig* o p . cit. 103

The tragic domestic scene Craig tried to erase from his mindt his thoughts were on his enigmatic "art.** This void in the actor's art, whatever it was** continued to plague Craig as did the mental freeze which would occur during performance. Craig was failing as an actort he knew it and began to panic. This really was the very death of the actor in me. I won't attempt to describe what I suffered • . . I was as near dead as could be— and I carried in me the dead actor for many years— suffering over and over again many times . . . I did not know what it would cost me for the next thirty years . • . At this period Craig ceased to be an actor, and the most horrifying feeling of all was that "I had no more power to act* I, who was a born actor,” Acting which had been such a free and natural experience for Craig, now ended. "The music which had been flowing on so well and so easily sud­ denly stopped,

Irving's Misfortunes Coincident with Craig's shock at having to give up acting were the shifting sands in Irving's fortunes at the Lyceum. In a very short space of time, Craig's mentor was plagued by illness and injuryt costly unsuccessful produc­ tions and a great fire which burned to ashes 260 settings of Lyceum scenery for forty-four productions.

^°E. G, Craig, o p . cit. 101*

Scarcely had the last echo of congratulations died away [Irving's knighthood by Queen Victoria in 18953 when the tide of fortune set in against 'Sir Henry,• [Late] in I896 he injured his knee and many months elapsed before he could face.the footlights* the drama about Peter the Great,61 written by his son, and The Medicine Man [by Huchens] were costly failures* his immense stock of scenery was accidentally burnt, and he had to sell his fine library and transfer his interest in the Lyceum Theatre to a [holding] company,62 During this year of unhappiness and disappointment for Irving, Terry, and especially the immature Craig, the

young actor found himself dismissed from the Lyceum by a reluctant Irving, due in part to the effects of financial reverses on the fortunes of the theatre. Despite Craig's rather conspicuous success as Hamlet in Ben Greet's London production a few months earlier, Irving told Craig that changes had to be made in the Lyceum organization immed­ iately (December 1897). For financial reasons, a reduction in the size of the acting company had to be effected* Craig would have to go. He was told that he should no longer count on the Lyceum as a possible source of income. Al­ though Craig had previously decided to investigate the

Ethel Barrymore made her Lyceum debut with Irving in Peter The Great. On opening night, Irving lost his voice and the author, his son, had to play the major role. Short­ ly thereafter, Miss Barrymore and Laurence Irving became engaged* however, they never married.

62 Sir George Arthur, From Phelps to Gielgud, p. 85. 105 other arts of the theatre, the finality of Irving's deci­ sion cane as a shock. Undoubtedly, another factor in this decision was Craig's callous attitude to his wife and children which upset Irving as well as Ellen Terry, Irving could not afford to have any impropriety stain the reputa­ tion of his illustrious organization, nor the noble calling of his profession.

More Tragedy Two other events were to cause Craig additional grief at this time just prior to Christmas of 1897, The first was the murder of his idol and pal, Will Terriss, who was stabbed to death by "a half-crazy small-part actor with an imagined grievance" as Terriss was about to enter the stage door of the Adelphi Theatre where he was playing the title role in the London hit Sherlock Holmes. Graham Robertson wrote of the tragedy Still young and beautiful at fifty, he died by the knife of a maniac, time having proved quite unequal to dealing with him. It seemed a fitting end to a career of adventure, and Ellen Terry summed him up with genuine sympathy and understand­ ing when she said to me— 'Poor Dear Terriss— I hope that he lived long enough to realize that he was murdered. How he would have enjoyed itI'63

Graham Robertson, Life Was Worth Living, p. 180. Earlier Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had offered to turn his Sherlock Holmes stories into a play for Irving who rejected the offer. 106

Another cause for grief, besides the coolness of

Irving toward him* was the lessening of Irving's affection toward his mother. The love which Irving had lavished upon Ellen Terry during the many years of partnership seemed to wane, when another attractive, but younger woman, socialite- journalist Mrs. Eliaa Aria came between them,^ This sit­ uation caused Terry to be nervous and irritable during the strenuous rehearsals for Madame Sans-Oene in which she played opposite Irving's Napoleon. Irving was disappointed to find that Ellen Terry, for whom he had bought Sardou's play, became more and more out of temper with her part as rehearsals went on , , . She was having her usual difficulty in learning her words and had not fully mastered them by the first night, Sir George Arthur referred to this portrayal as Terry's "one misfire . . . the simple Laundress was well within her 66 range, [but] the parvenue Duchess lay just outside it," The subtle friction between Irving and Craig and his mother plus the murder of Terriss coupled v/ith the termin­ ation of Craig's acting career made for a gloomy holiday season indeed. In his association with Irving that spanned

According to Laurence Irving, "tongues began to wag over Ellen Terry's undisguised partiality for Frank Cooper" at this time. Cooper had played in Hamlet when Terry first came to the Lyceum, "and now, after a long absence, Cooper had rejoined the company ..." L, Irving, o p . cit.. -p . 595.

^ Ibld,. p, 602. ^Arthur, op. cit.. p, 85. 10?

a period of eight years, Craig had received a great many favors and much encouragement, even praise. Ruefully recalling that period on a bleak December day in 1897» Craig wrote Nov; 1 need not suppose him insincere , • . Use­ ful to him sometimes, let us hope, none of us need feel we were more that. As for being good at our job I think most of us were bad at it. We benefited, and I fear he did not, I bene­ fited greatly, and later on in my career I felt this benefit. He made some of us feel at times that we were really of some use— but, after a little thought, we should have been dull to suppose we really mattered, Craig concluded ruefully that Irving was kind, "kind by nature— and by policy."

Despair and a Vision

In the months of idleness following the acting engage­ ments with the Ben Greet Hamlet and She Stoops to Conquer. Craig said he was less concerned with the genius of actors and actresses because he was horribly troubled by his en- tire lack of genius or even talent. He had reached a point when more acting had no further attraction for himr it seemed a dead-end and he felt he could never even hope to be the supreme technician that his master was. After extensive reading, many visits to art galleries and his stimulating association with neighbor-artists William Nicholson and Jame3 Fryde, Craig "had also learned more

^ E , G. Craig, op. cit.. p. 190, 108

about art in general and had begun to feel there was more to the Theatre than just the art of acting,'' However* as he thought about the past several years of his grooming for the acting profession* several vivid impressions came to his mind which would influence Craig in his work for the rest of his life. The illustrious Henry Irving had been a hard master* insistent on discipline* relentless in rehearsal and often merciless in his withering sarcasm * but* like all good com­ manders* he asked of them no more than he gave of himself,°9

A letter Craig received from his mother when on tour some ten years before epitomized for him Irving's utter dedication and discipline. She wrote Knowing this was a terrific big theatre I begged and prayed that I might be 'let off' the first night in Boston because of my voice and that Miss Emery might play Margaret— No— he was like iron— like a rock about it* and I got mad and said* 'I do think that if your son, or your mother, your wife* the idol of your heart v/ere to die on the stage through making the effort to do the work you would let it happen,' 'Certainly I would,' said he to my amazements I expected he would say* 'Oh* come now* you exaggerate'— So now I know what to expect. He certainly would drop himself, before he would give in* and there my Ted is the simple secret of his great success in everything he undertakes. He is most extraordinary,70

A. Craig, o p . cit. ^L. Irving, o p . cit.

^°E, A. Craig, o p . cit., p, 61, 109

Craig was also very much aware of the determination and discipline that characterized the work and talent of his mother. Struggling with what was to become one of her most controversial roles, Terry originally had no desire to tackle the role of Lady Macbeth, "I can't play Lady Macbeth properly," she wrote a friend, and the reason was clear. She "could not imagine the blood-guilty woman- flend— could not realize such a character, and so could not express it," Just as Lady Macbeth was "too terrible for her

» temperament, so Madamo Sans-Gene was too vulgar. In each, her innate gentleness and refinement shone forth and the picture suffered."^1 As Irving could not resist the oppor­ tunity to play Macbeth and Napoleon, he was insistent that Terry take the role of his lady in each case. Although temperamentally unsuited for the characters "she did not shirk the task." Likewise, when Irving was preparing King Lear, Terry, because of her maturity, begged Irving to permit another more youthful actress to play Cordelia. She wanted the challenge and offered to play the Pool instead, but Irving was adamant. Yet when she felt it to be her duty to undertake the difficult task [of Cordelia] Ellen Terry did not shirk her responsibility to her manager . . . Irving was tight in his judgment. He had

^Boyle Lawrence, ed., Celebrities of the Stage, p. 8 . 110

determined that his audiences* should see Ellen Terry as Cordelia» they saw her* and rejoiced in a new and striking triumph.72 Despite Terry's own preferences and feelings, her dedication made her acquiesce to the demands of her master- director, to help achieve a harmony and unity in the final production. In part this was achieved by what Mrs, Clement Scott refers to as Irving's passion for ruling, for domi­ nating, in order to create a unified final product. Born to rule, he possessed more the power of creating submission than the power of begetting love, 'Young, old, rich, poor, you must all succumb and be swayed by me,' he seemed to say to himself, 'and if I can not rule you by affec­ tion, then let it be by fear, for rule I must and will.'73 For a man of his imagination and intellect, Mrs. Scott con­ sidered Irving to be extraordinarily selfish. Irving knew as did other great artists, and as Craig was to learn, that great art, masterpieces, were not achieved democratically or by committee. Craig came to realize that a benevolent, culturally gifted dictator would be required for the posi­ tion of the artist-of-the-theatre-of-the-future. Inspired by the specter of the giant Irving, Craig now was to leave

72 T, Edgar Pemberton, Ellen Terrv and Her Sisters, pp. 272-77.

^^Mrs. Clement Scott, Old Days in Bohemian London. p. 40. Ill

the theatre into which he had been bom, and sever all connections with the stage as a place in which actors ruled supreme, and was beginn­ ing to see on a distant horizon a new conception of the theatre. Nothing to do with archeology— no realism— but something nearer to poetry. Ideas made manifest by suggestions.74

There was much to know about the arts and he was going to work and to learn quickly "so that he could capture some of the new ideas which had begun to flow through his brain.”7-* Graham Robertson observed that "this surrender of self to Art v/as to give an intensity to his work • • . Art was before everything) he gave his goddess all that she 76 demanded. Influenced by his eight year period of inten­ sive actor training, Craig v/as soon to conclude that the central figure in his proposed concept of theatre, the Master-of-the-Drama, must first have had training and experience in the ranks of the actor. And then the intrigu­ ing concept which was to haunt the stages of the western world for decades to come, began to materialize— the con­ cept of the Uber-Marionette,

74E. A. Craig, 0 0 . cit.» p. 111. 75Ibid.

7^.V, G, Robertson, on. cit. CHAPTER IV

THE EVOLUTIONARY NATURE OP CRAIG'S.THEORY OF THE UBER-MAR10NETTE

Introduction The general purpose of this chapter is to dispel some of the misconceptions of Craig's theory of the Uber-Mario- nette. The proposals made in an article, "The Actor and the Uber-Marionette," which appeared in the second issue of The Mask in 1908, were seized upon by the critics of

f Craig as the theatrical cause-celebre of the decade. How­ ever, Craig was writing in terms of this very super-puppet back in 1905 in his seminal volume, The Art of the Theatre. In the last chapter, we saw Craig in I897 at the nadir of his personal and professional life. Inevitably, Craig's professional activity or non-activity was affected by the fluctuations in his emotional life. He says he composed The Art of the Theatre in a matter of seven days while in the throes of enthusiasm and passion for "Topsy," Isadora Duncan,* The year 1905 was a year of great personal and

*Edward Gordon Craig, Index to the Story of My Days. PP» 273-74, "And if I looked as young and behaved like a boy, remember this— I had just come to know Topsy [Isadora], and that was apt to make for happiness, and happiness always achieves an impossible and blessed youthfulness." 112 artistic fulfillment for Craig who had found in Berlin love and professional recognition. Thust the concept of the actor-figure found its germination during this vivid year.

This general thesis of dispelling some of the miscon­ ceptions of Craig's theory will be supported first. by a discussion of some of the characteristics of the Victorian actor followed by a descriptive analysis of the resulting evolutionary nature of the Uber-Marionette theory. As Stanislavski's theory for the training of the actor changed and evolved with his experience and maturity over a forty year period, so did Craig's theory of the Uber-Marionette change and evolve. We can not say that it was entirely in- * • consistent, but rather that it was an evolutionary concept. It was then the depths of Craig's despair in 189? over the incompatibility of the nature of acting with the nature 3>t the fine arts that eventually led to this hotly debated theory. Dissatisfied with many-of his contemporary actors and especially unhappy with his own artistry as an actor. Craig sought a solution to the frustration of the performer.

The Victorian Theatre Craig's Criticism of the Victorian Actor Several characteristics of the contemporary actor of Craig's era will be explored first. Craig refers to the empty, idle life the stage offered the actor in the 1890's. "In the old stock company years, much work kept the actors m well occupied» [but now] the actor had days of time on 2 his hands.” Craig blamed these circumstances for creating in many of the contemporary actors the qualities of con­ ceit* laziness and self-indulgence. Craig poses the ques­ tion! What makes a good actor* not necessarily a great actor* but a good actor? First* Craig insists that he be a man capable of hard work. "A good actor will work from 8 i30 each morning until 1 2 i30 t then from 2 to 6 i and in the evening he will perform on the stage.” By work, Craig pre­ sumably refers to the necessity of the actor to extend him­ self by studying the related skills of singing, fencing, dancing and by reading worthwhile literature. Craig ad­ monishes the mediocre actor of his day because he "has no idea how to occupy his time or how to work” and furthermore he does not understand what life is all about. Craig calls our attention to three good actors, in fact three good actors who wrote books in their spare time. Dr. [Karl] Mantzius was such an actor» he knew how to work. When out of his theatre, as well as in it, he gave hours to reading, to writing and to getting at the whole sense of Drama and Theatret Luigi Rasi of Firenze was anotherr and Dr. Hevesi of Budapest a third. The first wrote the History of Theatrical Arti the second wrote I Comici Italiani . . . [And Hevesi] has written plays and books too numerous to recalli and all three were actors for many years and stage-managers as well , . . theatre men who wished to get at the truth about their work, by unceasing practice.

2Ibid. 115

Craig also considered the following to be not great actorsa but good actors* John Martin-Harvey, Laurence Irving# Fred Leslie# Beerbohm Tree, Charles Hawtry, and Alfred Bishop,^ A sharp distinction between the actor-craftsman*and the artist is made by Craig. The ordinary actor is no artist because he does not know how to work* nor how to study. The true artist is not afraid to experiment, to use his brain and his imagination. He probes to penetrate the. mystery of life. The reason why more good actors do not exist today is because they do not work all day, because they do not study as the artists study# because they do not experiment, and therefore do not use their brains and imaginations. The average actor is fond of the theatre, but he is not sufficiently fond of work was Craig's assessment.

He must work to become something more than an ordinary actor. He must work to understand a little more freshly# more vividly, what life is • . , [The actor] never gets into touch with real life— neither does he become aware of the.state of imagination which artists call vision.^ Ellen Terry who obviously had an influence on her son# also stresses the idea of concentrated study and hard work. The qualities a successful actor must possess, she states,

^Edward Gordon Craig, Books and Theatres, pp. 71-75, 4Ibid. 1X6

are Imagination* industry* and intelligence but the prime quality is imagination* Imagination! Imagination! I put it first years ago* when I was asked what qualities I thought necessary for success upon the stage. And I am still of the same opinion. Imagination* industry* and intelligence— 'the three I*s'— are all indis­ pensable to the actress* but of these three the greatest is, without any doubt* imagination. Craig's mother stoutly maintains that observation of life is the second step in creating a role, not the first, The idea* the imagination* must come first. . . . the actor must imagine first and observe afterwards. It is not good observing life and bringing the result to the stage without selec­ tion, without a definite idea. The idea must come first* the realism afterwards . , , watch everything. One should be very much alone* and should study early and late— all night, if need be* even at the cost of sleep. In regard to the prolonged study and concentrated work in preparation for her portrayal of Juliet, Terry had second thoughts. I wish now that instead of reading how this and that actress had played Juliet and cracking my brain over the different readings of her lines and making myself familiar with the different opinions of philosophers and critics* [I wish] I had gone to Verona, and just imagined. And after fifty years of performing, Craig's mother con­

cluded that there are only two classes of actors, "those who can only do what they are taught, and those who cannot be taught* but can be helped by suggestion to work out things 1 1 7 for themselves,Nevertheless, Craig maintained that even the very good actor was still only a craftsman and could not qualify as an artist practicing one of the fine arts,

Craig was to spend several years trying to resolve this

disparity.-'-

Economic Conditions in 19th Century England

Craig felt that precision and discipline were intrin­ sic to the artist's success. But these qualities would he difficult to sustain in the nineteenth century theatre. Economic, social, and political upheavals at the time were hardly conducive to outstanding theatre practice in the commercial theatre. A series of military conflicts in

America and the Napoleonic Wars had debilitated the English severely. The enormous increase in the national debt fol­ lowing these wars produced hard times from which the coun­ try was slow to recover. Although the defeat of the Armada evoked great pride among the Elizabethans, "the victory of Trafalgar [1805] however, seemed to have precisely the oppo­ site effect on [early nineteenth century England]." The nation was exhausted, "Riots were frequent, famine imminent.

•'Ellen Terr quoted in Cole and Chinoy, (ed,). Actors on Acting.‘p p . 33 118 legislation sadly in arrear of the tiraes.'*^ As*a result, the conditions necessary for an artistically vigorous thea­ tre were decidedly hostile. The great ages of theatre activity had depended upon an enlightened culture. The first half of the nineteenth century in England was not one of them, England*s economic deprivation caused squalor and tawdriness to characterize most of the early Victorian theatres. Even Drury Lane as late as 1849, was not noted for its luxury and those in the pit were still sitting on hard backless benches with little more comfort than those who had stood in the pit in Shakespeare’s time. The pro­ vincial theatres were described as filthy, tattered, shabby, neglected and unventilated. Another factor contributing to the decadence of the theatre in this era, was the vast size of the London patent theatres which precluded any subtlety of delivery or move­ ment from the actor. As it was difficult to see or hear, gesture became exaggerated and voice modulation deteriorated into rant. Reformation of conditions came about ever so slowly. By contrast, the reforms wrought by Madame Vestris when she took over management of the Olympic in the 1830's though considerable, were most atypical.

^Ernest Reynolds, Early Victorian Drama (1830-187QK P. 7. 1X9

Characteristics of the Star System What was the caliber of theatrical production in the

•« • rough-and-tumble, *orange-peel atmosphere' of the theatre during the first fifty years of the nineteenth century? Because of the inferior dramatic literature being written at this time, the importance of the actor-manager assumed great proportions. Audience interest was concentrated on the star performer and not on the dramatist. Also during this economically unsettled period when companies were in a state of flux, playwrights wrote plays only for the star performer and not for other members of the company as had been the custom in the playhouses of Shakespeare and Moliere. The carelessness with which major productions were rehearsed, or rather were not rehearsed, was notorious according to Nicoll. Macready relates in his diaries that it was the custom of London actors, especially the leading ones, to do little more at rehearsals than read or repeat the words of their parts, marking on them their entrances and exits, as settled by the stage-manager . . . To make any display of passion or energy would be to expose oneself to the ridicule or sneers of the green-room . , .7

^Sir Frederick Pollock (ed.), Macready*s Reminis­ cences and Selections from His Diaries and Letters. pp, 109-10, X20

M. Glen Wilson in his study of nineteenth century theatre production also emphasizes that audiences did not go to the playhouse to see a play hut rather to see a star. They went to see Edmund Kean or Macready play... Othello* not to see the play, Othello. The early nineteenth century v/as an age of great actors, and the genius of the Kembles, Macready, Edmund Kean, and others were in part responsible for the decline of the drama. They sacrificed the other performers to their own glory and emphasized their own parts too prominentlyi8

Wilson concludes that coordinated and ensemble production was- almost unknown. Watson feels that the evils of the star system reached their height under Edmund Kean's reign. The stage effect as a whole was completely neglected. Kean has been referred to as "the father of that illiterate and narrow-minded taste of only regarding one character in the play," Hazlitt wrote in 1820 that at Drury Lane "we never . . . see a play well acted in all its parts . . . there is only one tragic actor, Mr, Keani all the rest are super­ numeraries,"^ While Abe Bassett and some historians present evi­ dence to support Macready's contribution to the mise-en- scene with his emphasis on ensemble acting, longer rehears­ als, and unity of production, Allardyce Nicoll offers

®M, Glen Wilson, "Charles Keani A Study in Nineteenth Century Production of Shakespearean Tragedy," p, 7,

^E, Bradlee Watson, Sheridan to Robertson, pp. 176-77,. 121

evidence to the contrary as did Glen Wilson above. Nicoll cites the testimony of the well-known actor George Vanden- hoff who was a member of Macready's company during the second season at Covent Garden in 1838-39. When he [Macready] played Othello, Iago was to be nowhere! . . . Iago was a mere stoker, whose business it was to supply Othello's passion with fuel, and keep up his. high-pressure. The next night he took Iago* and lol everything was changed. Othello was to become a mere puppet for Iago to play with . . . Nicoll also refers us to the critic William Archer who observed that [Macready*s] artistic scrupulousness . . . was accompanied by a large amount of the inartistic unscrupulousness of the typical 'star.' His own part was everything. Nicoll quotes further that as Lady Macbeth, even Fanny Kemble "had to sacrifice her legitimate opportunities to his [Macready*s] self-aggrandizement.The supporting actor at Covent Garden and Drury Lane during Macready's era was allowed, in fact, was expected "to read his part accord­ ing to hiB own conception of it, 'You must paint your own picture,was the advice of the stage manager at Drury Lane. One can well imagine the low morale and the result­ ing amount of imprecision and slovenliness abounding in a

Allardyce Nicoll, A History of English Drama. IV, pp. 48-^9, quotes George Vandenhoff in William Archer, William C. Macready. pp. 210-11,

^Watson, o p . cit.. p. 176, 122 production featuring one incandescent star supported by a large cast of "supernumeraries."

Reactions to the Star System

Regardless of the conflicting testimony about the merits of Macready*s stage management, the reviewer of The Dramatic and Musical Review wrote in 18^2, the year Macready gave up management of Drury Lane (and three years after Vandenhoff*s observations of his engagement with Mac- ready) , of the shambles the star system had wrought in the theatre. Bassett quotes the above reviewer who recorded that by 18^2 the excesses of the star system had so dis­ couraged theatre attendance that in order to lure back the audience, the managers had to resort to spectacular scenic effects. The public now refuses to attend a theatre unless an entertainment be prepared for them in which this popular taste for startling effects has a chance of being gratified.12 It now took more than a star to attract an audience to the playhouse. An exception to the prevailing situationf however, is to be observed at the Olympic Theatre where Madame Vestris* "house and management were the first in London to approximate

12 Abraham J. Bassett, "The Actor-Manager Career of William Charles Macready," p. 9. 123 the conditions of the modern theatre," according to Watson, "Her golden rules were , , • perfect staging, speedy with­ drawal of failures, and early closing" time by eleven o'clock. Characteristic of her theatre management was the utilization of a small acting company which specialized in light musical plays and her productions were noted for her "careful drill for a unified effect in acting," Vestris, apparently, was one of the first to achieve a precision and discipline in rehearsal and performance in the pursuit of artistic excellence with her renowned company. In a speech given at the conclusion of her first season at Covent Gar­ den in the late 1830's, Vestris, unlike her fellow competi­ tors, placed emphasis on the concept of ensemble acting, "We have endeavored . . . to look to the production of an harmonious picture, rather than to prominence of an individ­ ual character, Likewise, under the enlightened management of Charles Kean, there was every "attempt to give every role an ade­ quate rendition , . • [and} a much less evident attempt to exploit a single part at the expense of the general effect," Watson refers to the egotistical extravagances of Kean's father, Edmund, and to the haughty superiority of Macready in contrast to the work of the younger Kean, His produc- . tions, besides attaining a standard for splendor and

1 ^Watson, on. cit., pp. 193-9**» 20**. 124

accuracy were noteworthy for "his training of his company and especially of the supernumeraries in mobs and proces­ sions ," said to be most thorough and effective. Charles Kean also made the conditions of performance much more

attractive to his acting company* for by maintaining royal favor he attracted the refined element of the populace to his theatre. By instituting the practice of the long-run

(to make his spectacular productions economically feasible)* Kean made the actor's work less arduous though perhaps less 14 challenging. In contrast to the productions of the younger Kean* the Bancrofts* appeal was due primarily not to the effects of scenery and costume but rather "it was the play first and the setting afterward." Henry James observed that the Bancrofts! "company at the Prince of Wales's, play with- a finish, a sense of detail, what the. French called 'ensemble.'" In contrast to most of the other acting com­ panies in London at the time, the Bancrofts' company was the object of Ellen Terry's admiration for the ensemble achieved in their productions of comedy at the Haymarket in the early 1880*s, "Every part . , . was played with such point and finish" in contrast to "the more rough, uneven* and emotional acting" of other companies. According to

1*>Ibld., pp. 2271 233. 125

Ellen Terry, it would seem that the Bancrofts were the exception to common practice,1^ But in the next decade (and also true of the 1880's), the other exception to the rule was to be Irving's.theatre where Craig said he saw "nearly all the rehearsals" during his tenure there in the 1890's. "Rehearsing in Irving's theatre was long and thoroughi" he drilled his actors un­ ceasingly, like marionettes, remembers Craig. He makes it clear .that the attention to detail, the ensemble, and co­ hesive production were not characteristic of theatre prac­ tice in London during this period. Get out of your head altogether the notion that what I relate of Irving and the Lyceum Theatre was typical of the times. It was typical only of Irving . . , only Irving determined to reform it as much as one man possibly could,16 • Dedication, precision, and discipline were hallmarks of Irving's work.

Imprecision of the Spoken Dialog

Adherence to the rules, precision, and discipline are, of course, hallmarks of the artist working in such fine arts as music, dance, painting, sculpture, and archl- . tecture. The writings of Richard Wagner on this subject

^Frances Donaldson.’The Actor Managers, pp. *10, 4-3,

1^Gordon Craig, Henrv Irving, pp. 15-16, 126 had a pronounced effect on Craig's thinking at this time. It was the imprecision and the vulnerability of spoken dialog to the whim of the actor that concerned both Wagner and, some years later, Craig, Wagner considered musical drama superior to the spoken drama because the dramatist-composer can control per-, formanee through indications of melody, tempo, volume, and rhythm. In this way, he dictates intonation, speed of playing, variations in intensity . . . whereas the writer of spoken drama must depend upon the actors to make these important interpretive decisions.*7 London critic. Clement Scott calls attention to the freedom with which Ellen Terry embellished her dialog. It may be heresy to the old school to hear an actress interpolating asides and adding remarks and breaking in upon the text with charming ges­ tures i but Ellen Terry does it, and every.one loves her for doing it.l° Audiences and critics apparently regarded this stage deport­ ment as delightful capriciousness on the part of the actress. However, in defense of Miss Terry's integrity, the cause for this particular manner of behavior would seem to be, not a desire for a display of self-indulgence, but rather

^Oscar Brockett and Robert Findlay, Century of Inno­ vations. p. 29.

lfi Clement Scott, The Drama of Yesterday and Today. p. 10^, 127 the result of a poor memory,1^ Thus, when her memory failed in performance, she would interpolate deftly, add lines and jump cues to prevent being victimized by a dead silence. Biographer T. Edgar Pemberton relates another example of the vulnerability of the spoken word to the whim of the performer. It was Ellen Terry's reaction to the impulse of the moment, which no doubt made Craig yearn even more for the discipline and precision of the Uber-Marionette. Pem­ berton in his biography of the Terry sisters relates the following rather fanciful story which may or may not be completely factual. In a passionate scene between the jealous queen and the Pair Rosamund played by Ellen Terry in Tennyson's Becket. the stage lighting favored London's, beloved actress while leaving her adversary in deep shadow. In an effort to try to correct the faulty lighting effects while on stage, Miss Terry would turn her back to the aud­ ience and is said to have given instructions for the gasmen in the wings. Genevieve Ward . . , has told me how, in that strong and stormy scene between the jealous Queen and the. luckless Rosamund, the stage moon was wont to show a little undue favoritism towards the fair denizen of the bower, flooding her with radiance and leaving her vindictive visitor in. comparative obscurity.

19 7Ellen Terry, on. cit.. p, 337, MMy memory! Oh, what agony it has always been to me. I knew all about my parts long before I could get the words into my head. The pleasure of acting was spoiled by the terror of forgetting. 128

•This , . . hurt Ellen Terry's sense of justice» and more than once she has turned her back upon the audience, and gently rebuked the too partial moon by a tragic line thrown into the wings-- "Take it off me and turn it on Miss Ward,"'20 Another example of the vulnerability of the spoken word at the hands of the actor is provided by Percy Fitz­ gerald in his biography of Henry Irving. Unlike those of the major portion of his career, Irving's performances seemed to become, on occasion, careless, during his last years on stage. In order to enliven certain scenes, Irving would emit ominous sounds and exclamations. In Faust. he would comment on the stage action in a lowered voice. Fitz­ gerald is of the opinion that these effects were used for the purpose of lending merriment and an air of spontaneity to the scene.

, . , there was coming on with the advance of years a decay, not only in his strength and health but in his methods. Nothing was more obvious during the last few years of his life, than the gradual ’ weakening of his voice, with indistinctness of utter­ ance. He seemed also to be careless of stage dis­ cipline, and would, during his own or other person's speeches, introduce strange sounds of dissent, ex­ clamations, which was literally no more than a 'gag.' This, he seemed to think, imported a sort of spon­ taneous and degage tone to his part. His new read­ ing of Mephisto had too much of this would-be 'buffoonery,' he making jocose comment a sotto voce on what was going on before him.21

20 T, Edgar Pemberton, Ellen Terry and Her Sisters. p. 278.

21 ’ Percy Fitzgerald, Henry Irving, p. 260, 129

During the last year of his life when he was performing Dante. Irving's voice was weak and very thin* the speech slow and monotonoust the performance was more like a reci­ tation than acting, reports Fitzgerald. There was prac­ tically no passion nor action. In fact he was not Dante . . , The character made no impression and seemed to be overpowered by the noisy, riotous crowds that overflowed the piece. At the more dramatic , , , moments of the piece, he became almost extinct, looking on in a sort of helpless fashion at what was going forward, Irv­ ing , , . could not dominate the crowd as the great classical actors do, He must have the stage to himself, he and his audience.22 "It was a grim struggle," verifies Irving's grandson, Laurence in his biography of Sir Henry. During the declin­ ing years, Irving was afflicted with chills, fainting, emphysema and coughing spells. His remedy was brandy which brought him temporary relief.

Racked as he was with coughing and at times so weak as hardly to be able to stand, his disabili­ ties seemed to leave him as he stepped upon the stage, so that he appeared to play his old parts with undiminished power. He began to depend to some extent on stimulants. In the old days when he played the part of Dubose, he would reel about the garret gloating over the coming execution of Lesurques. He would pick up a bottle of sugar and water, but now in his final years his faithful valet "Walter saw that the bottle contained burnt brandy to accelerate the

22Ibid.. p. 268, 130 beating of his ma3ter*s weakening heart,*'2** It must be noted* however, that Craig never saw Irving perform in his declining years. During the production of Dante in 1904, Craig was in Berlin, Still another instance of the fallible actor that was to make Craig determined to invent an infallible one, was his experience with Ben Greet, the producer of his London Hamlet. A member of the company, Leslie French, relates that Greet*s lack of concentration rent the fabric of the scene by upsetting other actors with whom he was performing. [He] was not a great actor but he had a tremen­ dous personality. As an actor he had no great integrity, you could never really believe in his Touchstone or Prospero or any part he was playing, because he was always so busy mumbling about the lights and grumbling about the incompetence of everyone around him— and all this during a scene and while you were trying to say your lines— most disconcerting for the actor— but oddly enough sel­ dom noticed by the audience,2^ Earlier in the century, a lack of discipline due to problems of alcohol, drugs, and erratic behavior afflicted George Frederick Cooke and Edmund Kean. Kean is said to have saved his strength for the great moments in a play and to have slighted the remainder of the role. Gifted performers within recent memory, from Ethel Barrymore to

2-*laurence Irving, Henry Irving, p, 64-7. 24 Leslie French in "Forward," in Yfinifred Isaac, Ben Greet and the Old Vic. p. xi. 131

Ethel Merman, have been known to employ the same tactic of saving themselves for the big scenes. A handsomely endowed matinee idol of Craig*s era like Lewis Waller with his following of "k.o.w*s" (Keen-on-Waller fans)* for example* was less likely to be concerned with precision and disci­ pline in performance than with pleasing his female ad­ mirers, ^ V/e can be certain that all of the vices, large and small, under discussion were problems not only of some Victorian actors, but of some actors in all periods of thea­ trical history. So it would seem that both Wagner and Craig had strong reason to feel that the actor should not be con­ sidered an artist in the same way in which the nineteenth- century practitioners of the fine arts were because all art has to do with calculation, and . . the man v/ho disregards this can only be but half an actor. Nature will not alone supply all which goes to create a work of art, and it is not the privilege of trees, mountains and brooks to create works of art, or everything which they touch would be given a definite and beautiful form. It is the particular power which belongs to man alone . . ,26 The true artist realizes that without discipline and pre­ cision no work of art is possible.

^Comment by George Nash of the Victoria and Albert Museum during an interview in Columbus, Ohio, November 1* 1973. 26 Edward Gordon Craig, On the Art of the Theatre. p. 10, : “ 132

The Effect of the Actor*s Personality Another characteristic of the actor which caused Craig much distress, in addition to the lack of precision and dis­ cipline, was the egoistic quality of personality in the actor, The charisma of star performers like Ellen Terry and Sarah Bernhardt, for example, often stood as a barrier between the playwright's conception and the audience, according to Craig, Embellishment of the dramatist's char­ acter by the magnetic and charming performer often distorted the original conception drastically, Craig had long maintained that certain playwrights, especially Shakespeare, have created complete works of lit­ erary art. And to try to produce them satisfactorily in the theatre was impossiblei the addition of actors, music, dance, scenery, lighting effects, and costumes to a com­ plete literary work of art like Hamlet, for instance, would be not only extraneous but also downright encumbering. Too easily could the original idea of the poet undergo out­ rageous transformation, Craig had been reading .extensively since the mid­ nineties and no doubt the writings of Goethe may have in­ fluenced him considerably as well as the writings of Lamb and other Romantic critics. It was Goethe's contention that the art of Shakespeare "belongs to the history of 133 poetry rather than the history of the theatre,"2^ The Romantic critics of the early part of the century also supported Goethe*s thesis, Shakespeare was complete and could he realized best in private* in the study or as closet drama. These critics felt that the production methods of the commercial stage in the nineteenth century undermined the essential spirit of Shakespeare's creation. In Lamb's day producers attempted to recover the time lost in shifting [elaborate scenery] by dras­ tically cutting the plays. These cuts, together with the inherited mutilations of Restoration adaptors and the temporary distortions inspired by a star actor's vanity, reduced the heroic sweep of the major Shakespearean tragedies to a patchwork of short and ill-connected scenes. It is no wonder that Lamb despaired of seeing Shake­ speare properly produced. Irving disagreed and gave his reason in a lecture in Edin­ burgh in 1891. There are those who say Shakespeare is better read in the closet than on the stage 1 that drama­ tic beauty is more convincing when read in private than when spoken on the stage to the accompaniment of suitable action. And yet, if this be so, it is a strange thing that, with all the activity of the ,new-born printing press, Shakespeare's works were not known to the reading public till the fame of the writer had been made on the stage.29

27 'John Gassner and Ralph G. Allen, Theatre and Drama in the Making, p.

28Ibid.. p. 511. 2% e n r y Irving, The Drama, p. 15*1-. 13**

What Irving, Kean and other champions of pictorial realism failed to realize (not withstanding the question of illit­ eracy in the Globe audience), was that the panoramic sweep of Shakespeare's plays made.them illradapted to'the con­ ventions of nineteenth century staging, The neutral plat­ form of an earlier era had permitted the Elizabethan drama to enjoy an uninterrupted flow of action. In contrast, the elaborate staging techniques employed later, required a rearrangement of scenes. Also, a mutilated text was used to enhance the prominence of the star actor-manager. The problem which troubled Lamb increased rather than diminished as time passed , . . the great star performers from Kemble to Henry Irving appeared in crudely abbreviated 'acting versions' . . . heavily mounted in an increasingly illu- sionistic style.30

All of these elements conspired to obscure the original vision of the Bard. Craig was not alone in his conviction that the actor distorted the poet's intent and cited the example of Ibsen who was extremely upset when he witnessed his own dramas in the theatre. Ibsen "detested to see his own plays on the stage. The actors came between him and his conception of the.characters, often distorting them forever," records

■*' Gassner and Allen, o p . cit.. p. 511, 135

Haldane Macfall in his book on the Norwegian dramatist,^1 And Craig reacts,

And how could this be otherwise? For from the moment when the last word v/as written, and the play going forth to the world, left the poet 'Lonely, as though he had been robbed of the intimate friends,' it was complete, perfectly rounded as a work of art. Further addition was more than superfluous, it was encumbering, in that it blurred the conception of the author and confused the minds of those to whom he spoke, since for. one actor v/ho could interpret so subtle and elusive a thing as the spirit of a play, five hundred would only obtrude their own personality as a barrier between the audience and the poet,32 Craig, however, envisioned an abstract, objective style of acting. But when he began forming ideas about the ideal actor in his Theatre-of-the-Future, critics and audiences were idolizing the performer with the captivat­ ing personality. Embellishments that Craig and Ibsen realized and feared, were all too prevalent in the reviews of the work of Craig's mother. The qualities of Ellen Terry recorded so frequently by captivated critics stressed her dazzling beauty, her personal fascination, her womanly loveliness and always— her charm, William Winter describes her in the role of Queen Henrietta Maria in her first appearance in the United States,

^ Haldane Macfall, Ibsen, The Man, His Art and Sig­ nificance quoted in "Book Review.1' The Mask, I, No. 1 (1908), p, 20, 136

The more surprising and absorbing performance of the night was that of Miss Ellen Terry , , . Her dazzling beauty as the queen, and her strange personal fascination , . , Miss Terry is spon­ taneous . , . and positively unconventional, and will use all the characters in the drama-as vehi­ cles for the expression of her own . . , Miss Terry's acting has less mind in it than that of Mr. Irving, though not deficient here, but it proceeds essentially from the nervous system— from the soul . . * but she was all the woman in the desolate farewell scene that ended the piece, and she melted every ear with her distress, even as she had charmed every eye with, her uncommon love­ liness. With eloquence and spiritual majesty she possesses a sweetness that softens the hard lines of ancient tragic form, and leaves the perfect impression of nature.33 Reacting to Winter's review of Miss Terry in The Merchant of Venice. Craig would have no qualms about her technical artistry of voice and movement, but the personal impact created by the actress would disqualify her for Craig's ideal of the Uber-Actor, As Portia, Winter writes, The comedy of this actress is delicious. Her voice is perfect music . . , Her beil-like elo­ cution is more than a refreshment— it is a luxury. Her simple manner , , , is a greaj: beauty of the art which it so deftly conceals . , . woman's loveliness , . , stately and fascinating [in robes of flowing gold for the comedy scenes and scarlet red in the Trial Scene] . , , Her sparkling by­ play, the 'business' about the ring, can only be -j, called exquisite. Better comedy has not been seen,*5

•^William Winter, Henry Irving, p. 23.

34Ibid., p. 36. 1 3 7

Again, Winter describes the tantalizing feminine quality that Craig found distracting and wanted to banish from his theatre. "In the minuet she was a vision of swanlike ele-

'gance, grace and womanly fascination— a true type of ele­ gant, tantalizing, high-bred coquetry.M The excellence of her delivery is again noted, "The rich and flexible delivery of the text, so full of light and shadow and a3 various as the ripple of running water.

The description by critics of her dance-like move­ ments continually recurs. "She bounds about the stage like . a young fawn • . . she is a wilful madcap and a romp," observes Clement Scott. And of the beguiling personality traits he describes her "peculiar amalgam of witchery, charm and willfulness." He notes that in Cvmbeline "Miss Terry is a model Shakespearean boy, there is no doubt about that, and.has both laughter and tears at her winsome com­ mand Playwright Charles Reade was another who was bewitched by Miss Terry's personal radiance. He classified her as an enigmat . her eyes are pale, her nose rather long, her mouth nothing particular. Her complexion a delicate brick-dust, her hair rather' like tow. . Yet, somehow, she is beautiful. Her expression kills any pretty face you see beside her. Her figure is lean and bonyt her hand masculine in

* : . \ 3^Ibld., p. 50. ^Scott, pp. clt.. pp. 104-05. 138

size and form. She is a pattern of fawn-like grace. Whether in movement of repose, grace pervades the h u s s y . 37

It is apparent that the charm of her personality informed every role she played. Again, the critics and public loved her, but Craig disapproved of a theatre so personalized. He would have insisted upon a more objective interpretation of the role. This treatment was essential for the inter­ pretation of the great comic and tragic characters in the dramatic literature of the seventeenth and eighteenth cen­ turies, declared Craig, Theatre historian H. Barton Baker acknowledges another of the actress* most treasured assets. She "was the one poetical actress of her generation • . • all her most celebrated contemporaries were realists,"^® Still another observer, Hesketh Pearson, reiterates the same claim when he writes that Ellen Terry (and Forbes Robertson) "were the only two players in my experience who delivered the language of Shakespeare as if it were their natural idiom and whose beauty of diction matched the beauty of the words.Besides her poetic nature. Baker reveals another unique facet of the Teriry personality,

^H. Barton Baker, History of the London Stage, p. 305.

3®Ibid.

3 0 -^Hesketh Pearson, The Last.Actor Managers, p, 2. 139

As in private life, this rare fascination was one of the secrets of her public success} a fascina­ tion so absolute that it carried you away without the power to criticize. Her Ophelia, Desdemona, Cordelia, Portia, Beatrice could never have been surpassed by the actresses of past days, and leave all of her ov/n generation far behind her, Sarah Bernhardt has said that her greatest treat was to see Ellen Terry a c t ,40

According to Craig, this quality of "rare fascination" had the ability to overpower the writer’s original conception of the character, whereby the part merely served as a vehi­ cle. on which the star performer could display her skill and mesmerize her audience. Pearson, conversely, considered Miss Terry to be so skillful that she had the power to transmute an author's leaden character into something golden, in this case the character of Mistress Page in The Merry Wives of Windsor. and indeed, Ellen Terry's performance would have made Shakespeare wonder whether he had uncon­ sciously created a masterpiece, until he referred to the text and discovered that all the glory was in the personality of the actress,41 Craig stoutly proclaimed, "It is bad art, or no art, to make so personal, so emotional an appeal that the beholder forgets the thing itself while swamped by the personality, k o the emotion, of its maker," Although Craig appreciated 4o hi Baker, op. cit. Pearson, o p . cit., p, 18. ho Craig, "The Actor and the Ubermarionette." The Mask. I, No. 2 (1908), p. 10. 1**0 his mother's expertise with lyrical language, grace of movement, and beauty of diction, he disapproved of a win­ some personality which he felt overwhelmed the dramatist's thought, and caused the audience to forget the intent of the play in its admiration of the beguiling actress. Craig insists that the theatre must be something more than a display of virtuosity by the actor. The real func­ tion of theatre is to be more than a showcase for the per­ former to exhibit his own personality and to present his own interpretation. "Performers should train under the. influence of an earlier teaching," admonishes Craig, They will have to avoid that frantic desire to put life into their work* . . , it means the bringing of excessive gesture, swift mimicry, speech which bellows and scene which dazzles, on to the stage, in the wild and vain belief that by such means vitality can be conjured there . . . It succeeds partially with the bubbling personalities of the Stage. With them it is a case of sheer triumph in spite of the rules . . . We who look on throw our hats into the air, cheer, and cheer again. We have tot . . . we are hypnotized . . . The great personality has tri­ umphed both over us and the art. But personalities such as these are extremely rare, and if we wish to see a personality assert itself in the Theatre and entirely triumph as an actor, we must at the same time be quite indifferent about the play and the other actors, about beauty and art.^3

^Craig, On the Art of the Theatre, pp. 75-76. l*H

Craig believes that the two adversaries that limit the potential of the actor, are the dominating playwright and the actor's own personality. Historically, the actor has been held in subjugation by the dramatisti and to free him­

self from the confines of the written text, the actor has determined to avoid ensemble acting by asserting himself and his prowess,

Craig refers us to Anatole France who likewise felt the overwhelming presence of the great actors to be a hindrance to the art of the theatre. Their personality, their talent conceals everything else, I have seen the marionettes of the rue Vivienne twice, and enjoyed them tremendously, I am infinitely grateful to them for taking the place of living actors , , , I must say that actors spoil plays for me. Good actors, I mean. “ I could put up with the others. But fine artists, such as those at the Comedie Francaise, are more than I can bearI Their talent is too great» it hides everything else! One can see nothing but them . , ,zw Anatole France, like Craig, was opposed to the personalized theatre engulfed by the emotional actor. In order to minimize the impact of personality in the actor's performance, Craig suggested a return to a convention of an earlier era, the practice of boys' por­ traying the roles of young women in Shakespeare. Craig

LL Denis Bablet, Edward Gordon Craig, translated by Daphne Woodward, p, 10IH 142

lamented the tantalizing "presence" which the great.actress brought to her role, and yearned for a return to the prac­ tice of the theatre of Shakespeare's time. Although Craig was particularly fascinated by women outside the, theatre, he considered certain qualities in women to be a disruptive factor on stage. He felt that the objectivity boys would bring to the parts of young women would less likely obscure the lyric of the poet. The boys who acted Rosalind, Viola, and Julia, had the difficult task of pretending to be girls disguised as boys. In spite of all this, it may be doubted whether Shakespeare has not suffered more than he has gained by the genius-of latter- day actresses, who bring into the plays a realism and robust emotion which sometimes obscure the sheer poetic value of the author's conception.45 Craig believed that without the realism of a passionate woman in the part, the simplicity of youth would more effectively serve as a "transparent medium" for the thoughts of the dramatist. The boys were no doubt very highly trained, and amenable to instruction so that the parts of Rosalind and Desdemona may well have been ren-.... dered with a clarity and simplicity which served as a transparent medium for the author's wit and pathos. Poetry, like religion, is outraged when it is made a platform for the exhibition of their own talent and passion by those who are its minis­ ters. With the disappearance of the boy players the poetic drama died in England, and it has had no second life.**6

^Craig, "Book Review," in The Mask. XI, No. 4-6 (1909), p. 96. ^iMd. 1^3

The essence of the role of a woman would prevail more sure lyover the illusion of reality in Shakespeare's playhouse for there could never have been the illusion that it was a real woman but only that it was the spirit of a woman v/hich was brought upon the stage* and in as much as the spirit was present without the body, the gain must have been incalculable. Railing once again against the personalization of the com­ mercial theatre, Craig calls it an abomination and longs for the concept of abstraction inherent in the function and: form of the Tudor playhouse. The impersonal element must have been felt very much in the theatre, and it is only too true that today it is the bodily presence of women which makes all the difference to the beholder. She is 'charming,' 'fascinating,' she 'carries one away'* that is what we hear, and when the critic speaks of her it is often to admit that criticism is impossible because he i3 so bewitched. This is charming in a drawing room, beautiful in a home, but abominable in a theatre,**7 In contrast to the sweeping style of the personality per­ former in the popular melodramas, sentimental comedies and Shakespearean plays, was the "Eyelid School" of performing noted for its extreme subtlety which Craig also deplored;

"The Eyelid School of Acting"

This practice which distressed Craig was the "minia­ ture" method of acting exemplified by actors of realistic drama, members, of "The Eyelid School of Acting," These performers characteristically lacked vitality, strength and inspiration, according to Craig. He laments the fact that the great tragic roles in English dramatic literature had become merely pathetic character roles. The performer in high tragedy now speaks in a small voicei he is well- bred and courteous and is loath to do anything that would not be proper in a drawing room. A distinction must be made between the emotionally heroic and the emotionally pathetic. Craig pleads for the return of the heroic. Desperately needed are fire, fury, and attack by the actor performing the great tragic roles as we11 as the comic master roles. / I appeal for more and more appreciation, and less disdain for emphasis and fury in the .actor, so that our Theatrical Art becomes stronger where it now lacks strength . . . in tragedy . . . in our immense and priceless English drama. But Craig is quick to point out, I would not ask our perfect actor Sir Charles Hawtry to exaggerate or to let his fury loose— nor his critics to abate a word of their praise for this very lack of exaggeration, this suave power of suggestion which, by raising an eyelid, he is able to employ. X would not look to see Sir Gerald du Maurier be anything or do anything more than he is and does. . . . and the many other actors who belong to this Eyelid School, X, for my part, would not miss one of them. The faultlessness of their miniature method must not be disturbed— nor undervalued.^®

**8Craig, "Acting,- The Mask. IX (1923)» p. 21 1^5

This polite Eyelid School of extreme subtlety is only one style of acting and is only appropriate for certain rea­ listic dramas. The quality of the "theatrical" is desperately required when performing the larger, more vibrant tragic as well as comic characterizations in English drama of preceding centuries. To be suave, to drawl, lisp and act the oracle in a 'natural' way when performing Falstaff, Charles Surface, Kercutio, Gratiano, Beatrice, Portia, The Merry Wives of 'Windsor or any of the larger comic master roles of the 17th and 18th centuries would be futile. These, like the great tragic roles, need swing, fire, attack, and exaggeration— The Theatrical, **9 "To be theatrical." writes Craig in 1906, "... should be the highest aim of the Theatre of today and of tomorrow," He urges the performer to forsake the inhibitions of the passive-and-polite in regard to vocal production, attitude and movement, and to develop a stylized exaggeration. To chant— to strike attitudes— to sweep on and off the stage— to mouth— to glare— to whisper . with bated breath— to gasp— but to do all this superbly well . . , this should be the study of the careful actors today— to become more, not less theatrical,50

**9Ibid.

^^Craig, Index to the Story of Mv Days, p, 290, 146

Realismi The Popularization of Ugliness Craig's tolerance of the realistic drama of his day was short-lived, however, because of the superficiality of its content and the literalness of its production. Craig pondered the words of Yeats v/ho wrote, "Art is art because it is not nature,"-*1 Art is not a mirrored reflection. "Realism gets the Theatre no nearer to the Arts*"-*2 Craig declared, nor does naturalism* because "naturalism pushes realism over the edge of moderation and good taste and t becomes sensational exploitation of sordid behavior and circumstances, "-*^

John Howard Lawson makes a distinction between real­ ism and naturalism when he writes, Naturalism tends to regard emotional instability, selfishness, and moral blindness as inherent in the nature of man . . . Realism Con the other hand] examines social cus­ toms and psychological weaknesses . . . and nour­ ishes the hope that men possess the reason and will to improve their condition, or at least recognize the need to improvement.54

^William Butler Yeats quoted in Cole and Chinoy (ed,)t Actors on Acting, p. 362,

-*2Craig, op,_cit.. p. 209.

■'■'John Gassner, The Theatre in Our Times, p. 351. 54 John Gassner and Edward Quinn, The Reader's Ency­ clopedia of World Drama, p. ?o4. 14?

The English theatre of Craig's era was innundated with works in the tradition of Boucicault and Sardou or with lavish pietorially realistic productions of Shake­ speare. In the 1880's two more realists emerged who began writing sentimental domestic drama, Henry Arthur Jones and Arthur Wing Pinero "were sufficiently new to be slight­ ly scandalizing, yet both were sufficiently conventional to be acceptable to the censor and the . , . public,Influ encing both Jones and Pinero, of course, waB their prede­ cessor Tom Robertson, the dramatist-director. In Robert­ son's dramas of contemporary life, the emphasis was upon realistic setting and-properties,-and stage business. His cup-and-saucer dramas such as Society. Caste and Ours of the 1860's, were to foreshadow the advent of the realistic mode of Jones'- Mrs, Dane, and Pinero's notorious Mrs, Tan- queray and Ebbsmith some thirty years later. These dramas were said to have helped pave the way for Ibsen in England, . The "popularization of ugliness," this is the achieve ment of the theatre of realism, lamented Craig, Nothing was left to the imagination. Reflecting upon the caliber of the commercial theatre, Craig saw in the trend toward realism that

emotions are taken as they are, reflected in a mirror which is.held rather low down— for the arms are getting tired— and this reflection we

*^0scar G, Brockett, History of the Theatre, p, 556 • 348

call art , • . Cis] a pretense and a parody of life.56

The bulk of the literature for the popular theatre was little concerned with the problems of the head region but rather was more concerned with the problems of the heart. Gassner feels there has been entirely too much talk about the importance of emotion in drama, a rhetoric inherited by the Victorian stage from the vogue of sentimental drama. He laments the fact that there is so little evidence of logical thinking taking place. 'Feeling' comes cheap, Any mediocrity can have a throbbing heart and shed an easy tear. It is thinking that is difficult. Cohere is] so little evidence of cerebration on our stage that one might paraphrase Y/illiam Blake and accuse our playwrights . . . of crucifying the theatre 'with the head downwards,' Craig v/ould agree with Gassner who believes that the play­ wright may deal with emotion if he so desires, but that dealing with it "is not the same thing as succumbing to it and dispensing with logic. Let him express convictions if he has any, but let it be thought that is transformed into passion," Essential to any art, is the quality of inten­ sification and there are many ways of attaining it. But there is no good reason for relying exclusively on emotion. "Certainly there is no reason for assuming that feeling is an infallible means of succeeding in the theatre when it

^Edward Gordon Craig, Towards a Hew Theatre, p. 85. 149 has produced so many failures." Gassner reiterates Craig's thinking of the Victorian stage when he writes that "An actor who is choked up with emotion gives a bad perform­ ance. So does the playwright, The worm in the- apple of the Victorian theatre" was emotionalism that made the pre-

Ibsen nineteenth century stage bo abysmally bad."^ Craig felt that the emotionally charged realistic writing was antagonistic to the imagination of the actor. Portraying the "restless mimicries of the surface of life, is an art of fading humanity, a decaying art," observed Craig. The actor looks upon life as a photo-machine looks upon lifei and he attempts to make a pic­ ture rival a photograph. He never dreams of his art as being an art such . . . as music. He tries to reproduce Nature» he seldom thinks to invent with the aid of Nature, and 4® never . dreams of creating . . . the best he can do when he wants to catch and convey the poetry of a kiss, the heat of a fight or the calm of death, is to. copy slavishly, photographically— he kisses— he fights— he lies back and mimics death . . . an artless copy.58 Has Craig forgotten his admiration for Henry Irving? Is he overlooking the attributes of a few outstanding per­ formers of the era? It must be understood that Craig is passing judgment on what he considers to be the quality of the vast majority of actors of his time. Unfortunately,

^Gassner, The Theatre in Our Times, pp. 465-68.

CD Craig, "The Actor and the Ubermarionette," The Mask. I, No. 2 (1908), p. 62. 150 the actor will never achieve the status of artist, for he insists on merely being an imitator, concludes Craig.

Rejuvenation of a Decaying Art To rejuvenate the decaying art of contemporary thea­ tre, Craig prescribes the antidote of abstract treatment to counteract the debilating effects of realism, in the style of writing, acting and production. But the great abstraction that was to unleash heated debate for years, was Craig's conception of the actor. "Do away with the real tree, do away with the reality of delivery, do away with the reality of action and you tend toward doing away with the actor." Craig insists that this is what must come to pass in time. Do away with the actor, and you do away with the means by which a debased stage realism is produced and flourishes. No longer would there be a living figure to confuse us into connecting actuality and arti no longer a living figure in which the weaknesses and tremors of the flesh were perceptible.59

The Great Abstraction. The Actori A Source As this study is concerned with some of the major influences on the theory and practice of Craig, let us con­ sider one possible source of Craig's concept of the actor- abstracted. The substitution of the human actor by a form

59Ibid. 151

of abstraction seems to have been an idea that Craig adapted from the writings of the symbolist playwright, Maeterlinck, for in 1890 "Maeterlinck reasoned that if the vision of drama was poetic, then the tangible all-too-human presence of the actor on the stage immediately destroyed that vision."^ "The stage is a place where masterpieces diet for the production of a masterpiece by means of acci­ dental and human elements has something antinomic in it­ self, " wrote Maeterlinck in his Menus Propos. Le Theatre. Each masterpiece is a symbol and a symbol cannot bear the active presence of a man. There is con­ tinual discord between the forces of a symbol and the forcos of a man , . . The Greeks felt that antinomy, and their masks which seem incomprehen­ sible to us, served to smooth down the presence of a man and to facilitate the symbol . . . The poem begins to retreat into shadow as the man comes forth. A poem wishes to rescue us from the domination of the senses and to give a pre­ ponderance to the past and future 1 man acts only on our senses and exists only as far as he is able to attenuate that preponderance of past and future by interesting us exclusively in the moment at which he speaks. If a man enters on the stage with all his faculties and his whole freedom, if his voice, gestures, atti­ tude are not veiled by a great number of synthetic conditions, if even for a moment the human being appears such as he is, there is not a poem in this world which could stand that event. In that moment, the spectacle of the poem is interrupted, and we are present at some scene of outward life.61

At) E. T, Kirby, Total Theatre, p. 30*

^Maurice Maeterlinck, Menus Prooos. Le Theatre in Kirby, ibid.. p. 31* 152

In his campaign to banish the presence of the living actor from the theatre, Maeterlinck, however, does not necessar­ ily advocate the introduction of a puppet, a doll or a marionette, but he does indicate the artistic advantages of some type of jion-humanized representation. But in accord with the evocative, non-concrete and rarefied qualities of Symbolism, it was also expressed in the understanding that the figure of man on the stage might come to be replaced by a shadow, a reflection, a projection of symbolic forms.62

The Evolutionary Nature of Craig's Uber-Marionette Theory

It was in 1905 in his celebrated volume, The Art of the Theatre, that Craig first made us aware of his theory of acting. The place of the actor had a very unique posi­ tion in Craig's concept of theatre. His whole theory of play production was based upon the premise that all elements of production must be subject to control and all elements must be constant* the constant materials are form, color, movement and sound. As a result of eight years of varied acting experience and over twice that period of time ob­ serving the actor in rehearsal and in performance, Craig concluded that one vital element in theatre practice had the quality of unpredictability— that element, the living actor.

62Ibid. 153

In his idealistic theatre-of-the-future, Craig was to insist on the depersonalization of the actor in order to create a stable, constant factor, one with which an Uber- director could calculate and control in his design of the total theatre experience. Note, however, that it is only the stage director who has the potential of becoming an Artist-of-the-Theatre, for it is through his catalytic

function of combining the various factors that a work of art-can be produced in the theatre. The work of art Craig referred to, would be the crea­ tion of theatre-poems using the theatre's own material— action (both gesture and dancing), scene (including light­ ing and costume), and voice (the spoken word, as opposed to the word written to be read). But what was to be the position of the dramatist in this unique theatrical sit­ uation? Ideally, the dramatist should also be capable of functioning as the master-artist. This writer asked Craig during an interview in Prance, "Who, living today, would best fulfill your ideal of the omnipotent master-artist?" Craig's eyes lit up as he answered, "Ah, one mant producer, director, writer, actor, designer, composer» that is the ■ secret, a man like Charlie Chaplin," It was Craig's con­ tention that a masterpiece can be the product of only one brain, one vision. 154

Communication Through Movement

Craig maintains that "the Art of the Theatre is neither acting nor the play, it is not scene nor dance," He notes that any one element of the art is "no more impor­ tant than the other, no more than one colour is more impor­ tant to a painter than another, or one note more important ' than another to a musician," But then.his great concern for the element of movement (which will color his writings for^ the next twenty-five years) comes to the fore in his dialog of 1905. "One element of the art is no more impor­ tant than the other [but] in one respect , , , action is the most valuable part." Visually oriented, Craig's con­ cern is undeniably with those qualities of theatre art which appeal to the eye. The first dramatist understood what the modern dramatist does not yet understand , . , the aud­ ience would be more eager to see what he [the actor] would do than to hear what he might say , , , the eye is more swiftly and powerfully appealed to than any other sense , , , it is without ques­ tion the keenest sense of the body of man.63 The early Greek playwrights had extensive training in the area of dance, Craig claims, to support his thesis of action being integral to theatre art. The appeal was to the eye in the vast outdoor amphitheaters and the theatre exper­ ience depended primarily upon movement for communication.

^Craig, On the Art of the Theatre, pp, 138-41, 155

Thus, the live actor as a material with which the stage director could compose, had an advantage over inanimate materials (cloth, metal, wood, stone) only in that he was capable of movement, says Craig.

To support his thesis of communication through move­ ment -t Craig refers us to Otis Skinner's statement that plays, like children, should be seen and not heard. It is Skin­ ner's contention that in the great plays of the world, it is not brilliant dialog that makes the drama great but rather it is the action within the scene that provides the moments of greatest stage effect, . . . so much does the impression of the theatre depend on the development of its visual side that one is almost tempted to say that plays, like little children, should be- seen and not heard. But this would be an obvious misstatement . . • Both the eye and the ear must be appealed to if we would get the greatest results. But drama is possible without the use of a single spoken line . . . a play is possible without words, but without action . . . words would not form a play. The beautiful poetry of Shakespeare, the bril­ liancy of Sheridan, the epigrammatic wit of Wilde, Pinero or Augustus Thomas, appeal as strongly to . us in the speaking. It is not these qualities of poetry or of brilliant epigram, however, that have made plays great, but the action in the scenes behind them.

It is always wonderful to me to note the moments of the greatest stage effect in the presentation of Shakespeare's plays. In Julius Caesar it is at the conclusion of Anthony's speech, and, despite the fact that it is an oration, it is the action of Anthony and the mob that gives us our thrill. The most impressive and thrilling moments of Hamlet are those on the platform at Elsinore, the 156

ghost*s appearance, the melodramatic contri­ vances of the play-scene, Hamlet’s mad emotion­ alism in the graveyard scene, the killing of Polonius and of the King, the duel with Laertes and Hamlet’s death. Vivid communication achieved through movement is further elaborated upon by Craig when he discusses the "unspoken meanings of the earth"* some of the mysteries of nature can only be given expression through movement. The 'unspoken meanings of the earth* are not to be explained by speech, for as there is always that part of nature which can be stated perfect­ ly by words, there must ever remain some myster­ ies of nature which can only be expressed by movement, V/e may take it that Motion is the just and best means of expression for that which lies outside, beyond the province of words.65

1905* More than a Puppet

•The presence of the live actor as a disrupting factor to artistic unity is also presented in the discourse, "The First Dialogue," in The Art of the Theatre, in 1905. [The actor] chosen to move and speak as Romeo must move and speak as part and parcel of the design— this design , , , having a definite form. He must move across our sight in a. cer­ tain way, passing to a certain point, in a certain light, his head at a certain angle, his eyes, his feet, his whole body in tune with the play, and not Cas is often the case]

64 Otis Skinner quoted by Craig, The Mask. II, No. 7-9 (1910), p. 147,

^Adolf Furst (Craig), The Mask. II, No. 4-6 (1909), p. 14?. 157

in tune with his own thoughts only» and these out of harmony v/ith the play, 66

And Craig adds* no doubt thinking of some of the testy actors under his direction with his mother in his London productions of The Vikings and Much Ado just two years previously in 1903, For [the actor's] thoughts, beautiful as they may chance to be, may not match the spirit or the pattern which has been so carefully prepared by the director.

Composer Martin Shaw reports that during these productions, "all through rehearsals the actors made difficulties,"^ At this stage of Craig's thinking, he had not yet banished the live actor from the art of the theatre. When asked if the stage director should control the movements of the actor playing Romec, even if he were a fine performer, Craig an­ swers, "Most certainly* and the finer the actor the finer his intelligence and taste, and therefore the more easily controlled," But then the puzzled Playgoer inquires, "But are you not asking these intelligent actors almost to be­ come puppets?" To which the Stage-Director replies, A sensitive question! which one would expect from an actor who felt uncertain about his powers, A puppet is at present only a doll, delightful enough for a puppet.show. But for a theatre we need more than a doll,68

66 Craig, On the Art of the Theatre, p, 167,

^Martin Shaw, Up To No w , p, 35, 68 Craig, o p . cit., p, 168, 158

More than a doll— thus, the specter of the Uber-Marionette

is anticipated in 1905, but it will not materialize full­ blown until three years later, in the premier issues of his unique periodical The Mask;

1908i A Dichotomy Craig launched his controversial magazine . -The Mask in 1908, blasting the reactionary tendencies of the con­ temporary theatre with a barrage of idealistic yearnings. His'opening shot, to banish the living actor from the stages of the world, literally was heard in every major theatre of the hemisphere. Thus, Craig's new publication sounded a clarion call to theatrical revolution, and The Mask was launched with appropriate fanfare. Building upon the premise discussed..in his little volume of 1905* Craig enlarged upon his ideas of the ideal actor in his essay, "The Artists of the Future." A dichot­ omy appears however. When considering the actor as appro­ priate material subject to the artistic design of the stage director, Craig denies the actor the capability of being a creative factor* however, he writes in this article of the intelligence and the powerful brain possessed by the ideal actor. He "must have not only the rich nature from which to- draw his wealth, but must also have the imagina­ tion to know v/hat to bring forth, and the brain to know how to put it before us," Again, creativity on the part of the actor is realized as he explains, the intellect would bring both itself and the emotions to so fine a sense of reason that the work would never boil to the bubbling point with its restless exhibition of activity, but would create the perfect moderate heat" which it would know how to keep temperate. The perfect actor would be he whose brain could conceive and could show us the perfect symbols of all which his nature contains. Instead of ranting and raging, rolling eyes and clenching fists as Othello, in order to create the impression of jealousy [the actor] would tell his brain to inquire into the depths, to learn all that lies there, and then to remove itself to another sphere, the sphere of the imagination, and there fashion cer­ tain symbols which, without exhibiting the bare passions, would nonetheless tell us clearly about them.

\ Implicit in this statement of the ideal, is the de­ mand for a new suggestive language of movement, "And the perfect actor , . , would find out that the symbols are to be made mainly from material which lies outside the person. To develop a new symbolic form of movement, Craig again would exploit the creativity of the performer but "the actor as he is today must ultimately disappear and be merged to something else if works of art are to be seen in our kingdom of the Theatre,

^Craigj "A Note on Masks," The Mask. I, No. 1 (1908) pp. 10—12, 160

As noted earlier, Craig*s major concern is with move­ ment as the primary means of expression and communication to be experienced in his idealistic theatre. "I like to remember that all things spring from movement, even musici and I like to think that it is to be our supreme honour to be the ministers to the supreme force— movement." World theatre has developed, "if a degenerate development," from movement, the movement of the human performer. Criticism of -the living actor is again based upon his emotionality, his independent nature, and his inability to be an obedient instrument of the brain. To me there is ever something more seemly in man when he invents an instrument which is outside his person, and through that instrument trans­ lates his message. I have a greater admiration for the organ, for the flute and for the lute than I have for the human voice when used as instrument. I have a greater feeling of admira­ tion and fitness when I see a machine which is made to fly than when I see a man attaching to himself the wings of a bird. Man can conquer but small things through his own person but "through his mind he can conceive and invent that which shall conquer all things," And in conclusion, Craig admon­ ishes. So we have to banish from our.mind all thought of the use of a human form as the instrument which we are to use to translate what we call Movement. We shall be all the stronger with- outit.V'O

7DIbid., pp. ^7-50. 161

It should be noted that up to this period.of time in Craig's writing, March 1908, no actual mention has ever been made of the word Uber-Marionette. Ke closes his essay in The ‘Mask with the challenge for the reader to "Get on with the thought of the invention of an instrument by which means you can bring movement before our eyes . . . step forward and join me in the search."71 Craig, obviously, was not a man of commercei nevertheless, by exasperating some and captivating others with thoughts such as these, he instinc­ tively knew how to launch a new publication destined to have world-wide import.

19081 Exit the Actor1 Enter the Marionette

In order to make certain that the second issue of the fledgling magazine, The Mask, would not be anti-climactic, Craig did not disappoint his readers and fired off a second salvo in the essay, "The Actor and the Marionette," to which reverberations were heard for many years. Critics and dis­ ciples hailed the idea as either mad or heroic. Craig's idea is consistent with that phase of his criticism which could not reconcile the human performer with his vision of what.the theatre of.the future should be. Craig banished the living actor in this now most radical of essays. The basic concepts Had been stated earlier1 however, this arti­ cle, a spirited ball to action, begins with Duse's.

71Ibid., p. 53. 162

impassioned credo for the salvation of the theatre, "To save the Theatre, the Theatre must be destroyed, and the actors and actresses must all die of the plague . ♦ . They make art impossible," which the Italian actress wrote in a fit of despair. Craig reiterates that the human form is hot a material which the director can completely control. Acting is not an art. It is therefore incorrect to speak of the actor as an artist. For acci­ dent is an enemy of the artist. Art is the exact antithesis of pandemonium, and pandemonium is created by the tumbling together of many accidents. Art arrives only by design. Therefore in order to make any work of art it is clear we may only work in those materials with which we can calculate. Man is not one of these materials . . . because the whole nature of man, warns Craig, tends toward freedom, "the nature in man will fight for freedom, and will revolt against being made a slave or medium for the expression of another's thoughts," and therefore, as mater­ ial for the theatre, the man-actor is useless. The actor is also subject to the spontaneous action of the emotions. The actions of the actor's' body, the expression of his face, the sounds of his voice, all are at the mercy of the winds of his emotionst . . . emotion possesses himi ... it seizes upon his limbs . . . he moves as one distraught . ... his head, his arms, his feet . . , are [too] weak to stand against the torrent of his passions. It is useless for him to attempt to-reason with himself. Hamlet's calm directions are thrown to the winds. Craig reasons that the mind of the actor is less powerful than his emotion, 163

for emotion is able to win over the mind to assist in the destruction of that which the mind would producer and as the mind becomes the slave of the emotion it follows that accident upon acci­ dent must be continually occurring. Therefore* what the human actor gives us, is not a work of art but rather a series of accidental confessions. The action required in art is not the action which attempts to reproduce nature, but rather symbolic movement,72 The banishment of the actor by Craig is consistent with his theory which forbids impersonation or photographic imitation as an artistic process, "It is wrong that the living person should advance into the frame and display himself upon his own canvas." Realizing this at this stage of his career, he attempted to discover a figure which was itself a symbol, to replace the human actor v/hose presence confused the symbolism (which Maeterlinck discussed some two decades earlier)• The stage must be cleared of all its actors and actresses before it will again revive , . . The actor must go, and in his place comes the*inani- . mate figure— the Uber-Marionette we may call him, until he has won for himself a better name,73 Craig's attack against the living actor revolves around two major concerns, the dominance of the actor's personality and the inability to control this intruding element. It was this lack of control which allowed the

72Ibid.. pp. 5*f-60, 73Ibld.. pp. 78-81, 16^ temperament of the performer to influence, and often, to direct the artistic pattern of a production. The marion­ ette to Craig was a symbol of the perfectly controlled per­ former, a figure which holds neither animation nor temper­ ament apart from that given to him by the stage director. The marionette would be an extension of the director's brain and would provide a responsive and precision-like material to be used in the master design without dominat­ ing, distorting or intruding upon it. There is only one actor . , . nay one man . , , who has the soul of the Dramatic poet and who has ever served as true and loyal interpreter of the Poet. This is the marionette.7^ As an inaminate object, subject only to the desire and plan of the .director., the precision of the marionette would be ideal— the silent and obedient actor,

1909i Life-size Movable Figures In The Mask in 1909 Craig discusses huraan-size fig­ ures once used in ancient Greece (and documented by Aris­ totle) for ritual purpose that were made to move-by the use of mercury within the body structure. We are told that in Greece a life sized figure was Once made by an artist mechanic in such a way that without assistance it could move its legs and arms and advance upon the beholders to whom it gave a blessing. This movement was caused

7^CraIgi "Gentlemen,' The Marionette," The Mask. V, No. 2 (1912), p. 95. 165

by the mercury with which it was filled, the inward construction of the figure setting the mercury in motion and this, in its turn, setting in motion the figurej while mention is made of such a figure by Aristotle, who admits that it was the mercury which she contained which gave the movement to the famous wooden Venus attri­ buted to Daedalus. Craig cites another example of puppet action through the use of magnetic power. Another means of causing the figures to move was by the power of a magnet, of which we have an example in the inscription given by Diodore of the ceremonies which took place in the temple of Heliopolis. And even the Egyptians used these moving figures in their religious ceremonies, states Craig. Adamant that the human performer be swept off the stages of the world, Craig appeals to his German theatre practitioners to fashion such an Uber-marionette whose, prime means of communication would be movement. Now there seems no reason why my keen, clever and energetic countrymen, especially those who dwell in Berlin, should not soon master these matters of mercury and magnet and produce some figures capable of exquisite, if mechanical, movement,75 But in the same year of 1909 in The Mask. Craig apparently reversed himself completely about the desirability of the human actor, at least in the case of his admiration for one of them. He expresses great admiration for the Italian actor, Giovanni Grasso, because he is entirely emotional,

^Furst, 00 . cit.. pp. 73-74-. 166

because against all laws of art he triumphs so completely. If he merely carried me away for a few moments I should be able to recover and should confess his weakness , , . but Grasso carries me away altogether and he refuses to let me come to my senses, Craig said there were thousands of emotional actors on the stage of Europe which he could not accept* because of their tepid emotionalism* "but I can accept the volcanic emotion of Giovanni Grasso,” Craig further declared that he could not accept Bernhardt, Mounet Sully, Zacconi, and Duse be­ cause of their lukewarm emotionalism. They are neither hot nor cold* neither great thinkers nor great emotionalists . • . Grasso*s emotion is like the lava of Vesuvius , , , If Bernhardt could fling such force at me I should not question her demonstration! as it is I dot and Madame Duse too . . . she cries a littlei keeps very still* she. gazes with agony around her . . . With Grasso I neither think nor feeli he leaves me no time. I am out of myself. I look and instantly with laughter and excitement I go bowling along with his force.7°

This response must have been one of the influences which led Craig to write in 1912 of the marionette as a meta­ phorical term.

1912» The Marionette as Metaphor Evidence of the evolutionary nature of the Uber- Marionette theory surfaces again in an essay entitled, "Gentlemen, The Marionette!,” appearing in The Mask in 1912,

76Ibid., p. 98. 167

Instead of the inanimate puppet concept of the 1905-08 era, it becomes increasingly evident that Craig is now employing the term Uber-Marionette as a metaphor for the perfect human actor instead of a non-human instrument, , . . What the wires of the uber-marionette shall be, what shall guide them, who can say? I do not believe in the mechanical . , , nor in the mater­ ial. The wires which stretch from Divinity to the soul of the Poet are wires v/hich might command him1 . . , And did you think when I wrote five years ago of this new figure who should stand as the symbol of man , , , and when I christened him the uber- marionette . . , Qdid you expect] to see real metal or silken threads? I hope that another five years will be long enough time for you to draw those tangible, tangle-able wires out of your thoughts./? It is interesting to speculate that his shift in position • , of aesthetic theory in 1912 may have resulted from Craig's memorable experience in Moscow directing and designing Hamlet while working in close association with Stanislavski for whose acting Craig had great admiration. Nevertheless, a close study of Craig's .early articles and notes makes it apparent that he did consider and aspire to the development, of a non-human actor-object devised from inanimate materials rather than merely the development of a new abstract, style of acting.

77Craig; The Mask. V, No. 2 (1912), p. 97. 168

As noted earlier in this chapter, it was certainly Craig*s frustration with his own artistry as an actor as we 11 as his dissatisfaction with the realistically-oriented actor, that impelled him to create the theory of the Uber- ' Marionette. But his implicit faith in the creativity of the actor, and no doubt his dissatisfaction with the limita­ tions of the puppet-figure finally led Craig to the con­ cept of the Uber-Marionette as metaphor for the perfect human actor.

Symbolic Theatre of the East During this fervent period of creativity, Craig turned •his attention to the theatres of the Orient and of India, A.s early as 1908 in the. April issue of The Mask, the sym­ bolic nature of Eastern theatre was brought to the notice of his subscribers. A performance of the Japanese actor, Kawakami, given in Amsterdam is described by the Dutch actor, Royaards, in an article by Jan Van Holt (Craig). It does not matter that you do not understand the language of these artists . . . In seeing his very powerful and always beautiful gestures . . . I understood the Japanese . . . and came to a fuller understanding of something elsej that is to say, the aims of Mr. Gordon Craig to sub- ordinate the word to gesture in the Dramatic Art,

^®Jan Van Holt (Craig), "Notes,*' The Mask. I, No. 2 (1908), p. 2 1 . 169

In 1910, a lengthy review of "The Japanese Dance” in his magazine calls attention to the symbolic nature of the No drama which contained many features of Craig's vision­ ary theatre* such as that ”on the Japanese stage the mime­ tic art is as important as the spoken word,” Entirely in sympathy with Craig's desire for a theatre experience char­ acterized by silence and by motion* the reviewer notes that the Japanese dance "is entirely of a pantomimic nature and strives to represent in gesture incidents from mythology, history and folklore.” In his campaign to rid. the stage of the sensuous presence of the human form he rejoices in the fact that "Japanese dancing is yet so fine [it] dispels • • . the illusion that it is necessary to the dance for the movement of the natural body to be seen.” He chastises "the bare-legged dancer [of the Y/estern theatre] whose suc­ cess lies largely in the scantiness of her costume, [This] is unknown among the dance-artists of Japan, Craig always felt that actresses had an undesirable effect on theatre art and calls our attention to the fact that* like the eras of,.the Greek and Elizabethan theatre* men only were permitted-to act in the No dramas. In this intensified and highly conventionalized art form character­ ized by its "beautiful monotony, its freedom from violent

79Craig, "Book Review," The Mask. Ill (1910-11), P. 90. 1 7 0 passion or play of emotion*" masks are always worn to main­ tain an alienation or depersonalization of the actor. The possibility of the living actor's presence intruding upon the preconceived pattern is unlikely. The highly disci­ plined actor of the No drama is completely dominated by the form. The modern Japanese theatre like the ancient Greek* Craig asserts* was born of the dancer and not of the fio poet* was born of movement and not of the spoken word.

Thus* the Oriental theatre had many features in common with Craig's vision.

Gradually coming round full circle in his views sup­ porting the Uber-Marionette and his diatribes attacking the human performer* Craig published yet another essay in 1913 on the dramatic technique of India which was to influence his theory drastically. The author* Ananda Coomaraswamy, pays homage to the ancient puppet# symbol of man* but then categorically denies Craig's thesis that the living actor is not proper material for the theatre. • Had Mr, Craig studied the ancient Indian theatre he might not have thought it so necessary to reject the bodies of men and women as the material of dramatic art. For those principles which have • • , governed all other Oriental arts until recently* have also governed dramatic techniques.

The movements of the Indian actor are not accidentally swayed by his personal emotioni he is too perfectly

80Ibld.. p. 91. 1 7 1

trained for that. His body , . . is an auto­ maton! while he is acting there is nothing . . . accidental [nor] inartistic . . . in his move­ ments or changes of expression. Craig apparently learned much from his study of Indian thea­ tre which caused him to recast his theory of the Uber- marionette.

1915 > Recantation Craig's theory continued to evolve as he soul-searched and examined non-V/estern theatre tradition. This covered the period of his initial distress with his own short­ comings as a performer in 1897* to his first protestations of 1905 and 1908 in writing of the Uber-marionette concep­ tion. By 1915» be was able to make the momentous recanta- tion, "I withdraw all that I have written in my essay 'On 82 the Actor and the Uber-Marionette.Craig's acknowledge­ ment occurred when he replied to the statement of the Indian scholar that the symbol for the ideal actor embodied in the Uber-Marionette could exist in the human actor, but within the confines of a special theatre, one to which Craig refers as a "Durable Theatre•" At this time Craig came to the realization of the need for two types of theatre, one

81 Amanda Coomaraswamy. "Notes on Indian Dramatic Technique," in Craig, The Mask. VI, No. 2 (1913), pp. 109-28,

0 9 Craig, "A Plea for Two Theatres." The mask. VIII, No. ** (1918), p. 15. 172

animated by the creative actor and the other inspired by the master director. These two theatres he designated the "Perishable Theatre" and the "Durable Theatre."

The Durable Theatrei Ritualistic The Durable Theatre Craig envisioned was one like the No drama of Japan and the drama of India* a theatre char­ acterized by rigid convention in which movement and gesture were traditional and ritualized. Craig's vision of a Dur- able Theatre was possible because he finally conceded that performers could exist whose bodies through discipline and training could become flexible and passionless. Referring to the actor of India, Craig withdrew his rejection of the human actor, I have been told . . . [since I wrote of the Uber- Marionette] , . . of a race of actors that existed [and a few today preserve that tradition] who were fitted to be part and parcel of the most durable theatre it is possible to conceive . . . I am not skeptical, I think I would sooner be proved wrong in all my theories and beliefs, than think man unable to rise to any standard known or to be known. And so X accept this information, new though it be to me, and will present it here as a possibility* . . . If the Western actor can become what I am told the Eastern actor was and is, I withdraw all that I have written in my essay 'On the Actor and the Uber-Marionette,* Unwilling to impose a rigid, fully developed foreign form on the Western actor, Craig fully hoped that a ritualized durable form could be created for the-future Western actor- artist, an art form "which should be evolved afresh from 173 one's ovm soil,” But Craig threatens, if this development is not to come to pass, the Uber-Marionette will be inevit­ able, inevitable not as a symbol but as an instrument. If he, the Uber-marionette, arrives it will be no case of my bringing him here, but because no one can prevent him from coming , , , In the event of man being unable to return to the ancient standard of the East, there is nothing open to us but to fashion something to represent man in this creative and durable art that we are contemplating.^3 Although Craig was considered avant-garde in his aspirations to reintroduce the masked, completely concealed performer shortly after the turn of the century, the Greek theatre of course, had used a type of the form centuries ago with its complete concealment of the actor. In recent times, in fact 1968, Tyrone Guthrie revived with great success the convention of the Greek tragic theatre in his production of The House of Atreus. Also in the same year, Irene Corey wrote concerning the use of the completely masked actor1 that from probing into the spirit of the pl&y, forms sometime appear which totally submerge the human face and body. When , , , the person of the actor is completely masked, he assumes a new force which is greater than his own personality,

Corey quotes Richard Southern who observes that conceal­ ment can lead to revelation.

83Ibid. 17**

The magic of the mask , . . remains as a mystery in our theatre to this day , . • Take now an 'exten­ sion' of the mask, and with it let the hands be gloved, the feet shod, the arras clad, and the body invested, and you have a complete .concealment of the world and a complete revelation of the super­ natural,8^" Then Corey goes on to comment, The image thus created assumes its own life-force. The actor, cloaked in non-human identity, freed of individual inhibitions, can move into a new realm of relationship with the audiencei that of a super­ human, mystical power , , , The actor now acquires an additional set of restrictions, not his own. These serve to enlarge and stylize his power, rather than diminish it,85 In addition to the Guthrie production concept of The House of Atreus. another example of a ritualized theatre art form was the striking Off-Broadway production of "Motel" from America Hurrah in which the three characters v/ere presented as larger-than-life mannequins of nightmare proportions. Each over-sized doll contained a live actor who motivated stylized gesture and movement. Each character "cloaked in non-human identity," created its own life-force and achieved a super-human power. The complete concealment of the human element evoked a revelation of the supernatural, Craig certainly v/ould have agreed that Atreus and "Motel," two 'productions of a ritualized durable form, were "evolved afresh from one's own [native] soil."

ok Corey. Mask of Reality, p. 4, A cinematic example of complete concealment of the human figures to reveal the supernatural is the Frankenstein monster image, 85Ibid. FLATS XI

THE TYSONS GUTHRIE PRODUCTION OF "THE HOUGH: OF AT 3 ^ ^ ~ I

The Perishable Theatrei Inrorovizational

After several years of having the haunting appari­ tion of Henry Irving peer over his shoulder as he wrote of the inanimate marionette, Craig came to realize the need for a theatre dominated by a truly great performer. He labelled it the Perishable Theatre, a theatre in which the actor would become the creative forcei the indelible impression of the multi-talented Henry Irving had prevailed over the years. Craig's conception of a Perishable Theatre envis­ ioned a type of scenario-oriented theatre of the Commedia dell'arte style. (After all, Irving's treatment of a script was to pare it down into a series of actions and use it as a vehicle on which to display his acting genius.) The Perishable Theatre was to be characterized by spontaneous creation, an improvization of words, movement, and musici however, the concern would be with movement. A perishable theatre would have to possess its improvised dramas that were elegant and even exquisite. Perhaps here we would drop speech and pass to the dance , . . but dance based upon the movements of perishable things of nature . . . The spontaneous creation envisioned by Craig would not be an improvization of the spur of the moment but, as in the tradition of the Commedia dell'arte, it would exist within a fixed, traditional style.

86Craig, The Mask. VIII, on. cit. 177

By acknowledging the necessity for a Perishable Thea­ tre v Craig reasserts his recognition of the creative force of the actor, an element which was never completely ob­ scured by his vision of the inanimate figure. "It is the actor and fury of the actor . . . who create drama," pro­ claimed Craig at the International Theatre Exhibition ban­ quet held in London in 1922. With restrained scorn, Craig chastised his old acting partner, Granville Barker, who preceded him on the program, for speaking of the dignity of the profession, as though it were a mild and proper thing, this acting and this theatre. They are wild things, unruly , . • The Drama is not made from mildness and charm and politeness. He confides to his audience that he is returning to Italy in a few days because everyone in England is so polite, and in the English atmosphere it is impossible to create excit­ ing theatre. Asserting that the actor is to be the creator,

he explains that the actor creates drama by taking a story and inventing what dialog is necessary as he goes along . . . As it was done in the past , , , for some two or three hundred years . . . it can be done again. In discussing the challenge of creative improviza­ tion Craig quotes the Italian actor, Riccoboni, who wrote in 1728, 178

The actor who improvises acts with more ani­ mation and in a more natural way than he who performs a part he has learned by heart. Peo­ ple , . . say better what they invent than what they borrow from others by means of the memory, Riccoboni then points out the difficulties involved in per­ forming in this unique, demanding style,

■i Clever actors are required, moreover actors of equal talent* for the drawback of improvization is, that the art of even the best actor absolutely depends on his fellow performer* if he has to act with a colleague who does not reply exactly at the right moment, or who interrupts him in the wrong place, his words miss part of their effect or his spirit is gone . ... If he is to distinguish himself, he must possess a lively and fertile imagination, a great facility of expression, he must master all the subtleties of language, possess all the knowledge which is required for the different situations in which his part places him,88 Apparently only the most highly skilled performers could succeed in this most demanding medium. Freed from the bonds of the playwright, the creative actor in Craig's Perishable Theatre is an independent and Belf-sufficient artist. It is rather obvious at this point that Craig, who; had been thrashing about in his despair of the condition of the Victorian theatre, had at last realized the need for a thea­ tre capable of accommodating two types of dramatic exper­ ience* the Improvizational Theatre controlled by the creative performer, and the Ritualistic Theatre controlled by the master-artist, the creative director.

88 Riccoboni quoted in Craig, "Real Acting," The Mask. IX (1923), p. 1^. 179

Henrv Irvingi Uber-Marionette The Mask-Like Face In the dozen years which elapsed after Craig's dis­ missal from Irving's company* Craig did much work in the graphic arts and studied theatre history. Also much soul- searching ensued. As early as 1908 after twenty years of theatre experience* he came to the conclusion that perfec­ tion was almost reached in the acting of his former mentor, Sir Henry Irving when he was in his prime. Because of gen­ ius combined with Spartan discipline, his mind absolutely controlled emotion and movement. Most eloquent of all was the mask-like face of Irving, the awareness of which was a contributing factor tov/ards Craig's theory of the mask. The very nearest approach that has ever been to the ideal actor, with the brain commanding his nature, has been Henry Irving , . , the best of all books [about him] is his face . . . try to read what is there. To begin with you will find a mask , . , [that does not betray] the weaknesses which may have been in the nature . , . that face in movement— movement which was ever under the powerful control of the mind. Can you not see the mouth being made to move by the brain , . . Cannot you see the slow turning of those eyes and the enlargement of them? These two movements alone contained so great a lesson for the future of the art of the theatre , . .so clearly the right use of expression . . , it is amazing to me that many people have not seen more clearly what the future must be,

I should say that the face of Irving was the con­ necting link between that spasmodic and ridiculous expression of the human face as used by the theatres 180

of the last few centuries, and the masks which will be used.in place of the human face in the near future, Irving*s face in the intensity of its expression* could almost be equated with a mask because it revealed only care­ fully contrived major emotional reactions and did not con­ cern itself with fleeting superficial fluff, Irving's face had the quality of a Greek mask because it revealed the distillation of a thought or an emotion. Irving once said that acting was like playing billiards,

You get over the table into position with your cue before you make a stroke, and in acting you want to prepare the minds of your audience for what you say before you say it. And to prepare the audience, historian Lynton Hudson notes that Irving's use of the mask-face accomplished that pur­ pose. His greatest power lay in his gift for facial expression, a play of features exhibiting the processes of thought, his face anticipating every change and rendering the following speeches mere illustration,90 Clement Scott also documents the impact of the brain con­ trolling facial expression as employed by Irving in his

®^Craig, On the Art of the Theatre, pp. 12-13.

^Lynton Hudson, The English Stage (1850-1950), p. ?2, 181 acknowledged masterpiece The Bells (first performed in 1871 and then throughout the remaining thirty-four years of his remarkable career). The purpose behind Irving's interpre­ tation of Mathias, the murderer of the Polish Jew in The Bells, was "to show the terrors of such a man's conscience when awake, the agony of a murderer's dream when he is asleep." Irving's face revealed that the character is "perpetually trying to cheat his own conscience and to believe what is not* he is never at rest in mind or body . . . He is a madman not yet bereft of reason." In another reference, Scott writes of the pain depicted in the actor's face as being "Promethean in its torture.'1^1 Thus, the art of Irving may be characterized by the actor's detachment and precision in skillfully selecting only those dominant patterns of action which would most clearly reveal the essence of the character's emotion or thought.

Patterns of Motion

"Craig's belief in the actor as an artist capable of analyzing his craft and synthesizing an artistic imitation of an action," is carefully documented in Craig's biography of Irving. His analysis of Irving as Mathias in the open­ ing scene of The Bells gives a vivid picture of the ability

91 7 Scott, o p . cit.. pp. 51-53• 182 of an actor to break down the dramatist's script into its smallest components or "beats,Irving clarifies each "beat" by translating it into a pattern of movement, result­ ing in a performance of a series of preconceived symbolic designs.

From the first to the last moment that Irving stood on the stage, each movement was significant . . . every sound, each movement was intentional— [a] clear cut, measured dance» nothing real-all massively artificial— yet all flashing with light and the pulse of nature, A fine style,93 Craig presents in some detail an example of Irving's con­ trolled action and "beats" in the first scene of The Bells. one of the moments of the immense and touching dance , , , figure after figure of exquisite pattern and purpose is unfolded, and then closed, and ever a new one unfolded in its wake. This figure of exquisite pattern as detailed by Craig, may be consulted in Appendix C, Craig considered patterns of movement in a precon­ ceived design controlled by the intellect to be the finest point that the craft of acting could attain. William Win­ ter reiterates the same idea when he observes Irving (in the same role) who "stands forth with all his equipment in

? Paul M. Talley, "Architecture as Craig's Interim Symbol* Ruskin and Other Influences," Educational Theatre Journal. XIX, No. 1 (1967), p. 59.

^Craig, Henry Irving, pp. 58-61, 7^. 183 order and all his fine faculties in the leash," He calls our attention to the delicate nature of Irving's artistic means. The v/ork that he displayed as Mathias made evident the delicacy of his physical powers, the intricate character of his artistic means, and the perplexing eccentricities of his style. He is the flute and not the trumpet. He could no more produce that mellow thunder of voice, rugged grandeur of form, and affluent and torrid sen­ suality , , , than he could fly through the heavens. But he speaks to the imagination and to the souli and in everything that he says and does and is, you feel the nameless charm of genius . , .'The knight that never was on land or sea.' The critic concludes that Irving possesses "an intellect enthroned above the passions.

Physical Definition of Character Lynton Hudson also comments on Irving's carefully devised patterns of movement as he describes the physical definition of characterization selected by Irving. Irving was able in an astonishing way to identify himself with the soul and spirit of his creations, projecting the passionate remorse of Mathias, the purged suffering of King Charles, the senile devilry of Louis XI.

ah, 7 Winter. Henry Irving, p, 11. m

Hudson maintains that London's leading actor could even suggest different physiques, heights, figures and profiles by the manner in which he projected himself through con­ sciously regulated carriage, gesture and gait. As Napoleon he trotted rapidly around with quick and nimble feet, hinging his gestures from the elbows and wristsi as Charles his stride was long, slow, and majestic, his ges­ tures hinged from the shoulders. His Dante walked leaning forward and held his left shoulder a little higher than the right. Each character looked absolutely different from another and from himself. And yet he was always Irving,95 According to Craig, Irving depended upon technique rather than inspiration, Irving once said, "You can , • . design a part, a role, so carefully that inspired or not,, you'll be deemed interesting,"^

Painter Graham Robertson gives us a clue as to how Irving achieved control of his human instrument to produce, in some roles, some nearly perfect achievements in actingi Irving's secret* incessant labor. Far more could be learned of Henry Irving by watch­ ing his nightly performance than by talking to him for hours. In his assumed character he was anxious to give expression to everythingi as himself he was careful to tell nothing.

His artistic life was one long struggle towards perfection} fault after fault he conquered, one by one he laid by his mannerisms, line by line he

^Hudson, o p , cit. 96Craig, op. cit. 185

modelled the beautiful sensitive face that he had evolved from his original immobile and rather ordinary features. To the hour of his death he worked incessantly# his whole career was a progression, 97

After Craig had developed and affirmed his own concept of the actor symbolized in the Uber-Marionette in his major critical study of Irving in 1930* he came to realize the potential of the creative human performer to fulfill the requirements of the super-puppet symbol. Six years earlier, Craig had further recanted in the preface to the 192^ edition of On the Art of the Theatre when he again denied ever intending to substitute a non­ human figure for the living actor. He proclaimed# ”1 no more want to see the living actors replaced by things of wood than the great Italian actress of our day wants all the actors to die." He then inquires Is it not true than when we cry 'Oh, go to the devil!' we never really want that to happen? What we mean is, 'Get a little of his fire and come back cured.' And that is what I wanted the actors to d o - some actors— the bad ones, when I said that they must go and the Uber-marionette replace them • • • The Uber-marionette is the actor plus fire, minus egoismi the fire of the gods . . . without the smoke and steam of mortality. The literal ones took me to mean pieces of wood one foot in height* that infuriated them . . ,9b

^Graham Robertson, Life Was Worth Living, p. 162. o8 Craig, On the Art of the Theatre, pp. vii-viii. 186

Craig wanted to rid the stage, not of the actor, but of the actor's weaknesses. And then came the realization that "Irving was the nearest thing ever known to what I have called the Uber-Marionette,"^

^craig, Henrv Irving, op. cit. CHAPTER V

CRAIG'S DIRECTIONS TO THE ACTOR

Selected letters and essays of Craig call attention to the intense concern for the problems of the actor with which Craig was preoccupied. This concern is also evident in his annotated personal books. None of the thoughtful biographies written by Enid Rose, Janet Leeper, Denis Bab- let or by his son, Edward Craig, stress or even present his real interest in the actor as a human being. Most studies concentrate upon his formidable contributions to the theory and practice of scenic design or to his theories relating to the idealistic Theatre-of-the-Future. But Craig did not begin his career as a scenic designer or as a theoreticiani his early experience was in acting and in directing.

Craig« Practical Man in the Theatre The important point so often overlooked is the amount of practical theatre activity and productivity in-which Craig was involved with the performer during the first fourteen years of his professional life. This early thea­ tre experience occurred between 1889 and 1903, before he

187 188 left England for greater artistic opportunities in Germany# Italy and Russia. Lee Simonson surprisingly contends that "in the course of twenty-five years he [Craig] has emerged to do only six productions# of which not one was epoch- making , . . However# John Gassner challenges Simonson's misstatement when he writes of "the nine productions which Craig designed in England between 1900 and 1903." To further refute Simonson's criticism one should note that in addition to eight years of intensive actor training# discussed in Chapter III# Craig had produced# directed and/or designed at least eight productions by the year 1903. And in the succeeding twenty-five years# Craig was to be respon­ sible for four additional historic and controversial produc­ tions# considered to be landmarks in the modern theatre. Even today Simonson's accusations against Craig cause one to question his integrity when he declares that Craig did only six productions and that he "has never shown the slight­ est capacity# either as a critic or as a designer# for the work involved in pushing to a solution a single problem that he has posed." Simonson further complains that Craig

*Lee Simonson# The Stage is Set, p. 315, 2 John Gassner and Ralph Allen# Theatre and Drama in the Making, p. 701, 1 8 9

"does not understand the theatre as those who have worked in it . . . On the contrary, it was only after more than fourteen years of intensive exposure, training and exper­ ience as actor and director that Craig began to theorize about acting and theatre practice— "after the practice, the theory." From this wealth of practical experience, Craig was able to understand and appreciate the acute and the chronic acting problems facing the performer. Having been confronted by abject failure as well as by glowing success as director and actor, Craig was in a position to help the actor solve problems because of his practical experience. -

To set the record straight concerning Simonson's claim of Craig's unproductivity, we should note that Craig served as producer, director and designer for the following productions in England! deMusset's No Trifling With Love. 1893* Purcell's opera Dido and Aeneas. 1900i Purcell's The Masque of Love (Diocletian), I9OI1 Handel's Acis and Galatea. 1902t Laurence Houseman's nativity play Bethlehem, 1902| Fred Terry's production of For Sword and Song. 1903 (designed three scenes and costumes only)i Ibsen's The Vikings, and Much Ado About Nothing (both with Ellen Terry), 1903.

•a ■'Simonson, Stage is Set, p. 317, 190

Craig's other highly original productions include the stage setting for Ibsen's Rostnersholm for Eleanora Duse in Florence* 1906 (for which Isadora Duncan served as inter­ preter-refereed the Moscow Art Theatre's Hamlet. 1912, for

Stanislavski for which Craig was responsible for the entire production concepts direction* scenery and costumes 1 Ibsen's The Crown Pretenders for the Poulsen brothers' jubilee at the Royal Danish Theatre in Copenhagen* 19261 again Craig was responsible for the entire concept of the li production* and the much anticipated George Tyler produc­ tion of Macbeth presented in New York with "designment" by Gordon Craig, 1928. Despite Simonson's allegations, Craig did spend long hours with his assistants in the scene shop, with the actors in rehearsal and on stage* finding solutions to complex prob­ lems* solutions which contributed to the artistic acclaim accorded to many of these operas and dramas. With the recorded facts before us* Simonson's highly-charged person­ al statements seem questionable,^

ii See Appendix E for a discussion of that international theatre event. * c •'As theatre— film producer— director John Houseman has written, "It took a quarrelsome and pedantic man like Lee Simonson to get himself into a lather over Craig's imprac- ticality." John Houseman in a letter dated February 1955, quoted by Charles J. Miller, o p . cit., p. 284. 191

The Craig "Pictures" Questionable too, would seem to be the impression that still persists that Craig was a tyrant-designer so egocentrically possessed that he would banish any actor who got in the way of his grandiose stage 'pictures,' Helping to perpetuate the myth was again, Simonson mis­ quoting Craig, . the fiesh-and-blood actor destroy the aesthetic unity of the stage picture . . Even Bernard Shaw who knew better waspishly titillated his readers with references to Craig's 'pictures' by declaring that Craig wanted a theatre to play with, as Irving played with the Lyceum» a theatre in which he could frame his pictures in the proscenium, and cut the play to pieces to suit them, and forbid the actors to do anything that could distract „ the attention of the audience from his pictures. Shaw, inhibited as he was by his devotion to social realism at this time, was hardly a competent judge of what could be accomplished with an evocative Craig design. The fact that Craig-inspired settings are being used today in theatre, television, and films would seem to show Shaw to be in error,

^Simonson, Stage is Set, p.

fShaw on Theatre, ed. by E. J. West, p, 203, 192

To the assertion that Craig's "settings were con­ ceived primarily as picturesCraig states his theory after demonstrating in at least a dozen productions that "the reason that we have scenes [scenery] is to assist the actors, to give them a world to walk in and out of," He creates three-dimensional environments which the actor can usei move in, and show the audience in physical terms what he thinks, senses* and feels, Craig states* "No scene that I have worked at, was worked at for its own sake. I thought solely of the Drama . . . of the actors . . . of the drama- 8 tic moments," The Craig designs used in actual production verify this statement. They were not the oversized, seem­ ingly impractical "visions" that Craig drew when he had no theatre in which to work. In fact screens and the unit set were used on some occasions to simplify complex problems.

The Craig Screens at The Abbey» From Yeats to Bentley This little known facet of Craig, that of the champ­ ion of the actor, revealed itself again when William Butler Yeats first employed the Craigian screens at the Abbey Thea­ tre. Craig's concept of using screens was to enhance the presence of the performer by allowing nothing to detract from him or his movements. But again, Craig's detractors

Q Simsonson, Stage is Set, pp. 319-20, 193

asserted that Craig's /'one technical innovation* the use of screens* , , . became a somewhat clumsy and inflexible for­ mula,"9 Actually the screens with which Craig was experi­ menting in 1910 for the coming Moscow production of Hamlet, proved to be so effective that he offered a set of model screens to Yeats who experimented with them for weeks, (Refer to the following photo.) Yeats was fascinated by a scene capable of endless transformation, of the expression of every mood . . . through gay or sol­ emn light and shade, allowing the scene to give the words and the words the scene, I am very grateful for he [Craig] has banished a whole world [that] . . . was undignified and given me forms and lights upon which I can play as upon some stringed instrument.10 V/ith Craig's consent, a full-size set of screens was built for the Abbey. They were first seen in the premier of Yeats' The Hour Glass and Lady Gregory's The Deliverer in January of 1911, It is especially interesting to note the reaction of the critic from The Irish Times when he reports how dominant the performer appeared when playing in the Craig stage setting. The Irish Times reported, Mr. Gordon Craig's system . . . has . , . many striking points of merit, and constitutes a great improvement on the old staging . . . But what is valuable in the new scheme [is] the application of

9Ibid., pp. 31*. 317,

*°William Butler Yeats, Plays for an Irish Theatre. p. xiii. 19 fc

PLATE XII

ERIC BENTLEY AT THE ABBEY THEATRE IN 1951 EXAMINES A MODEL OP THE "SCREENS" PRESENTED TO WILLIAM BUTLER YEATS BY CRAIG IN 1911. 195

genius to the methods and details of staging. There is . . . a reduction of the stage furni­ ture to its simplest elements* so that the fig­ ure of the players stand out more prominently against the primitive background, and attention is concentrated on the human and truly expressive elements of the drama.1! That Craig's focus was on the actor in the dramatic situa­ tion was again verified. As Yeats was the first to employ the screens, it would seem that Eric Bentley was the last to use them for a production of The House of Bernarda Alba at the Abbey Theatre forty years later, just before the theatre burned in 1951* Although Bentley found the simple, unadorned screens to be functional, effective and very adaptable on a small stage, the use to which he employed the screens was antithetical to Craig's Purpose.12

11The Irish Times. January 13, 1911, in Craig, The Mask. Ill, 10-12 (April, 1911), p. 191. 12 Bentley describes his rather Brechtian treatment of Lorcas "I tried to tcreate] a shockingly severe staging . . . the set was 'open' at the top and sides . . . A patchy white back-cloth was spread behind the screens • • • I projected on the curtain little summaries of the scene to follow . . . These (I hope) reinforced the general severity . . . helped [the spectator] to follow the plot . . . and by telling him what would happen left all his mind free to observe how." Eric Bentley, In Search of Theatre, pp. 216-1?. 196

Revealing Character with Physical Objects However* Craig did not confine himself to the use of screens. He was concerned with how the stage designer might best create an environment in which the character could most convincingly react and he was particularly con­ cerned with aiding the Shakespearean actor. Having por­ trayed a number of Shakespearean roles as a young man*

Craig realized the inherent difficulties.1^ a notable example of Craig's devotion and responsibility to the actor is provided when the designer encourages the performer to reveal his thoughts and feelings to the audience in physi­ cal terms* by providing him with a setting and properties % in which the action can be demonstrated. Craig's son* Edward* pointed this out during a conversation at the Victoria and Albert Museum when we were discussing his " father's well-known design for the Sleep-Walking scene (created in 1906). Craig says that this scenic unit* dominated by a great circular pillar which he devised for the mad sequence* was designed to assist the actress. (See photograph.)

^Craig was working on new designs for Macbeth as late as 1961* according to Arnold Rood of New York City. Rood co-authored with Ifan Kyrle Fletcher, Edward Gordon Craig» A Bibliography (Londont Society for Theatre Research, 1967) . Rood with Donald Oenslager presented the "Gordon Craig Exhibition" at Lincoln Center in 1968. PLATE XIII

i

CRAIG’S DESIGN FOR LADY MACBETH'S SLEEP-WALKING SCENE, 1906. 198

She has but to go forward, in one hand a lamp, the other hand feeling her way. Her progress is a curvet she seems to come from the past into the present and go away into the future. That part from which she comes I have drawn in precise sharp linest that part to which she goes is designed with vague and bending lines, In order for the actress portraying Lady Macbeth to translate her thoughts into action, to reveal in physical terms, the agonies and terrors she is experiencing, Craig has designed a long, slowly curving staircase on which she may reveal her anguish, As Lady Macbeth descends the stair­ case, Craig has provided the actress with a series of carved king-figures against the column. Symbolic are these monarchs who have gone to their destruction while seeking to fulfill their ambition. As Lady Macbeth reenacts her bloody night­ mare, she is able to finger, caress, and fondle these ill- fated rulers who are beckoning her to her own doom. Thus the actress is able vividly to show the audience physically just what she is thinking and what she is feeling, A per­ former may have an appropriate intellectual response in a scene but if the thoughts are not translated into actions, an ineffective performance can result. Actions speak louder, Craig has provided the actress with a three-dimensional

^Edward Gordon Craig, Towards a New Theatre, p. 64. 199

environment which can stimulate the character's reaction. "For out of action come belief and feeling,"*^ Years before he had designed the Macbeth setting, Craig had learned from Irving( of the value to the actor of working with a property to enrich characterisation. Give the performer a prop which "if he plays on it properly, can be made to speak 'with most miraculous organ.'" Craig re­ called Irving's suggestion to an actor who was to play a long scene while being cross-examined by a judge. The actor was not sure what to do. Irving suggested that the actor play the scene using a hat for a prop.

Irving knew that there'was some way of making that hat speak , . . They passed him a hat . . . and [he] began to answer to the cues of this part . . . And insofar as Irving brushed the hat this way, brushed it that way, held it in front of him this way or laid his hand on the top of it that way— I can't remember all the variety of things that his handsT face and hat played all together— just so far did the whole hidden thoughts of [the character] come to light, But* you see, without the hat he couldn't have done it.16 An idea which Craig proposed to an actor portraying the role of Hamlet,was for him to use a prop usually not associated with the Danish prince during his long stage history. From his own past experience, Craig realized that

^Charles McGaw, Acting is Believing, p. k?.

1^Edward Gordon Craig, Index to the Storv of Mv Davs. p. 160. 200

"the actor makes his problem easier if he can find [a prop or] an action on which to concentrate that will truly express the desire of the character."17 Thus, Craig sug­ gests that the actor playing Hamlet use the prop of a black patch to be worn over one eye, He says that he had a very good practical reason for suggesting this. It would suggest a form of mourning which is ineffective, just as Hamlet himself is ineffec­ tive . . , Without this patch you can't show all the things you would like to show. Besides expressing melancholy, Craig felt that the actor could suggest many other feelings by the way he handled this patch, especially to the significance Hamlet gave to the wearing of it. % First on one eye, then on the other, perhaps- showing to one person his capacity to see quite well with it, to another seeing nothing at alii by his scratching it or by his smoothing it. In - fact there is nothing that such a 'property' , . , cannot be made to express, Craig also recalled one time seeing an actor "using" a mono­ cle which served as a commentary, the fingering of which reflected the character's moods and thoughts throughout the play, "And what, after all, is so strange about Hamlet with a black patch? • , , 'Nothing is stranger,'"1®

17McGaw, op._cit.. p. 35, 18Craig, o p . cit. 201

More Ideas for Acting "Hamlet" Another suggestion for interpreting the role of Ham­ let* Craig gave to the Danish actor-director Erling Schroe- der at the time they worked together in Copenhagen. (See Appendix E.) Schroeder said that according to Craig* one of the clues to the discovery of Hamlet's personality is that "he must possess a great amount of humor and fun— the joy of life, [and that part of] the tragedy occurs when these

qualities are lost in the young prince. And in Craig's personal copy of The Tragedies of Shakespeare, one finds written in the margin, the comment, "They are always saying Hamlet is mad and this, coming from them, proves him sane."20 An idea for showing Hamlet's relationship to them ia the imagery Craig conceives for the entrance of the Players, an image of free, happy beings, gayly flying in on rays of sunlight to warm the heart of the lonely prince. Craig tells us the vision for this scene came to him when he and Elena saw a troupe of Chinese acrobats perform in a music 21 hall in Paris. The performers, wearing colorful, flowing silk costumes, gave the impression of birds flying onto the

^Interview in Copenhagen with Erling Schroeder, actor-director at the Royal Danish Theatre, September, 1968, 20 Craig's annotated copy of The Tragedies of Shake­ speare is in the collection of Nelly Craig,

.. ^Edward A. Craig, Gordon Craig, p. 272. Elena is the mother of Gordon Craig rs children, Edward A. Craig (Carrick) and Nelly Craig. 202 scene. Suspended from their pigtails by a ring which was attached to a wire* they literally seemed to fly through the air accompanied by strange sounds of whistling, like a flock of birds. "The players in Hamlet» On their first appearance they should fly in on streaks of sunlight like fresh air, as they represent Hamlet's friends in a hostile 22 court." The imagery selected by Craig makes the relation­ ship of the Players stand out in vivid contrast to the lone­ liness of the young prince.

Craigi The Actor's Champion

Craig again expresses his feelings as to the impor­ tance of the actor in the dramatic situation in a letter to s Stanislavski written in 1910 regarding the coming production of Hamlet. He writes, • I am sure you realize that I am designing costumes, costumes that will sink into the scene and be lost, so that for once the actors' faces and voices will tell the tale without interruption. In another section of the letter, Craig predicts that the really great experience will not happen for the actor until he undergoes the exhilaration of acting in the open air under the heavens. He tells Stanislavski that

22 Craig's annotated copy of The Tragedies, o p . clt. 203

my Arena Goldoni is open to the sky and I cannot tell you how it inspires the right feeling in the artist. Until the actor does his work in the open air by daylight the greater things will not be his. Again with his thoughts upon the performer, he continues, "1 wish you were all here and all the actors and that we should rehearse every day and every night the acting and speaking of Hamlet,"2^

The Moscow Art Theatre*s “Method"

Although Craig entered into this collaboration with Stanislavski with unbounded enthusiasm, the letters between the two reveal considerable apprehension on the part of Craig regarding the acting 'method' of the Moscow Art Thea- % tre. Stanislavski records that "Craig was first of all a genius as a stage director," His ideas of Hamlet "displayed themselves in a monumental!ty," and that "Craig v/idened to a great extent the inner contents of Hamlet [the man]," The Russian's praise of Craig is extensive. He is* however* very upset because the acting has disappointed Craig* and he comes to realize the shortcomings of his 'method' as it was developed in 1912. Stanislavski writes

2^Craig letter to Stanislavski, 1^ July 1910, Florence, Italy, This is letter #183 in the Craig Collection at the Bibliotheque Nationals, Paris, Filmed as received without page(s) 2QI* »

UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS. 205

PLATE XV

CRAIG IN 1962 STILL EXUBERANT 50 YEARS AFTER HIS HISTORIC PRODUCTION WITH STANISLAVSKI OF HAMLET AT THE MOSCOW ART THEATRE IN 1912, 206

, , . but as soon as we attempted verse we fell back upon declamation* a dead seesaw rhythm* and a methodical flow of monotonous voices . . . And the worst of it is that this appealed and appeals to all actors who have no taste* and whose name is legion.2*1. Back to Italy several months after the premier, of Hamlet. Craig writes that he attempted to produce Hamlet in Moscow knowing that it was an impossible venture. Why did Craig attempt it? He says that he wanted to strengthen his belief that Shakespeare is unactable and that he wanted people to realize it. Was I satisfied? Yes* I am more thoroughly con­ vinced than ever that the plays of Shakespeare are unactable— they are a bore when acted . . . If you ask me whether the Moscow Art Theatre did well* I reply, Very, very well— but that it abided faith­ fully to principles, the principles which govern our Art, is not the case,25 After the production opened* Stanislavski asked* "Was it possible that all my work over the so-called 'system' was without any result?" He further revealed that "I suffered even greater confusion from the viewpoint of the acting in [Hamlet]." He states that the actors of the Art Theatre who had learned the methods of the new inner technique were relatively successful in modern plays which were near to

their own lives. Stanislavski forecasts that "it still lay

2h Constantin Stanislavski, Mv Life in Art. pp. 512“13* 522.

2->Craig, Art of Theatre, p, 285. 207 before us to go through the same work and to find analogi­ cal methods and means for plays in the heroic and grand style." He adds that when Hamlet was produced* "our theatre had not yet begun its quest in that direction." Nevertheless the public considered Hamlet to be a great success and it ran for over four hundred performances.

Some people were enthusiastic* others criticized* but everybody was excited* and debated* read reports* wrote articles* while the other theatres in the country quietly appropriated the ideas of Craig* publishing them as their own.fo Reflecting on the experience in Russia* Craig main­ tained that if the Moscow Art Theatre had been true to the principles which govern art* "it would have closed its doors three years ago* when I told the directors that this was the only right course open to it." By the beginning of the twentieth century few actors could speak dramatic verse properlyt on the contrary* either character was sacrificed to 'poetic speaking* or* more frequently* the poetry was sacrificed to character . . . It had become normal to play tragic roles in an unheroic and individualized manners the old conception of ideal and heroic character had almost completely di sappeared,27

9£ Stanislavski* on. cit.» p.' 523* 27 'Bertram Joseph* The Tragic Actor, p. xii. 208

The meane for achieving the heroic and the grand style eluded Stanislavski's players also at this period. The actors resorted to a realistic style for the prose dialog and a declamatory style for the verse in Hamlet. In spite of his great admiration for Stanislavski himself (Craig wanted him to play the title role in Hamlet). Craig characterized the shortcomings of the Russian's theatre v/hen he stated* "Oh* I know all about your Moscow Art Thea­ tre . • . that's the perfection of the familiar. Instead of 28 the tragic* they give you the worriedi a vast difference." And he adds* "Still it remains the first theatre in Europe— it reigns in Hell."2^

Craig Rehearses for Opera Even Craig's early ventures into directing show his awareness of the need for the performer to be able to ex­ press himself magnificently and heroically by means of a totality of physical expression. The musician* Martin Shaw* collaborator with Craig in founding the Purcell Opera Soc­ iety* reveals in his memoirs the totality of expression that Craig demanded and got from his actor-singers during the rehearsals for Purcell's opera Dido and Aeneas. In-« stead of traditional* stately chorus groupings* Shaw speaks

2®Rose, op. cit.. p. 112,

2^Craig, Art of Theatre, p. 285. 209

of the Craig-directed scenes in which the actors "ran, leaped, crawled and sang at the same time" for their direc­ tor. Looking back on their early days together, Shaw remem­ bers best the fortitude of the loyal chorus members. The most remarkable of the players themselves were the chorus. Anything like the enthusiasm and loyalty of this devoted body of amateurs it has never been my good fortune to meet either before or since • . , They had to sing their choruses crawling, leaping, swaying, running— anyway that Craig fancied. How they did it I do not know, but they did it. Most of them had no stage experience at all.30 Instead of the lifeless cliche of posture and movement, [Craig like] Appia wanted a lively art of movement [devoid of] realism but with a *chor- egraphy* in the full sense of the word. [Craig also realized that] physical movements became livelier the more they are resisted by plastic constructions like stairs, and through the greater mobility and contrasts of lighting.31 Again, Craig made the performers show the audience in physi­ cal terms the joys, the sorrows, the passions which they were experiencing. It was Craig*3 credo that belief and feeling come out of action. Craig was also concerned for the creative climate in which his actors rehearsed. He obviously cared about and appreciated the great effort his cast was putting forth, Martin Shaw describes the rehearsal situation for the operas in the old Hampstead Drill Hall (later the Everyman Theatre).

^°Martin Shaw, Up To No w , p. 26. 31 J Edmund Statler, Adolohe Appia. p, lif. 210

We were all young and untirable. After a strenuous rehearsal . , , the general desire would be for a dance* But this would have meant double the rent. So Craig used to says 'Now we really must get those movements right in the finale to Act III. Come along nowt In couples!' The piano would strike up a waltz and Craig would pretend to direct the 'rehearsal. Craig, being sensitive to the feelings of his hard working performers, employed an excellent method for releasing pent- up tension, A waltz. This is hardly characteristics of an unfeeling martinet.

Craig Rehearses the Traditional Victorian Actor The enthusiasm and loyalty which Craig experienced with his nonprofessional performers (the lead singers were paid) during rehearsals of the Purcell and Handel operas, were not to be found in the situation when Craig took on experienced, traditional Victorian actors. The following year he produced, directed and designed productions of The Vikinas and Much Ado with Ellen Terry assuming the financial responsibility and playing the lead roles for the benefit of her son's experience. Martin Shaw reminds us that. this was Craig's first West End production and the difficulties were great. To begin with, the part of Hiordis was unsuitable to Ellen Terry— could she ever be imagined as a fierce virago who kept chained bears in the house?33

^^artin Shaw, on. cit.. pp, 205-06. ^ I b i d .. p. 26, 211

With Craig's desire to dramatise fully in physical terms the action of Ibsen's historical sage* he designed a steeply sloped mound across the stage on which the protago­ nists were to fight their duel, Sigurd and Ornulf played by Oscar Asche and Holman Clark complained bitterly that the incline was raked too sharplyt they kept falling down while flourishing their swords in vain. Nevertheless broad theatrical strokes were needed for the scene and Craig was adamant, "They gradually acquired balance and brought off a most realistic combat. But all through rehearsals, the actors made difficulties.”3** Martin Shaw provides us with more insight into the mentality of the tradition-bound actors of the period when he describes their reaction to the innovations of Craig in the staging of Much Ado which followed The Vikings. For this I provided the music, while Craig managed the setting and fought the actors as before. They wanted scenery in the manner of Alma-Tadema, cos­ tumes copied from Flanche, conventional movements and positions--in short, nothing which had not been done before.35

Shaw remarks that the exception was Ellen Terry who never hindered but did all she could to help promote her son's new ideas. The established actors in 1903 were not yet ready or prepared to experiment with or examine Craig's innovations. The status quo would remain in the English theatre for years to come with rare exceptions.

3**Ibid.. p. 35. 35Ibid., p. 36. 212

Craig*g Directions for Acting "Macbeth" The Supernatural Elements In spite of his struggle against the conservative attitude of the Victorian theatre and his conviction that Shakespeare is unactable* Craig devoted much time in explor­ ing approaches to producing Macbeth. Of paramount impor­ tance to Craig in the realization of Macbeth on stage* is the significance of the supernatural elements. Because of their presence* a realistic treatment of the drama is pre­ cluded. The spirits being placed at the central point of Shakespeare's vast dream* as of a circular geometrical figure, control and condition every hair's breath of the circumference. The spirits set the key [to which every moment of the tragedy] must be harmonized» they are integral • . . visualized symbols of the supernatural world which enfolds the natural. To achieve the supreme mystery and terror which animate- Macbeth, the spiritual* the supernatural* must dominate the action from first to lasti that blending of the material and the mysticalt that sense of waiting figures intangible as death . . . In Macbeth the air is thick with mystery, the whole action ruled by an invisi­ ble power . , . [a] mysterious mesmerism Cmust] master Macbeth and his 'troop of friends,*36

Craig feels that the excitement one experiences when one reads Macbeth is due to the overpowering presence of the witches. However* most productions fail because that

^Craig, Art of Theatre, pp. 268-69. 213 very crucial presence of the force of the unseen spirits is missing when performed on the stage. But when we read the play Are there not moments . . . when one of these spirits seems to have clapped its skinny hand upon Lady Macbeth's mouth and answered In her stead? [Who was it] who drew her by the wrist as she passed into the room of the old king with the two daggers in her hand? V/ho was it pushed her by the elbow as she smeared the faces of the grooms? [Who dangles the dagger that Macbeth sees in the air?] and whose is the voice heard as he returns from the chamber of the murdered king? Craig feels that in performance "we have never yet felt these spirits working through the woman at the man." Too often the audience sees only "the v/eak man being egged on by the ambitious woman" who is playing the role of a "tragedy queen, "37 Personified in these witches* Craig perceives the idea of the God of Force who places these two pieces of mortality upon the anvil and crush(es) them because they were not hard enough to resisti consume(s) them because they could not stand the fire. Craig sees that the God of Force exemplified in these spirits is

offering the woman a crown for her husband* flat­ tering her . . , whispering to her of her superior force* or her superior intellecti whispering to him of his bravery . . , how persuasively the spirits can work upon [them] . . , they are drunk with the force of these spirits though unaware of their presence.

37Ibid.. p. 273. 214

And to the actors involved in the production* Craig fore­ casts* "unless we see these spirits before we begin our work* we shall never see them later o n . "^8

Craig also makes two very practical suggestions con­ cerning the Witches. He warns the actors not to cackle like drunken old women Halloweening about a cauldront they should be ominous like sounds of the wind. Another suggestion for the staging of the Witches* scene is noted in a letter Craig wrote to Boleslavsky before Macbeth opened in New York in 1928. Craig urges that "the witches descend by a trap if it can be done neatly— in a flash— it's the last thing folks will expect. It goes well in this melodrama*" In the same letter written from Germany in September of 1928* Craig speaks of the need to create "a sense of air." He instructs that in the bridge scene . . . I want some silent wind instruments which will blow the [actors'] cloaks like the duece* but it [must] come on and off in gusts* not regular* and also to blow a leaf or a paper— something to give a sense of air.39

38Ibid.* pp. 275. 2?8.

^ C r a i g , "Letter to Boleslavsky," The Mask. XV (1929), p. 19. PLATE XVI

THE COVER OP THE PROGRAM FOR THE GEORGE TYLER PRODUCTION OP MACBETH PRESENTED IN NEW YORK, 1928 WITH SCENE DESIGN BY GORDON CRAIG. 216

The New York "Macbeth" Although Craig Insisted that he agreed to design the bn New York Macbeth solely for money# his concern for the problems of interpretation facing the actor is again evident when he discusses his explorations into the character of Macbeth# Lady Macbeth# and the Witches. The occasion was George Tyler's production of Macbeth presented in New York in 1928# the only time when designs by Craig had ever been seen on the American stage. Tyler considered the Craig Mac­ beth to be the big event of the New York season and was determined to give the Craig genius full sway. Prior to the New York opening# some things did get 'gummed-up.' A large problem occurred because of Craig's concept which did not place Lady Macbeth in a central position within the play. A star of Margaret Anglin's prominence would not be rele­ gated to a secondary role. The producer and Douglas Ross# the director# wanted to capitalize upon Craig's insight so we got Craig to give us the benefit of his years of studying the problem of [producing] Macbeth • . • [and needless to say] the sets were magnifi­ cent.

iLQ Craig had refused the offer several times but when the director Douglas Ross persisted# Craig finally consented. Making a Shylock gesture with his right hand# Craig said he told Ross "Give me the money and you'll get the designs," Interview with Craig at Vence# July 1963. 217

According to Tyler, the conflict centered around the Craig production concept which was so laid out that the issue between Macbeth and the witches was the main thing and Lady Macbeth was quite secondary. That was a logi­ cal way of looking at the play, but it wasn't any way to star Lady Macbeth. After weeks of trying to make a starring role of Lady Mac­ beth and unable to circumvent Craig's lucid approach, "Miss Anglin gave up in despair. So we put Florence Reed in the hi part . . . giving the Craig theory a clear track."

Advice for Playing Ladv Macbeth Craig's preoccupation with the actor in rehearsal and in performance is revealed, for instance, when he discusses his thoughts about the character of Lady Macbeth in a letter ho which he addresses to the actress playing the part. He first calls attention to the magnetism and energy which Lady Macbeth is capable of emitting and of her effect on other people. To me it seems that Lady Macbeth could not be in a room with a group of people [for long before] they all began to live with eight times their usual intensity— every one, when she came in, glowed and, as she went, they went out like electric lights dying down . • •

ki George Tyler, Whatever Goes Up. .pp, 298-99.

h2 Craig, "A Letter to the Actress Playing Lady Mac­ beth," The Mask, ibid.. pp, 18-19. 2 1 8

Craig envisions Macbeth's lady as always placed in peri* pheral shadows but with her electric intensity always focused on the centrally located Macbeth, Although the center of it all* she never appeared in the center— she hugged the sides, her eyes alone focus in the center and there( she saw to it, stood husband— a man with some poetic fancy in his speech, but quite dull and awkward, mel­ ancholy sort of creature— with a knack of strength- physical. In most productions, the two principal characters are usually presented as equally prominent and Craig feels that this causes an imbalance within the drama. He would have Mac­ beth at center "dull" and his wife "vivid , . . always hugg­ ing the walls." Craig would have the audience wonder why this melancholy boor was so much in evidence "and before [long] we should be searching the shadows for this reason"— the magnetic Lady Macbeth, The audience should "Breathless­ ly try to catch the glint of her eyes— and when she did ad­ vance, we should long for her to stay, so attractive Bhe isi and yet away she goes," Craig visualizes her to be a sen­ suously pretty woman rather than a handsomely compelling figure. She seems to have Bernhardt's voice when Bern­ hardt was talking to Armand , , , I cannot hear her voice calling on 'All ye spirits' in the voice of Siddons— but in the voice of Camille gone a bit crazy. It should have the quality of a stupor. He feels that the "spirits" when called upon, would respond more readily to 219 wooing than to a command. He asks the actress if she could speak the lines with her eyelids half-closed "in ecstasy- sensual— and immense?" Craig tells Florence Reed (who replaced Margaret Anglin in Philadelphia) that when a setting does not feel right, do not bother about it. Craig's critics would be astonished to learn that "settings are of NO ACCOUNT, scen­ ery is rubbish , . . where an actress is there to attract . . . No one will even look at what scene you are in," pro­ vided the visual impact of the actress leaves no doubt that "you ARE Lady Macbeth," Craig advises Miss Reed not to be too erect but "to bend, listen, not with a straight head, but with the head well cocked on one side— at Macbeth when he is murdering." He describes her as almost jaunty, "'How easy it is,' she almost drawls charmingly',"

Costume Selection Craig is very specific in his instructions to the actress regarding the selection of costumes. He advises Miss Reed not to let them hamper her with too much material, "V/ear only brass, gold or cloaks that you feel attractive in— be THAT to the full, I beg you, and one-half the troubles of this play are removed," Craig urges that the selection of costumes be used to re-enforce the deterioration of Lady Macbeth's personality during the time elapsed between Act I 220

and Act IV. He suggests that she "select the loveliest grey and grey-white furs for some parts of Act I, and the loveliest pieces of gold fine-spun stuff for Act 2— 3 . Craig's conception of Lady Macbeth's outfit for the mad scene helps to underscore her psychological breakdown. The costume design for the distraught woman is uniquely barbaric and appropriately grotesque to express the insan­ ity of the pathetic figure, "It makes her ugly . . . un­ tidy— she slops along in straw slippers . . . not impressive, she is merely daft and uncouth." He describes a woman of forty-five that he had seen who was grey and old-looking as eighty, voice husky as that of a drunken man— growling continually like a dogi Tragic as a Shakespearean thing is tragici As a Japanese ghost picture is tragici get some to look at. And he concludes that "if I saw such a perfectly enchanting woman like Lady Macbeth of Act I changed to a horror of Act IV, I should feel I was looking at something Shakespearean."

- .«■ Is Shakespeare Unactable? The Craft of Acting Craig was constantly trying to suggest ways in which actors could create in their roles a quality which he felt

|i.O •“'The reader is referred to Stark Young's classic review of the New York "Macbeth* in Immortal Shadows, pp. 88-90, for his reaction to the costumes. was distinctly Shakespearean, His awareness of the actor's sensitivity to the demands of performing Shakespeare appears in his annotated copy of The Comedies of Shakespeare. To­ wards the end of his long career* Craig still maintained that acting was only a craft and not an art. He reasoned that the actor is limited by a craft which is unable to afford the performer the facility to interpret the language of Shakespeare in the idealized manner which the poet re­ quires. "Their [the actor's] craft is unable to interpret it [Shakespeare]." The following observation was dated 19^7, thirty- five years after the production of the Moscow Hamlet and exactly fifty years after Craig quit the stage, He wrote, People who write plays, novels, essays and the rest should never risk a visit to the theatre to hear Shakespeare's plays, unless entirely in sympathy with the actors, for people who write can be easily offended by the way actors have of seeming to treat the plays , . . with disrespect. This is not the truth— only it seems so. Actors have a rough honest love of Shakespeare which is sound as a bell— at times as cracked. Actors slowly come to see how much more there is in Shakespeare than they supposed when inexper­ ienced— though actors dare not let themselves realize things which their craft is unable to interpret. If they did, they would lose their heads, forget their lines and ruin the perform­ ance,^

iik Craig's annotated copy of The Comedies of Shakespeare is in the collection of Nelly Craig, 222

Apparently Craig did realize things which his craft was unable to interpret, and in despair, deserted the acting profession shortly after his notable and last engagement in London as Hamlet in 1897.

The Secret of Acting Shakespeare What is the secret of achieving the ideal acting style that needs to be accorded Shakespeare? Stanislavski was unable to discover it in 1912. Craig furnishes an answer. Shakespeare is "a bore when acted," Craig re­ affirms and offers a remedy. He observed that in performing Shakespeare well-meaning actors all too often destroy the excitement, beauty, and rhythm of the text because they pause too long over each syllable. It is this slow delivery of Shakespeare's lines which has made Shakespeare a bore to so many people. In this plays] we have passionate scenes of an amazing description, more passionate than in the Italian plays, and yet we drawl them and crawl them and are surprised when a Grasso comes to England and shows us how we should speak, act, and reveal the suddenness and madness of passion . . . Craig admonishes the actor to exercise his brain, think a trifle faster, and to speak the speech 'trippingly on the tongue.' Craig's sensitivity to the actor's style of deliv­ ery and his concern for mood, imagery, and an environment to stimulate character response, reveal Craig to be more than the remote, impractical designer he has been character­ ized to be. Still preoccupied with the human actor, the 223 only animate material employed in the art of the theatre* Craig wrote* How lovely it will be one day when our actors* pulling themselves together* shall set out fearlessly to interpret Shakespeare and shall nearly break into song, shall barely be able not to— shall be on the verge of dancing . . , It will be the first time that Shakespeare will be interpreted correctly.**5 Craig "does not really seem to believe that any Shake­ spearean drama for that matter* can be satisfactorily per­ formed," writes Lillian Gibson in an article in 1928. "That the Kingdom of Heaven, the theatrical kingdom of heaven, is within, seems to be the conviction of this eminent psycholo­ gist among scene producers," She concludes that It is likely to remain an impossibility to satisfy Craig on an earthly stage because* as he himself admits, it is 'the imaginative brain that sees all that perforce must be left unsaid on the stage.

Craig's Final Thought on the Actor. 1961 Even though Craig was convinced that no actor could realize the potential of Shakespeare in performance* he nevertheless felt that the human actor was at the center of the theatrical experience. During a visit with Craig in

^Gordon Craig, A Production! 1C26. p, 18.

Lillian Gibson, "A Talk with Gordon Craig," appears in the illustrated program for the New York production of Macbeth with "designment by Gordon Craig," 1928. 22k

1963* he made several comments concerning his ideas about the performer. Looking at a photo of Marcel Marceau selected from one of his scrapbooks* Craig recalled* HI knew Marceau when he was a member of a small company of four. We were great friends in those days," Then he continued* "For hundreds of years people were worried about perspec­ tive— but it is the man, his movement* and his speech that are the important things." This last observation best sums up Craig's thoughts and feelings toward the position of the human actor in the theatre. At the conclusion of a long* turbulent career which he began as an actor* Craig again emphasizes that at the heart of the theatrical experience is man, his movement, and his speech. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS

Before proceeding to general conclusions, let us review specifically what has been emphasized in this study of major influences on Gordon Craig which affected his work and later his theory for an idealistic theatre- of-the-future. The origin of some of Craig's concepts can be observed* in the influence of several artists, notably that of his father Edward Godwin, his mother Ellen Terry, and his "master," the actor-manager Sir Henry Irving. The writing of Maurice Maeterlinck and Richard Wagner apparently served as the nucleus for some of Craig's most controversial formulations. Maeterlinck felt that the active presence of the human performer made the poetic vision of the drama evaporate. Although he did not advocate the introduction of a puppet figure, he did indicate the artistic advantages of some type of ‘symbolic abstraction to replace the human figure. Wagner considered musical drama superior to spoken drama because the dramatist-composer was in command of the performance whereas the writer of spoken drama was all too often at the mercy of the actor ot make important interpretive decisions.

225 226

A second area under discussion has been the exam­ ination of one of the experiences which affected Craig so profoundly, his early rigorous training as a performer in the provinces and on the London stage. Eight years service in the ranks of actor had a marked influence on his theory of acting and provided a basis for his intense concern for the problems of the actor in performance, A third area emphasized in this study has been Craig's vision of the ideal performer epitomized in the theory of the super-puppet. This theory came about after almost two decades of observing the English stage in action which prompted Craig to unleash his scorn for some of the practices of the actor tolerated in the Victorian theatre. His fury and frustration contributed strongly to his advocacy of the theory of the Uber-Marionette. The evolutionary process of this concept (and its striking contradictions) gradually grew and changed over a period of ten years. But his detractors have never ceased to point at only the first phase of the concept as though it had never changed. Concluding this research is a fourth area which I believe to be another original contribution, an examina­ tion of Craig's attitude toward the practical problems confronting the human performer. His interest and in­ 227 sight into the domain of the actor in rehearsal and per­ formance apparently have been long overlooked in studies of Craig's contributions to Western theatre practice. The first important original conclusion to be derived from this investigation is the influence of Godwin's work and writing on the practice and theory of his son. From the father's concept of the function of the master-artist embodied in the Uber-Architect the son derived the idea of the Uber-Director. Godwin's insis­ tence upon, and means of achieving organic unity and harmony in architecture and theatre are evident in Craig's work and theory. Godwin, like Craig, insisted that the designer of the whole should be the author of the parts. Godwin's concept was to foreshadow Craig's declaration that one omnipotent director must guide and fuse all of the disparate theatrical elements to achieve a work of art in his ideal theatre. Other areas of his father's influence on Craig were Godwin's innovations within the Morris Movement, his advocacy of the simplicity of the Japanese vogue of interior decoration, his turning to theatre production in his later years, and his opportunity to translate his ideas of the Uber-Architect and to apply them to theatre practice in his final productions. Not only is the 228 imprint of Godwin’s work seen in his son’s work but the uncompromising devotion of the artist to his work is painfully evident in both men. Edward A. Craig writes that his father had ’’very little love in his make-up— i.e. Godwin’s son. All his love went into his work— and the dead and wounded piled up on all sides!!" Gordon Craig's daughter, Nelly, emphasizes the same point when she explains that her father had only one love during his life. "You might think that it was Isadora Duncan," but it was not. It was "the theatre— Theatre— THEATRE." We can conclude that the creed, "To love art before every­ thing, to renounce everything for its sake . . . if only (to) create some great work," was responsible for periods of great joy and great sorrow in the careers of father • and son, Godwin and Craig. - A second conclusion to be drawn from this study reveals that Craig’s theory of the art of acting in rela­ tionship of the Artist-of-the-Theatre-of-the-Future was strongly influenced by his early training and experience as a performer. Craig came to the traumatic realization that the skill of acting did not fulfill the requirements essential for inclusion among the fine arts. Acting was only a craft. Based upon his experience Craig felt that, unlike the arts, the craft of acting lacked definite 229 rules, precision, and discipline. Most frustrating for him was the realization that the craft of acting did not provide the performer with all the tools necessary to accomplish his task completely, especially when the actor was portraying more sophisticated characters in plays like those of Shakespeare. Although he intuitively realized what the character must see, feel, think and do, the actor did not have always the means with which to execute the performance fully and properly. "... actors dare not let themselves realize things which their craft is unable to interpret," wrote Craig. The artist in Craig's ideal theatre, obviously, was not the actor but rather it was the master-artist, the Uber-Director who would control and fuse all the elements in theatrical production. Ideally the one single authority should be ' a benevolent, culturally-gifted dictator and in Craig's experience this figure was Henry Irving. Craig first became aware of the method by which Irving achieved an organic unity in his work at the • ■ Lyceum. Without compromise Irving supervised the play­ wright -in-re side nee, the composer, the orchestra, the designer of scenery, costumes, and lighting besides drilling his stable of actors unceasingly. We can con­ clude that the first model for Craig's master-artist was 230

Irving. And through the writings of Godwin we have seen the principles animating the master-artist in the Uber- Architect concept which had a lasting effect on Craig. A third conclusion to be derived from this study is that Craig’s exhaustive inquiry into the characteris­ tics of the ideal actor finally culminated in the theory of the Uber-Marionette. The quest for the ideal resulted from Craig's reaction against the sham and artistic chaos he experienced in the typical late Victorian theatre. His criticism of some actors included certain abuses fos- • tered by the star system. Craig was exasperated by the actor's lack of imagination, industry, precision, and discipline, by the intrusion of the actor’s personality to overwhelm the original intent of the playwright, and by the vulnerability of the spoken dialog to the whim of” the performer. All of these vices were being fostered by the cancerous death-giving life of the theatre of realism. To offset the debilatating effects inflicted by the vogue for the literal, Craig advocated the concept of abstraction. Under the yoke of realism the artist was restricted to representation but with abstraction the artist was permitted the freedom to interpret and create. Maeterlinck's writings of abstraction in 1890 would seem to foreshadow Craig’s initial concept of the inanimate 231 abstraction of the actor. The controversial Uber-Marionette theory resulted from the incompatibility of the nature of acting with the nature of the fine arts. Craig's concept leads to a new technique of acting. The actor must cease to express himself; he must no longer imitate, he must indicate. Then his acting will become impersonal. He will use his body and voice as though they were materials rather than parts of himself. Craig calls for the use of the mask as a safeguard against realism, a guarantee against the emotions. It forces the performer to play in a symbol­ ical style, having himself become a symbol, states Craig. Craig's quest for the perfect actor underwent a tortuous ten year journey culminating in the flamatory theory. In reply that Craig was an inconsistent theorist, Sheldon Cheney explained that Craig was still changing, rearranging, and discarding his theories as he outgrew them, as Stanislavski also was to do. This period truly was fraught with contradictions.^- We can conclude,

* In the same year 1908 when Craig calls for the banishment of the human actor from the stage, he also writes in The Mask, "In Sarah Bernhardt we have the per­ fect actress. . . This can be said of no other woman upon the stage. . . Therefore she stands alone in being able of all living persons to give a perfect exhibition of acting." 232 however, that the original hyperbole, that of an inanimate puppet which Craig specified, finally became a metaphor for the perfectly controlled, ego-free actor. Although Craig yearned for the discipline and control of the super-puppet, he could not deny the creative element pre­ sent in great performers such as Irving. As the embodi­ ment of the Uber-Marionette, Irving was natural, not like the apes, but natural like lightning, according to Craig. A fourth conclusion of this research shows Craig*s great interest and knowledge of the problems and com­ plexities the performer faces in rehearsal and in perfor­ mance. The extent of Craig's understanding for the frustrations of the actor has been overlooked in studies on Craig. He is often presented as a prophet unschooled in the fundamentals. By the time that Craig was thirty-" one he had had over a dozen years of concentrated practi­ cal experience in the theatre. From this broad and turbulent training Craig had gained the insight to appre­ ciate the acting problems confronting the performer. Having experienced both failure and success, Craig was in a unique position to aid the actor in overcoming some of the barriers preventing fulfillment on stage. To stimulate the actor into revealing characteri­ zation, Craig provided an evocative environment to which 233 the performer could respond fully, thereby freeing him from the confines of pictorial realism. George Jean Nathan writes that the Craig stage settings whisper the text even as it is being spoken by the players; the orchestration is meticulously and gracefully exact. There is never a self- assertive, obstreperous note. . . Craig's settings come out of the body and texture of a drama. . . not a mere projection of it. Nathan observes that Craig's environment for the action of the drama serves "after the manner of a soft musical accompaniment." Craig's abstract setting stimulates the actor to interpret and create instead of merely imitating. The impression often lingers that Craig was more inter­ ested in the stage picture per se and resented the intru­ sion of the performer. Study closely his design for the Sleep-walking scene to discover that Craig has provided_ the actress with an environment in which she can share with the audience in physical terms her thoughts, per­ ceptions, and feelingsas she responds to the figures lining the stairway she descends. Craig also advocated the use of physical properties which the performer can use to illustrate in visual terms for the audience his emotional, intellectual, and physical states of being. He encouraged the careful selection of costumes to show change, growth and deterioration of the character as well as to reveal relationships between characters. Craig 23t* also makes use of the device of imagery to stimulate characterization. As a director Craig provides the actors playing the strolling players in Hamlet with the image of birds-in-flight to contrast sharply the free, happy thespians with the lonely prince. To further help the actor achieve a totality of expression Craig reacted vigorously against undue empha­ sis on the unrelentingly verbal aspects of performance. Bernard Shaw, champion of the literary theatre, declared in his advice to John Barrymore playing Hamlet There is no time for silences or pauses: the actor must play on the line and not between the lines, and must do nine-tenths of his acting with his voice . . . Craig rejected Shaw*s dictum, which many Victorian actors practiced, because of the actor*s undue reliance on the vocal and the verbal at the expense of a total emotional and physical response. Even in rehearsal for opera in 1900, Craig insisted that the chorus of singers suggest,

2 Craig would have lauded the efforts of Lee Strasberg. In a scene at the Actors Studio Strasberg commended Mildred Dunnock on the insight and intelligence of her delivery of the dialog and of her spoken sub-text, but he criticized her inhibited physical response. 3 Craig once remarked that Isadora Duncan did not dance dances, she danced ideas. 235 not imitate, their joys and sorrows physically as well as vocally by directing them to 11 sing their choruses crawling, leaping, swaying, running.” Craig sought means by which to release the perfor­ mer from the confining cage of theatrical convention. It was the lifeless parody of posture and movement that Craig wished to replace with a vital art of motion. Early in his career Craig became aware that physical movement became more alive through contrasts in lighting and by the resistance of plastic constructions such as stairs, ramps and terraces which helped to give the actor another means of achieving total expression. A lack of total expression by the actor was one of many reasons which made Craig believe that Shakespeare was unactable. As a result of the collaboration on the - Moscow Hamlet, Craig made Stanislavski acutely aware of the deficiency in his acting "method.,,lt This study calls attention to the fact that Craig caused Stanislavski to explore further to develop and refine his method of training actors during the remaining years of his career.

In an interview with Mme. Alexandra Darsene in Paris, 1968, she recalled (as a young actress attending one of the Hamlet rehearsals in 1911) Craig’s displeasure with the acting of some of the actors, Craig shouted across the auditorium to Stanislavski, "I will not have my name associated with this production!” 236

There was a glimmer of optimism, however, in Craig*s prognosis of the realization of Shakespeare in the theatre. He felt that once the actor has shed his inhibitions, has curbed his excesses, has acquired more discipline and a more comprehensive technique, and has become more sensi­ tive to the demands of Shakespeare *s poetry, the vision of Shakespeare might be realized in all its beauty on stage. "How lovely it will be one day when our actors . . . shall nearly break into song (and) shall be on the verge of dancing ..." When this occurs, believes Craig, it will be the first time that Shakespeare has ever been interpreted correctly. In conclusion it is apparent that Craig's concern for the performer had many ramifications and was encom­ passed in many facets of theatrical production. A major1' example of Craig's placing the actor at the center of the theatrical galaxy, besides his reference to Marcel Marceau that man is the important thing, is the setting of Lady Macbeth's sleep-walking scene: the environment, is calculated to provoke responses from the character. As a result of Craig's contribution to modern stagecraft, there now exists a new view of the relationship between the actor and his environment. 237

Finally this study has sought to correct some com­ monly held misconceptions about Craig's practice and theory* We can trace some of these erroneous ideas to the attitudes expressed in "The Daydreams of Gordon Craig" in Simonson's book, The Stage Is Set, which has been re­ quired reading for theatre students for decades. These impressions may also result from the caustic attitude of Bernard Shaw who viewed the realistic theatre primarily as a vehicle for social reform and who was therefore unsympathetic to Craig's ideas. We can also conclude that Craig was a pioneer in advocating total environmental theatre. The influence of this concept can be seen in the work of Artaud, Grotowski, Peter Brook, and numerous other innovators. Bablet summarizes, What is not generally realized is that The Actor and the Uber-Marionette. paradoxical as it may seem, heralds at one «*nd the same time the ex­ periments made in the Russian theater immediately after the first World War, the abstract experi­ mental work of the Bauhaus, the methods of the German expressionists, and Brecht's ideas about the actors' technique. But the point is that Craig's real influence has not been confined to matters of style. Trends of thought follow one another, conflict, borrow methods and formulae from one another: that is the essence of the theater, the internal dialectic of its history,5 In considering areas for further research in the

5 Bablet, op. cit.. pp. Ill, 113 238

vast realm of Craig1s work, a comprehensive investigation of the influences of Craig on such diverse theatre artists as Meyerhold, Marjanoff, Brecht, Tyrone Guthrie, Grotowski, and Peter Brook is long overdue. Because of the con­ flicting reports of the quality of nineteenth-century acting, a study of this area would also be valuable. Another area that deserves research is Craig*s influence on the development of Stanislavski's system of actor training. A final area of investigation might be a study of the contributions and influences of Craig's longtime companion and assistant editor of The Mask, Dorothy Neville Lees, in the twenty year development and growth of that remarkable periodical. APPENDIX A

A DESCRIPTION OP CRAIG'S PROJECT FOR "THE BACH ST. MATTHEW PASSION"1

Gordon Craig's son, Edward A. Craig, who worked as his father's assistant for many years in Italy, recently reconstructed a nine foot model of the "The Bach St. Matthew Passion" for the Craig Centenary Exhibition held at the Camden Arts Center, London in 1972. He creates for us a visual impression of the production but first he explains, So many of Craig's ideas were seldom considered in detail, they were always inspired, so that while we know from hurried notes and sketches how he intended to treat this or that moment we are often at a loss to see how those moments were connected. Only by working with him over many years was I able to piece together bits of infor­ mation and so arrive at an overall picture of what he called the *BP Project.' Within his church-cum-theatre the great religious drama would take place as follows. Out in the Auditorium, where one might perhaps expect to find a conductor on a podium, would stand the Evangelist, St. Matthew, telling the story. On either side of him, but about twenty to thirty feet away and almost invisible in their grey all-concealing garments, would sit or stand the solo singers recreating the

Edward Craig, "Gordon Craig and Bach's St. Matthew Passion," Theatre Notebook. XXVI, No. ^ (Summer 1972), pp. 1^9-50.

239 24*0

voices from the past. Between the Evangelist and the solo singers* but at a lower level* some special members of the chorus would be gathered. The darkness in the auditorium would slowly be relieved by the appearance of light in the bitoe sky, We would see steps going up and up* and on them we might discern sleeping figuresi they were another part of the chorus, As the story was being unfolded by the Evangelist and the voices from the past we would see the action taking place in the various houses, or luogj deoutati running across the bottom of the scene* or stage. A light* perhaps a pale green light, would come up in one place to reveal a gathering of disciples* die down and'come up as a pink light elsewhere* revealing Pilate and the priests, and slowly, as the story continued* we would see the action being mimed— -it was essen­ tial that only mimes and not actors should be usedi these silent figures with their gestures carefully regulated to the tempo of the music were to be like the dead re-enacting the past. The chorus on the steps above would sometimes rise and move to empha­ size or comment on the dramatic moments. For exam­ ple, after the description of the crucifixion we have the wonderful aria— 'See ye* see the Saviour's outstretched Hands11 'He would draw us to Himself.' 'Cornel' and the Chorus asks •Where?' Three times there is a question and an answer before that terrifying moment when Jesus cries— 'Eli* Eli* lama sabachthani. • [My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?] The huge orchestra was to be hidden behind the 'houses' and distributed around the theatre, as had been done once before in the l?th century for Monteverdi in Parma . . . The story of the 'Passion' was being enacted between a real and a fictitious audience— like the Players Scene in Hamlet . . , In 1965* when we were talking about it all again, [Craig] murmured, • , In a place like Rome it could have been performed every Easter . . . It was a big idea, one of the best I ever had.H APPENDIX B

*

S i cff m ft ft ffs it of 1J, A tc He r 33, lie r tin A r. IV,

October 11th, 1000.

Door Dr. Mrntzius -

The "Direction Verainiffter KUnsto" Is orron-jinj;

.* Tourneo for Miss Duncon in Scandinavia end I should like

to know for them, whether It could be arranged for Miss

Duncar. to appear in your Theatre ot ICoponhacan. Perhops

November between the 14th end 18th, or perhaps in Jamiory.

The little llsll is a dread full place for ouch

9 beautiful Art to be seen, ns Jt is not .seen, properly there.

It wnu very kind of you to send ir.c the letter about

the little figure -

Thonk you very much !

Will you send me a word as soon es possible about

Miss Duncan's visit, and

believe me,

yours very 3incor«ly APPENDIX C

CRAIG'S ANALYSIS OP HENRY IRVING'S ACTING IN "THE BELLS"1 ... . Irving so.t out to wring our hearts* not to give us a clever exhibition of antics such as a murderer would be likely to go through. He does not appeal to. any silly sentimentality in you— -he merely states the case by showing you that quite obviously here is a strong human being who, through a moment of weakness, falls into error and becomes for two hours a criminal— does what he knows he is doing— acts deliberately— but (and here is Irving) acts automatically, as though impelled by an immense force, against which no resistance is possible. Craig proceeds to describe the first moment as Mathias, having entered the inn from a raging snow storm, begins to remove his boots. Now you might think that the act of taking off some boots could be done in one way only— but the way Irving did it had never been thought of till he did it, and has never been done since. It was, in every gesture, every half move, in the play of his shoulders, legs, head, and arms, mesmeric in the highest degree— slowly we were drawn to watch every inch of his work . . . It was the perfection of craftsmanship. While he is taking off the boots and pulling on the shoes the men at the table, who are smoking and drink­ ing lazily, were saying that they did not remember a night like this since what was called the polish Jew's winter. By the time the speaker had got this out slowly • . . Irving was buckling his second shoe, seated, and leaning over it with his two long hands, stretched down over the buckles. We suddenly saw these fingers stop their workf the crown of the head suddenly seemed to glitter and become frozen— and then, at the pace

^Edward Gordon Craig, Henry Irving, pp. 58-61. 2k2 2*f3 of the slowest and most terrified snail, the two hands* still motionless and dead* were seen to be coming up the side of the leg . , . the whole torso of the man* also seeming frozen* was gradually* and by an almost imperceptible movement* seen to drawing up and back • , . and to lean a little against the back of the chair . • . Once in that position— motionless— eyes fixed ahead of him , , • there he sat for the space of ten . , . seconds* which . , , seemed like a lifetime* and then said • . . in a voice deep and overwhelmingly beau­ tiful* 'Oh, you were talking of that— were you?' (Then) there came afar off the regular throbbing sound of the sledge-bells. There he sat looking at us* and there sat the others, smoking and musing and comfortably motionless • , , and on and on went the sound of these bells • . • nothing else . . . that time seemed out of joint • . . And the next step of his dance began. He moves his head slowly from us . . . taking as long as a long journey to discover a truth takes. He looks to the faces on the right— nothing. Slowly th.e head revolves back again . . . the face and eyes are bent upon those to the left of him . . . utter stillness . . . everyone is concerned with his • • • little doings— smoking or knitting . , , scraping a plate slowly and silently. A long pause, endless, breaking our hearts . . . on and on go the bells. Puzzled, motionless . . . he glides up to a standing position* never has anyone seen another rising figure which slid slowly up like that . . . of far-off apprehended sounds. He asks, in the voice of some woman who is frightened yet does not wish to frighten those with her* 'Don't you • • • don't you hear the sound of sledge-bells?'

♦ * 'Sledge-bells?' grumbles the smoking man • . • pipes his companion . . . says the wife— all of them seem­ ingly too sleepy and comfortable to apprehend any­ thing • • . see anything . . . or understand • • . and as they grumble a negative, suddenly he staggers, and shivers from his toes to his neck, his jaws begin to chatter) the hair on his forehead • • • writhes as though it were a nest of little snakes. Everyone is on his feet at once to helpi 'Caught a chill* • • • 'let's get him to bed' . . • and one of the moments . . . of the dance closes— only one— and the next one begins • . • APPENDIX D

CRAIG'S LETTER TO ADOLPHE APPIA REGARDING PLAGIARISM

The most petulant critic of Gordon Craig would seem to be Lee Simonson. An examination of the chapter, "Day- Dreams i The Case of Gordon Craig," to be found in the vol­ ume The Stage Is Set, will find sweeping accusations such as that Craig stole ideas and drawings from Appia. Further statements include condemnations as There had always been the great controversy that Craig was a disappointed actor and therefore became a lazy, neurotic dreamer who never really pointed the way to carrying out his dreams. Simonson also accuses Craig "of merely copying the works of others, and from his ivory tower, declaiming theories which he declared to be original but which others had put to use prior to his time." He declares that the few drawings made by Craig which were "relevant to the stage are echoes of the * conceptions of an indubitable creator, Adolphe Appia, that in every case antedate his own."1 As a rather specious

*Lee Simonson, The Stage is Set, p. 318, 245 example Simonson says that Craig* for the celebrated spiral staircase design (of 1906) for Macbeth, appropriated one of Appia's designs for Tristan and Isolde which appeared in O 1896. In regard to this particular calumny of Simonson* we note that Craig said that he saw and greatly admired three designs of Appia for the first time in 1908. When Craig inquired of a friend as to the whereabouts of this artist* Craig was told that Poor Appia died some years ago. This winter [1912] I saw some of Appia's designs in a port­ folio belonging to Prince V/olkonsky. They were divinei and I was told that the designer was still living.3

(Appia died in 1928,)

The intensity of Lee Simonson's attack on the work

* and integrity of Craig has puzzled many who work in the theatre. Although producer-director John Houseman refers to Simonson as "a quarrelsome and pedantic man*" Sheldon Cheney adds a bit more insight into the source of the con­ flict when he explains that "when he [Simonson] met Craig something happened that so offended him that he set out to demolish Craig's reputation."^

2Ibid., p. 343.

^Gordon Craig, On the Art of the Theatre, p. vii, 4 Sheldon Cheney letter to C, J. Miller, September .10* 1953. 246

Another writer echoing Simonson is John Anderson who records in 1938 that Appia*s theories of stage production were "taken up and expanded and ballyhooed by Gordon Craig,

However• as early as 1915* Carl Von Vechten accuses Craig of plagiarism. In an article in The Forum. Von Vochten believed that there was enough "interior evidence without any refer­ ence to chronological evidence* to • • • presuppose a know­ ledge on Craig*8 part of these [Appia*s] books.To allay the accusations of Simonson* Anderson* and Van Vechten that

Craig relied upon the inspiration of Appia for his success*

I submit the following letter* Craig's reply written to

Appia in 1915 which I located in the Gordon Craig Collection at the Bibliotheque National© in Paris.

Music was a great inspirational force in the life of both Appia and Craig. Craig reiterated the words of Walter

Pater when he wrote* "All art constantly aspires toward the condition of music.And Craig's first revolutionary inno­ vations in stage production were to be exhibited in the . operas of Furoell and Handel staged at the turn of the cen­ tury. Although Appia was ten years older than Craig* their work and theory ran a parallel course unbeknownst to either until middle age.

->John Anderson* The American Theatre, pp. 59-60.

^Carl Van Vechten* "Adolphe Appia and Gordon Craig*" The Forum (October* 1915)* 54* 484-8?.

^Edmund Statler* Adolphe Appia. p. 11, 21*7

"November 23, 1915

"Dear Appia,

"A suret in America had just written an article—

so suret— to say that (no— not to say# to insinuate) that 1 could not have written by book (the poor thing that it is)unless 1 had read your two books and that all my ideas are stolen from you* my blushes I

"Poor you * . . poor me . * , For you cannot, and have not read my book, I am surei and alas* I have not read yours* • • I often hold it and pat it, but German I cannot read nor French not even

Italian (although I have lived here in Italy nearly eight years).

"Tell me— what should be done to this American who tries to what they call *play off* one friend against the other?

"He should have some big prize— but what?

"Still our names look very charming together

"I'm what Shakespeare calls 'a weak imitation of the enemy' when Shakespeare is improved by Colley

Cibber.

"Votre

"Gordon Craig toujours" APPENDIX E

SOME REACTIONS TO CRAIG*S WORK AT

THE ROYAL DANISH THEATRE

ftackfiEQ.Mnfl In 1926 when the Royal Danish Theatre Invited Craig to be guest artist* it was evident that the theatre desired something very special to commemorate the twenty-fifth anni­ versary of the debut of the Poulsen Brothers on the Danish stage, Johannes Poulsen* the host-producer* was well aware of the stimulation that Craig had provided for Stanislavski and Reinhardt. And this was the experience that he and the members of the Royal Theatre company were anticipating from the visit of Ellen Terry's famous son. The production of

Ibsen's The Pretenders in Copenhagen in 1926 brought' to­ gether the talents of Craig and the Poulsen Brothers for the first time.

In the autumn of 1968, Jorgen Heiner of the Library at the Royal Danish Theatre provided the names of four peo­ ple still living who had been members of the original com- 1 pany of The Pretenders. They were Adam Poulsen* Erling 1 Sohroeder* Sven Johansen* and Clara Pontoppidan. I was

248 249

able to contact all of them by telephone on one weekend to

make arrangements for Interviews during the following week.

To get the reaction of these four persons who are now well-

known in the Danish theatre and to have their impressions

of Craig after having worked with him for several weeks*

could certainly be enlightening forty-two years after this

international theatre event took place.

Erling Schroeder. Actor-Dlrector

Erling Schroeder* today one of the directors for the

Royal Theatre in Copenhagen* was an apprentice actor in the

company in 1926 and performed several Bmall roles in The

Pretenders. During the two interviews with Schroeder in

1968* it was evident that he greatly admired Craig. "To

succeed or not in a production was unimportant to Craig*" he saidi "the thing that really mattered was 'to fly*'""for the production to achieve the quality of the music of poe­ try. Craig had said earlier in a letter to Poulsen that

". • . m y mind likes to concern itself very little with his­ torical tragedy. It is opera I think of most."1’ And the

Craig production of Ibsen would have the sweep and scope of an opera.

Edward Gordon Craig, A Production! 1Q2 6 . p, 5 , PLATE XVII

ERLING SCHROEDER, ACTOR-DIRECTOR 251

Referring to the rehearsals9 Schroeder commented9

"We re-started completely when Craig arrived." He pointed

out that Poulsen would go for instructions to the Hotel

Angleterre where Craig was staying* every night after the

theatre closed. Together he and Craig would go over the

scenes for interpretation and movement* line by line, scenes which were to be rehearsed the following day. What would

be Craig's approach to the script? We have a clue when

he reveals

In preparing a production. I proceed in an illogical manner and try to perceive things feelingly rather than thinkingly . • . receive the thing through my senses . . . the thinking comes afterwards. [Then he says] I think out a method of making clear to the spectators what I have seen and felt.2

Schroeder admitted. "The actors were very interested but

confused. They did not fully comprehend Craig's concept

tion." To the east The Pretenders was a specific, local­

ized. historical chronicle of Scandinavian history.^ But

to Craig the Ibsen play had universal implications, un­

restricted by time and place. It was a question of the

2Ibid.. p. 8.

^Poulsen instructs Craig in a letter. "The [church] in the play still stands outside Bergen in an old white fir grove • • • I think the very first [scene] has to be • • . outside of one of the old pitch-black Norwegian stave-Kirks. They were made entirely of wood and resemble most of all • . . old Japanese temples . . . or old Siber­ ian churches." Ibid.. p. 4. 252 . realistic approach versus the non-illusionistic approach characteristic of Craig. Schroeder recalled that during rehearsals Clara Pontoppidan, who was to become one of the most popular actresses in Denmark* "was not really inter- h, ested in her role." Like many of the other performers* she too was confused by Craig's conception of a non- illusionistic approach to the historical drama. But

Schroeder remembers Craig as being "very kind" and with attitudes varying from that of a "peaceful eagle" to one of "a lost child in the theatre." He appeared to be an old man who had the attitude of "a happy boy." (Craig was actually fifty-four at this time.) Schroeder certainly does not depict Craig as a dictator* but rather as a hard­ working designer-director interested in the problems of the performer and in all aspects of production.

Schroeder recalled that projected scenery on "the round-horizon" (cyclorama) was a relatively new technique at this time^ and that The Pretenders was the first

k This is reminiscent of Craig's experience with the Moscow Hamlet. Stanislavski wrote Craig in 1910 that Madame Knipper (the wife of Chekhov) was not interested in the role of Gertrude and probably would not study her part until after she returned from a summer vacation in Paris* Let­ ter #183 in the Craig Collection at the Bibliotheque Na­ tional©, Pari s.

^Projections were first used at the Royal Danish Theatre during the 1920-21 season for Ibsen's The League of Youth. Schroeder said. 253

production in which Craig had used projections on a large

scale. In Italy, however» he had used this technique many

times in his model theatres. Craig was delighted with the

results in this well-equipped theatre.^

Turning from a discussion of The Pretenders. Schroe­

der contrasted the qualities of the Poulsen brothers.

Johannes was Ma far-sighted* experimental theatre artist*1 while his brother Adam was more "conservative and of the old school." He added that Adam possessed "one of the most beautiful voices on the Danish stage."

Svend Johanseni Scene Designer

Another alumnus of the 1926 production whom I was able to contact on that same weekend in September of 1968, was a towering, dark haired gentleman by the name of Svend

Johansen, today a major costume and scene designer in Den­ mark.^ At the time of Craig's visit, Johansen was a young technician with the Royal Theatre who worked closely with

Poulsen describes the facilities of the Royal Thea­ tre to Craig. It "holds 1700 people, the footlights are 44 feet, and the . . . stage [depth] is 70 feet— a complete [theatre] • • • and opera staff and an orchestra [of] 80 men, . . . and besides a complete ballet staff [which] Fokine says are fully on a par with the Russians." Other features included a revolving stage, "and one of the new­ est lighting* systems in Europe . • • Every year the Crown pays the deficit, which amounts to about 50,000 English pounds." Craig, on. cit.. p. 4. o fAs Svend Johansen spoke no English, his wife and daughter skillfully served as interpreters for us in their home in Copenhagen. 25^

Craig, helping him execute the designs. He confirmed that

Craig actually did function also as the director of the actors while Johannes Poulsen assisted Craig and acted as the translator.

Mr. Johansen still remembered the inexhaustible ener­ gy and enthusiasm of Craig which sparked the entire project.

Recalling Craig's thoroughness, he mentioned that some of the Craig rehearsals would continue until four in the morn­ ing) the overtime paid to the company amounted to a con­ siderable sum of money. During the Craig visit, no rehear- als were held in the rehearsal room but were all conducted on the main stage of the Royal Theatre.

Craig Vs. The Resident Designer

Mr. Johansen also verifies the fact that all of the stage designs created by the resident designer, a Mr. Peder­ sen, Sr. and by Poulsen, were discarded within ten days after Craig arrived with his.

Mr. Johansen recalled the furor which arose over the choice of scenic elements. Some of the actors, many of the staff, and some of the administrators were firmly in favor of the Pedersen designs. However, Poulsen prevailed over all opposition, so strongly did he believe in Craig's % artistry. Presently Poulsen announced that Pedersen was going to the country for a rest. Later Craig was to explain PLATE XVIII

SVEN JOHANSEN, THEATRICAL DESIGNER 256

It would not have been delightful had Johannes Poulsen not been there. He stood between me and any possible annoyance--he crushed* rolled* and smoothed out all annoyances before they reached me. He did this through the power of his person­ ality* which is made up of strength and of old- fashioned courtesy.8

Mr. Johansen related that Craig then designed the full ten scenes. As opening night was fast approaching* time to execute them was becoming more limited. He said that Craig was also concerned with the amount of time in­ volved during scene shifts. He remembered his astonishment the day that Craig announced that he had discarded his ten settings and that The Pretenders would be performed on one basic unit set consisting of platforms* ramps* and steps.

Projections* small units and 'mansions' would be added to the main setting as the action required. Craig refused to permit lengthy shifts of scenery to inhibit the momentum and rhythm of the production. This example* incidentally* of Craig's practicality in coming to grips with immediate production problems* refutes another one of Lee Simonson's allegations that Craig was not a practical theatre man.

The splendor of the Craig decor apparently was still in the mind of Mr. Johansen who recalled the combination of

Renaissance* Middle Ages* and Nordic motifs. But from the . — I i — — i ' i ■ p °Craig* o p . cit.. p. 12 257 point of view of the Danish audience* he said* the locales in the play were all too familiar to them and* thus* they were not prepared to have them stylized and treated in a non-realistic manner. When producing great drama Craig has said

[he was never] concerned in any attempt to show a precise location or an exact view of some histori­ cal period of architecture . . . All great plays have an order of architecture of their ownf an architecture which is more or less theatrical* unreal as the play.9

Nevertheless* confusion resulted in the mind of the average Danish playgoer* commented Svend Johansen.

Adam Poulsen« Distinguished Actor

When Z interviewed Adam Poulsen* this remarkable actor with a distinguished career on the Danish stage* was then

89 years old and had outlived his famous brother* Johannes* by over thirty years. His career had begun many years ago and included studying for the stage with both Max Reinhardt and Stanislavski in Berlin in 1910. Reinhardt wanted him to remain and become an actor on the German stage but the de­ mands from hi8 family and particularly his father* the tragic actor Emil Poulsen* persuaded him to devote his life to the Danish theatre instead.

9 I b l d . . p. 1 6 . PLATE XXX

ADAM POULSEN AT 259

Adam Poulsen's recollections of working with Craig seemed to be vivid» over four decades later."Craig was a bristling figure." As director of the actors in The Pre­ tenders. Craig was "an exact instructor. Yes, Craig gave his instructions to the actors in English and my brother

Johannes translated them." This was another confirmation that Craig also served as the stage director. The instruc­ tions Adam Poulsen considered to be "very valuable advice.

Craig had great insight into Ibsen . • • Each day at the beginning of the rehearsal Craig gave 'intentions* to the actorst" perhaps what today we would call motivations.

Commenting upon the function of the director, Mr. Poulsen felt that "the director should be a mirror for the actorsi the director should not impose his interpretation upon them." He observed that most "Danish and German directprs are far too dominating."

His thoughts then turned to the stage training of the young actor of today. He remarked*

It is a pity that so many young actors do not accept the challenge of classic roles. They take the easy way and all too frequently play themselves in repetition. Could a great pian­ ist emerge if he played only the modern compos­ ers? [By restricting themselves to the con- ■ temporary] young actors can never develop fully as artists. t

10Mrs. Poulsen* a vibrant middle-aged woman and Adam's third wife* acted as translator. 260

Clara Pontoppidam Beloved Actreaa

Clara Pontoppidan* one of Denmark's fine actresses* was the only one of the four Pretenders alumni who was not interviewed in person.11 Thinking back over the forty-two years of her association with "that beautiful man from the

South*" she described Craig as "exciting" and as "an abso­ lutely fine man." This is interesting because Erling

Schroeder predicted that both Adam Poulsen and Clara

Pontoppidan would speak very favorably of Craig now* where­ as at the time they both tended to be conservative and traditionally oriented and* thus* were somewhat puzzled and not terribly sympathetic with the English artist. Per­ haps over the years they had learned to appreciate the non- realiatic theatre and to accept Craig's ideaB.

Craig's Reaction to Ibsen's "The Pretenders"

We have gotten the reactions of four of the partici­ pants in the production to their English guest director- designer. Now let us consider Craig's reaction to the

Ibsen play. Craig states that he had once seen The Pre­ tenders acted but that he could not make head nor tail of

4 ^Pontqppidan at 85 recently had broken an ankle and was receiving no visitors. The interview was limited to the telephone. Her voice was still vibrant and warm. 261

It from what he had seen. He said that Reinhardt once pro­ duced it in Berlin (about 1902) but then he left it out of his repertory which "is not surprising for it is not exactly a very entertaining play and it is exceptionally difficult 12 to make theatrically effective."

He observes that it "does not thrill you as a play should thrill." There are too many "long9 wearisome pas­ sages • • . long and wearisome development of over-subtle ideas." He does mention that the play is "full of very wonderful ideas" and that "there are three remarkable char­ acters in the play • • • Bishop Nickolas, whom everyone said Henry Irving ought to have played» and two other fig­ ures t Skule and Haskon." Craig concludes that The Pretend­ ers. "this dreadfully difficult play [is] for intellectuals

[and] not for the general public, But let us examine the reaction of the critics to The Pretenders.

The Critics1 Reaction to Craig's "The Pretenders" 14 The tenor of the critical reviews would indicate that confusion resulted not only from inherent difficulties

12Craigt on. cit.. p. 6. ^Ibld.. p. 7.

4 i l l Clippings of the critical reviews of The Pretenders are in a scrapbook housed in the Library of the Royal Thea­ tre. A Norwegian student from the "Competence" Agency did the translation. 262 and subtleties in the sdript but also from certain visual aspects of the production* One critic reported that "The

scenery was disappointing because of its un-Nordic char­ acter* " He states that it would have been "appropriate for the court of the Medicis or Byzantium or Korea * . .

Missing was the harsh, dark, cold atmosphere of the North and the Middle Ages." He commented upon the "confused blocks• the Italian banners* the French tapestries used for back curtains, Japanese lanterns and Oriental gateways."

He continued that "the Gordon Craig scenery is too foreign for Nordic drama," and seriously recommends that "The Royal

Theatre should without hesitation invite Mr* Craig to pro­ duce a play of Shakespeare for them." As Craig pointed out earlier, this drama was for the intellectual and not for the general public. This reviewer substantiates Craig'-s remark when he says that the audience had trouble following the meaning of the play. He asks his readers, "Why was i • * The Pretenders selected? It is too remote for our time."

Another critic observed that "the colors employed are appropriate for Irish fantasy," and asks "Why are they used for Ibsen?" Another refers to "the orgy of colors." One observed that "Craig has created some beautiful scenes I [while] some will be criticized." Some are "closer to

Italy than Norway . . . the cubic construction is somewhat alarming in some scenes," He described the front curtain 263 which was rendered as Na stylized map of northern Europe featuring subdued colors like a Gobelins tapestry," In another scene the traditional church background was not presented as a realistically painted Gothic churchi "it looked more like a market place in Florence." Another ' apparent anachronism noted was that "the king's pink bed appeared to be more modern French than it did old Nor­ wegian." He concluded that "the Ibsen play and the Craig decor do not fit together," As Craig was unhappy with the Stanislavski method of acting in the Moscow Art Theatre production of Hamlet some fourteen years before* so again he was plagued by the act­ ing style of some members of The Pretenders cast. One of the critic8 stated that the actor in she role of "King Haakon lacked glamor* was too modern* natural and uniformly dogged without real style," "The realistic acting in The Pretenders is incompatible with Craig's highly stylized decor." The critic noted* however* that "Clara Pontoppidan suggested in her acting what Gordon Craig was after," Unknowingly* he agreed also with Craig when he wrote that The Pretenders "is not the usual historical dramai the ideas expressed by Ibsen are timeless," The critic with the initials 'V.C.-g' concluded that the event was "a beautiful and festive evening* worthy of the two Poulsen brothers," Ibsen's play "went by like a

i 261+ aeries of pictures* strong and poeticsaid another critic and referred to the production as "most radical." Another concluded that the opening night performance was "a brave try and a vision into the future • . . [which] deserves all honor."

Craig*s Reaction to Johannes Poulsen Recollections of Craig's experience in Copenhagen were printed a few months later in The Mask after he re­ turned to Genoa. His admiration of Johannes Poulsen* the host-producer« is sincere,1^ He describes him as "a man of many parts* extremely gifted— always active— the darling of the public* and reminded me of all I have read of David Garrick." Craig considers him to be probably "The most versatile performer in Europe. He can play Shylock* dance in a ballet* sing in an operetta and act in a farce." Craig noted that although Mr. Poulsen was the leading actor at the Royal Theatre* he was neither its director nor manageri "he has a peculiar power" all his own.1^

1^"And when Johannes Poulsen rehearses* he acta. He leaps about* he seems to grow taller* to become superhuman* to collapse* to die ..." Hallie Flanagan* Shifting Scenes, p.

l6Craig* The Mask. XII* 1 (January* 1927)* p* 25. 26$

In a project of this magnitude, the question of collaboration arises. How was it possible for Gordon Craig to 'assist1 another artist without completely dominating him? Craig explains that, indeed, it was possible for him to do it in the case of Johannes Poulsen because "while each keeps his own view he never ceases to look at what his colleague is up to, and quickly fits into that," Craig compares the collaboration to a dance "and Johannes can dance. He has what we call the swing. The two minds must work in harmonyi in Copenhagen Craig experienced one of his happiest and most harmonious theatrical collabora­ tions. "You all gave me a royal time and one that I shall never forget."*®

The Public*s. Response to,"The Pretenders" In concluding this investigation, we should not omit the question! V/hat was the actual response of the public? According to Craig in an article in 1927*

18 J’ Craig wrote from Genoa, December 5, 1926 to Edward Agerholm of the Library of the Royal Theatre, "1 did not realize how much work I should be called on to do and how little time I should have to humour my bookish inclinations • • , You must blame the beloved Johannes Poulsen for that— I cannot." In appreciation of the hospitality he received, Craig is having the publishers send to the library several of his books, and in addition, offers to send rare volumes of Bibiena and other books on architecture, gas lighting, Italian spectacles, biography, and theatre history. 266

On the opening night the house was packed at double prices . . . the management has had the satisfaction not only of having offered the city so noble a production* but also of seeing* as the weeks pass* a conspicuous financial success*i9 Mr* Mogens Kyllested in an article in Theatre Research, adds some pertinent information to the subject based upon his study of the journal for this particular production* housed in the Library of the Royal Theatre. He states that The Pretenders was presented in repertory for two months* from November 14, until January 15• 1927* The play was staged fifteen times during this period but* he notes that only three of the performances were completely sold out. He concludes* "a fact which unfortunately shows that the pub- 20 lie did not show any great interest,H It would seem to be most necessary for Mr* Hyllested to state what the atten­ dance actually was (.90% ?* 50% ?), and what the profit-or loss amounted to* His conclusion is* therefore* question­ able* This discussion has endeavored to reveal the circum­ stances surrounding the Craig-PoulBen collaboration through the reactions of the actor* designer* producer* critic* and

■ 19Craig, o p . cit.* p. 27.

20 * Mogens Hyllested* "The Pretendersi Copenhagen 1926," Theatre Research. VII, 3 (1966), pp. 119-20* 267

the public to Craig the artist and to Craig the nan— and his reaction to this experience. It was nost fortuitous to be able to have interviews with four of the people intimately involved with the production for which Craig was knighted by King Christian X for his service to the Danish theatre.

Conclusions

From these four interviews, we can come to several conclusions about Craig's theatre practice. He could be extremely practical about stage settings even sacrificing his designs when he felt the occasion warranted such action. By drastically simplifying his settings in The Pretenders, he increased the momentum and the flow of action thereby enhancing the importance of the actor in the dramatic situa­ tion. This is but another example which contradicts the statements of Shaw and Simonson regarding Craig's emphasis on stage "pictures" and his lack of practicality. Craig's experience in Copenhagen again reaffirms my contention that he was genuinely interested in actors as people and that he was able to cooperate with another direc­ tor when the two respected each others' ideas. Craig rea­ lized a universality in Ibsen's play which the Danes con­

sidered to be only localized history. Forty-two years after the factf the actors interviewed seemed to understand what Craig's ideas were all about if they did not at the time

i 268 that The Pretender a was produced. Admittedly Craig was many decades ahead of his time in his quest for the ideal theatre-of-the-future•

< BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books Adlard, Eleanor, ed. Edv— Recolleotlona of Edith Craig. London* Frederick Muller, Ltd., 1939* Anderson, John. The American Theatre. New York* Dial Press, 1938. Archer, William. Theatrical World for 1891. London* Walter Scott, Ltd., n.d. Arthur, Sir George. From Phelns to Gielgud. Freeport, New Yorki Books for Libraries Press, 1967, Bablet, Denis. Edward Gordon Craig. Translated by Daphne Woodward. New Yorkt Theatre Arts Books, 1966, Baker, Henry Barton. History of the London Stage. London* . W, H. Allen and Co., 1904, Borsa, Mario. The English Stage of Today. London* John Lane, 1908. Brereton, Austin. The Life of Henry Irving. 2 vols. - London* Longmans, Green and Co., 1908.

Brockett, Oscar G., and Findlay, Robert. Century of inno­ vation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey* Prentice Hall, 1973. . History of Theatre. Bostom Allyn and Bacon, 1968. Brown, John Mason, Upstage. New Yorkt W. W, Norton, 1930. Clunes, Alec. The British Theatre. London* William Clowes and Sons, Ltd., 1964. Cole, Toby, and Chinoy, Helen K., eds. Actors on Acting. New Yorkt Crown Publishers, 1954. Corey, Irene. The Mask of Reality. Kentucky* Anchorage Press, 1968.

269 270

Craig» Edward A* Gordon Craigi The Story of His Life. Londoni Victor Gallancz, Ltd.* 1968. Craig, Edward Gordon. Books_and Theatres. Londoni J, M. Dent & Sons, 1925* _____ . Ellen Terrv and Her Secret Self. Londoni Samp­ son Low, Marston & Co., 1931* . Henry Irving. Londoni J. M. Dent & Sons, 1930. , Index to the Story of My Days. New Yorki Viking Press, 1957. _____ . On the Art of the Theatre. New Yorkt Theatre Arts Books, 1956. _____ . A Production1 1926. Londoni J. M. Dent, 1930.

. Scene. Oxford! University Press, 1923. _____ • The Theatre— Advancing. Boston1 Little, Brown & Co., 1928. . Towards a New Theatre. Londoni J. M. Dent & Sons, 1912. Donaldson, Frances. The Actor Managers. Chicagot Regnery, 1970. Duncan, Isadora. My Life. New Yorkt Boni and Liveright, 1927. Eastlake, Charles. History of the Gothic Revival in Eng­ land. London1 Longmans, Green & Co., 1872. Fitzgerald, Percy. Henry Irving. . Philadelphia1 Jacobs & Co., n.d. Flanigan, Hallie. Shifting Scenes in the Modern European Theatre. New YorktPutnam & Sons, 1936, Forbes-Robertson, Sir Johnston. A Player Under Three Reigns. Bostom Little, Brov/n and Co., 1925. Fordham, Hallam. John Gielgud— -An Actor’s Biography in Pictures. Londoni John Lehmann, Ltd., 1952. Fletcher, Ifan Kyrle, and Rood, Arnold. Edward Gordon Craig1 A Bibliography. Londoni Society for Theatre Research, 1967* 271

Gardner, Helen. Art Through the Ages. New York* Harcourt Brace & Co., 1926. Gassner, John, and Allen, Ralph G. Theatre and Drama in the Making. Boston* Houghton Mifflin Co., 1964, Gassner, John, and Quinn, Edward, eds. The Reader*s Ency­ clopedia of World Drama. New York*Crowell, 1969, Gassner, John. Form and Idea in Modern Theatre. New Yorkt Dryden Press, 1956. _____ . The Theatre in Our Times. New York* Crown Press, 195*. Harhron, Dudley. The Conscious Stone* Life of Edward William Godwin. London* Latimore House, Ltd., 19^9, Hatton, Joseph. Henry Irving*s Impressions of America. Boston* J. R. Osgood and Co., 1884. Hudson, Lynton. The English Stage* 1850-1QS0. Londoni George G. Harrop and Co., Ltd., 19*4-9. Irving, Henry. The Drama* Addresses. New York* Benjamin Blom, 19^9* Irving, Laurence. Henry Irving. Londoni Faber and Faber, 1951. Isaacs, Edith J. R,» ed. Theatre* Essavs on the Arts of the Theatre. Boston*Little, Brown & Co., 1927. Isaac, Winifred. Ben Greet and the Old Vic. Londoni n.p., 196

Janson, H. W, History of Art. New Yorki Abrams, 1962, Joseph, Bertram. The Tragic Actor. Londoni Routledge and Paul, 1959* Kirby, E, T., ed. Total Theatre. New Yorkt Dutton & Co., 1969. Lawrence, Boyle, ed. Celebrities of the Stage. Londoni George Newnes, n.d. Leeper, Janet. Edward Gordon Craig* Designs for the Thea­ tre. Harmondsworth, England* Penguin Books, Ltd., 1958. 272

Macfall, Haldane. Sir Kenrv Irving. Bostom John W. Luce and Co.* 1906. MeGaw, Charles. Acting is Believing. New Yorki Rinehart & Co.i 1953* Manvell, Roger. Ellen Terry. New Yorki Putnams, 1968. Moses, Montrose J., and Brown, John Mason, eds. The Ameri­ can Theatre as Seen by its Critics. 1752-19 W . New Yorkt W , V/, Norton and Co., 193^. Nash, George. Edward Gordon Craig. 1872-1966. Londoni Victoria & Albert Museum, 19o7. Nicoll, Allardyce. History of the Late Nineteenth Century Drama. New Yorki The Macmillan Co., 193°• Odell, George C. Shakespeare from Betterton to Irving. New Yorki C. Scribner's and Sons, 1920, Pearson, Hesketh. The Last Actor Managers. Londoni Methuen & Co., 1950. Pemberton, T, Edgar, Ellen Terry and Her Sisters. New Yorki Dodd, Mead & Co., 1902. Reynolds, Ernest. Early Victorian Drama (1830-1870). Cambridge 1 W. Hoffer & Sons, 1936. Rice, Charles. The London Theatre in the Eighteen-Thirties. Londoni Society for Theatre Research, 1950. Robertson, W. Graham. Life Was Worth Living. New Yorki Harpers, 1931* Rose, Enid. Gordon Craig and the Theatre. New Yorki Frederick A. Stokes Co., 1931* Rothenstein, Sir William, Men and Memories. New Yorki Coward-McCann, 1931* . Since Fifty. New Yorkt The Macmillan Co., 1940. Rowell, George. The Victorian Theatre. Londoni Oxford University Press, 1930. Scott, Clement. The Drama of Yesterday and Today. Londoni Macmillan & Co., 1899. 273

Scott, Clement. Prom -The Bells" to "King Arthur." Londoni John MaeQueen, I897, Scott, Mrs. Clement. Old Dava in Bohemian London. New Yorki F. A. Stokes, n.d. Shaw, 0. B, Dramatic Opinions and Essays with an Apology. 2 vols. Hew Yorki Brentano's, 1916. . Our Theatre in the Nineties. Londoni Constable and Co., Ltd., 1932. Shaw, Martin. Up to Now. Londoni Oxford University Press, 1929^ Stanislavski, Constantin. Mv Life in Art. Bostom Little, Brown and Co., Ltd., 1905. Statler, Edmund. Adolohe Appla. Londoni Victoria & Albert Museum, 1970, Steen, Marguerite. A Pride of Terrvs. Londoni Longmans, Green & Co., 1962, Terry, Ellen. Memoirs. With a preface, notes and addi­ tional biographical chapters by Edith Craig and Christopher St. John, New Yorkt G. P. Putnam and Sons, 1932.

Towse, John Rankin. Sixty Years of the Theatre. New Yorkt Funk and Wagnails, 1916.

Tyler, George. Whatever Goes U p . Indianapolisi Bobbs Merrill Co., n.d. Watson, E. Bradlee. Sheridan to Robertson. Cambridge1 Harvard University Press, 1926, Winter, William. Henry Irving. New Yorki G, J. Coombes, 1885. Yeats, W. B. Plays for an Irish Theatre. Londoni A. H. Londoni A, H. Bullen, 1913. Young, Stark,’ Immortal Shadows, New Yorki Hill & Wans. 1958. ------27**

Articles and Periodicals Barker, Kathleen M. D. "The Terrys and Godwin in Bristol." Theatre Notebook. Autumn 196?, 27-1*3,

Columbus Evening Dispatch. Review of Ellen Terry appear- ance, January 6, 1911, Craig, Edward. "Gordon Craig and Hubert von Herkomer." Theatre Research. X, 1 (1969)» 7-16. ■ "Gordon Craig and Bach's St. Matthew Passion." Theatre Notebook. XXVI, 1* (Summer 1972), 11*7-51. "Edward William Godwin." Encyclopedia Britannlca. 1967, Vol. X. Hyllested, Mogens. "The Pretenders* Copenhagen 1926." Theatre Research. VII, 3 (1966), 117-22, Ilyin, E. K. "Gordon Craig's Mission to Moscow," Theatre Arts. May 1951*, 78-79. Lyons, Charles R. "Gordon Craig's Concept of the Actor," Educational Theatre Journal. XVI, 3 (October 1961*), 253-69. The Mask edited by Edward Gordon Craig. Florence, Italy* Arena Goldoni, 1909-29. New York* Benjamin Blom, 1966. Vols. 1-15. "New Macbeth* Gordon Craig Designs a Production for George Tyler." Theatre Arts. November, 1928, 80l*-13, Rood, Arnold. "'After the Practice the Theory,' Gordon Craig and Movement." Theatre Research. 2-3 (1971), 81-100. Scott, Clement, "Review." Illustrated London Newa. August 1, I896.

Talley, Paul M. "Architecture as Craig's Interim Symbol* Ruskin and Other Influences." Educational Theatre Journal. XIX, No. 1 (1967). Van Vechten,.Carl. "Adolphe Appia and Gordon Craig," The Forum. October, 1915* **8l*-87. 275

Unpublished Material Personal Interviews Craig, Edward A. Personal interviews, London and Bledlow, England, during September and October, 1968, Craig, Gordon, Personal interview. "Le Mas Andre," Vence, France, July 4, 1963* Craig, Nelly. Personal interviews. London and Bucking­ hamshire, England, during September and October, 1968. Johansen, Svend. Personal interview. Copenhagen, September, 1968. Leeper, Janet, Interview. London, October, 1968.

Nash, George, Interview. Columbus, Ohio, November 1, 1973* Pontoppidan, Clara, Interview. Copenhagen, September, 1968. Poulsen, Adam, Interview. Grasted, Denmark, September, 1968. Schroeder, Erling, Interview. Copenhagen, September, 1968,

Letters Craig, Edward A. Letter to Wm. C. Kramer, March 14, 1970. Craig, Gordon. Letter to Edward Agerhold, December 5» 1926. Craig Collection, Library of the Royal Danish Theatre, ■ Letter to Adolphe Appia, November 23, 1915, Craig Collection, Bibliotheque Rationale, Paris, . Letter to Karl Mantzius, October 11, 1906, Craig Collection, Library of the Royal Danish Theatre. . Letter to Stanislavski, July 14, 1910, Craig Collection, Bibliotheque Rationale, Paris, Craig, Nelly. Letter to Wm. C. Kramer, December 15, 1969, I 276

Notes' Craig, Gordon. Notes from his annotated copy of The Come­ dies of Shakespeare. Nelly Craig Collection. ______. Notes from his annotated copy of The Tragedies of Shakespeare. Gibson, Lillian. "A Talk with Gordon Craig" appears in the illustrated program for the New York production of Macbeth. 1928.

Dissertations Bassett, Abraham J. "The Actor-Manager Career of William Charles Macready," Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1962. Beilenberg, John. "Scene Design at the Comedie Francaise, . 1901-1920." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1970. Herstand, Theodore. "Edward Gordon Craig's Theory of 'The Art of the Theatre of the Future.*" Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois, 1963. Miller, Charles J. "An Analytical and Descriptive Study of the Contributions of Edward Gordon Craig to M odem Theatre Art." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Univer­ sity of Southern California, 1957. Schaffer, Byron S, "The Stage Management of Henry Irving in America, 1883-190^." Unpublished Ph.D. Disserta­ tion, Ohio State University, 1967* Wilson, Mardis Glen, "Charles Keam A Study in Nineteenth Century Production of Shakespearean Tragedy." Unpub­ lished Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1957.