Blue also is too frequently used:it is not merely a dangerouscolour to wear by gaslight,but it is really difficult in Englandto get a thoroughly good blue.The fine Chinese blue,which we allso much admire,takes two years to dye,and the English public willnot wait so long for a colour.Peacock blue,of course,has beenemployed on the stage,notably at the Lyceum,with great advantage;but all attempts at a good light blue,or good dark blue,which Ihave seen have been failures.The value of black is hardlyappreciated;it was used effectively by Mr.Irving in HAMLET as thecentral note of a composition,but as a tone-giving neutral itsimportance is not recognised.And this is curious,considering thegeneral colour of the dress of a century in which,as Baudelairesays,'Nous celebrons tous quelque enterrement.'The archaeologistof the future will probably point to this age as the time when thebeauty of black was understood;but I hardly think that,as regardsstage-mounting or house decoration,it really is.Its decorativevalue is,of course,the same as that of white or gold;it canseparate and harmonise colours.In modern plays the black frock-coat of the hero becomes important in itself,and should be given asuitable background.But it rarely is.Indeed the only goodbackground for a play in modern dress which I have ever seen wasthe dark grey and cream-white scene of the first act of thePRINCESSE GEORGES in Mrs.Langtry's production.As a rule,thehero is smothered in BRIC-E-BRAC and palm-trees,lost in the gildedabyss of Louis Quatorze furniture,or reduced to a mere midge inthe midst of marqueterie;whereas the background should always bekept as a background,and colour subordinated to effect.This,ofcourse,can only be done when there is one single mind directingthe whole production.The facts of art are diverse,but theessence of artistic effect is unity.Monarchy,Anarchy,andRepublicani** may contend for the government of nations;but atheatre should be in the power of a cultured despot.There may bedivision of labour,but there must be no division of mind.Whoeverunderstands the costume of an age understands of necessity itsarchitecture and its surroundings also,and it is easy to see fromthe chairs of a century whether it was a century of crinolines ornot.In fact,in art there is no specialism,and a really artisticproduction should bear the impress of one master,and one masteronly,who not merely should design and arrange everything,butshould have complete control over the way in which each dress is tobe worn.
Mademoiselle Mars,in the first production of HERNANI,absolutelyrefused to call her lover 'MON LION!'unless she was allowed towear a little fashionable TOQUE then much in vogue on theBoulevards;and many young ladies on our own stage insist to thepresent day on wearing stiff starched petticoats under Greekdresses,to the entire ruin of all delicacy of line and fold;butthese wicked things should not be allowed.And there should be farmore dress rehearsals than there are now.Actors such as Mr.
Forbes-Robertson,Mr.Conway,Mr.George Alexander,and others,notto mention older artists,can move with ease and elegance in theattire of any century;but there are not a few who seem dreadfullyembarrassed about their hands if they have no side pockets,and whoalways wear their dresses as if they were costumes.Costumes,ofcourse,they are to the designer;but dresses they should be tothose that wear them.And it is time that a stop should be put tothe idea,very prevalent on the stage,that the Greeks and Romansalways went about bareheaded in the open air -a mistake theElizabethan managers did not fall into,for they gave hoods as wellas gowns to their Roman senators.
More dress rehearsals would also be of value in explaining to theactors that there is a form of gesture and movement that is notmerely appropriate to each style of dress,but really conditionedby it.The extravagant use of the arms in the eighteenth century,for instance,was the necessary result of the large hoop,and thesolemn dignity of Burleigh owed as much to his ruff as to hisreason.Besides until an actor is at home in his dress,he is notat home in his part.
Of the value of beautiful costume in creating an artistictemperament in the audience,and producing that joy in beauty forbeauty's sake without which the great masterpieces of art can neverbe understood,I will not here speak;though it is worth while tonotice how Shakespeare appreciated that side of the question in theproduction of his tragedies,acting them always by artificiallight,and in a theatre hung with black;but what I have tried topoint out is that archaeology is not a pedantic method,but amethod of artistic illusion,and that costume is a means ofdisplaying character without description,and of producing dramaticsituations and dramatic effects.And I think it is a pity that somany critics should have set themselves to attack one of the mostimportant movements on the modern stage before that movement has atall reached its proper perfection.That it will do so,however,Ifeel as certain as that we shall require from our dramatic criticsin the future higher qualification than that they can rememberMacready or have seen Benjamin Webster;we shall require of them,indeed,that they cultivate a sense of beauty.POUR ETRE PLUSDIFFICILE,LA TACHE N'EN EST QUE PLUS GLORIEUSE.And if they willnot encourage,at least they must not oppose,a movement of whichShakespeare of all dramatists would have most approved,for it hasthe illusion of truth for its method,and the illusion of beautyfor its result.Not that I agree with everything that I have saidin this essay.There is much with which I entirely disagree.Theessay simply represents an artistic standpoint,and in aestheticcriticism attitude is everything.For in art there is no suchthing as a universal truth.A Truth in art is that whosecontradictory is also true.And just as it is only in art-criticism,and through it,that we can apprehend the Platonictheory of ideas,so it is only in art-criticism,and through it,that we can realise Hegel's system of contraries.The truths ofmetaphysics are the truths of masks.
End
