As to character, singularly pure in heart and mind, widely sympathetic, utterly humble and self-unconscious, entirely gentle and genial. It is significant that his last sermon, preached when already seized of death, was on the text, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." The theme of his life is set forth in the Apostle's words, "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things."

But the chief significance of his life and work lies in his master passion for comprehensiveness, his chosen ministry of reconciliation and mission of peace.

He strove incessantly and unweariedly, undaunted by any opposition, criticism or failure to find the great fundamental harmonies that should bind together into practical unity and Christian love all good men, whatever "great gulfs" or superficial divergencies might yawn between them. And yet just because he did stand for peace, it was his fate to occupy the storm-center of every controversy of his day. That most inveterate of all hatreds, the "odium theologicum," concentrated itself upon his devoted head. He might well have made his own the words of the psalmist, "I have long dwelt among them that are enemies unto peace. I labor for peace; but when I speak to them thereof, they make ready for battle." But his name, his memory, his influence, his words and works, will live as a never-ceasing irenicon, a perpetual "pax vobiscum."

REVIEW QUESTIONS

I. What is the general character of Warwickshire? 2. For what is Birmingham famous? 3. How are Nuneaton and Chilvers Coton associated with George Eliot? 4. What attractions has Coventry? 5. On what occasions did royalty visit Coventry? 6. What are some of the associations of Kenilworth Castle? 7. What is the legend of Guy's Cliff? 8. What gives Warwick Castle its importance? 9. What places of interest are in this neighborhood? 10. What are the chief objects of interest in Stratford? II. What connection with Shakespeare has Wootton Wawen?

STANLEY

1. How did Dean Stanley's inheritance influence his attitude toward social problems? 2. What personal characteristics had he? 3. How was his mother's influence felt? 4. How was his intellectual growth stimulated? 5. How was he influenced by his life at Rugby? 6. What was his attitude toward Dr. Arnold? 7. How was his character shown in his life at Oxford? 8. Give some particulars of the Oxford Movement. 9. What was Stanley's attitude towards it? 10. What were the literary results of his five years as Canon of Canterbury? 11. What were his chief historical works and in what consists their value? 12. Why was the Deanship of Westminster peculiarly adapted to his temperament? 13. What characteristic use did he make of his opportunities? 14. What were his distinguishing mental traits? 15. What was the chief significance of his life?

SEARCH QUESTIONS

I. Who was the Rose-red Richard? 2. In what play do Starveling and Nick Bottom figure? 3. Who was the Warwick known as "king maker?" 4. For what was the Earl of Stratford famous? 5. Where was Shakespeare's Forest of Arden, and in what play? 6. In what plays does Shakespeare present Falstaff? 7. Who said, and on what occasion, "My kingdom for a horse?" 8. Who was Amy Robsart? 9. What is a chantry? IO. Who was Autolycus? II. For what achievement is Rowland Hill remembered?

Wrote

VI. Some Effects of Elizabethan Stage Conditions upon Shakespeare's Method.

THE

By Carl H. Grabo

HE time consumed in the performance of the average Elizabethan play is an interesting matter for speculation. In the modern theater a play is usually from two and one-half to three hours in length inclusive of all waits between acts. A play of greater length runs considerable risk of disfavor and a discreet stage manager endeavors to suit his entertainment to the expectations of his patrons. In the Elizabethan theater, free from weary waits, a greater amount of dramatic material must have been presented than in a modern performance of equal length. The proof of this is self evident when we consider modern presentations of Shakespeare, which are invariably long even in the acting versions, and acting versions involve "cuts" from the plays as Shakespeare composed them.

In the prologue to "Romeo and Juliet" a line reads,

"Is now the two hours' traffic of our stage."

This cannot be taken as conclusive evidence but it is certainly worthy of consideration. Two hours or thereabouts must have been deemed a satisfactory length for a dramatic performance. This fact in view of our modern productions of Shakespeare raises some interesting questions. We have seen that the Elizabethan stage had a great advantage over the modern stage in the elimination of waits between acts but this gain alone does not account for the difference in the time required. A modern manager would find it impossible to give "Romeo and Juliet" uncut in two hours of acting time. Some difference in methods of presentation must have arisen since Shakespeare's day to account for the incongruity.

Edward Alleyn, the most famous Actor of Shakespeare's Time

This is to be found, I think, in the modern use of stage business. A modern actor places his whole emphasis upon the action and studies carefully the minutiae of "business" which will convey to an audience his conception of the character. From various evidences we must incline to the view that in Shakespeare's day the emphasis was upon the spoken word, that the actor gave his lines with greater rapid

ity than does the modern performer. The words, in short, have not now the chief place in a play; the situation, the details of action, the "stage business" are more important. An actor interpreting Shakespeare today, therefore, takes more time to his lines than the old-time performer, who doubtless spoke his lines effectively but rapidly, depending in his interpretation upon vocal inflection, gestures, and appropriate facial variation.

There is much evidence to support such a belief in the oratorical character of the Elizabethan stage. The long poetical passages, descriptive of scenery or mental conflict, the soliloquies which give so much pleasure to the reader of Shakespeare's plays are, we must feel, a little out of place upon the acting stage. The modern dramatic reader makes more effective use of such passages than does the actor.

We must not jump to the conclusion that Shakespeare was guilty of a dramatic weakness in the creation of undramatic passages. A safer explanation is that they suited the stage conditions of his time. The value of long descriptive passages is particularly evident in a drama which, as we have seen, was innocent of scenery. Such properties as were used were required by the action, and did little to create a picturesque illusion. It remained for the poetry of the spoken lines to supply the deficiencies of the stage setting and so in Shakespeare we find the beautiful and elaborate passages by means of which he casts a glamour over the crude realities of the Elizabethan theater. Instances will occur to any reader of Shakespeare, such, for example, as the balcony scenes in "Romeo and Juliet" with their many memorable lines:

"Jocund day

Stands tiptoe on the misty mountain tops," etc.

That Shakespeare felt the limitations of the theater is directly evidenced by several passages in the choruses of Henry V. An instance occurs in the chorus preceding the first act:

"

But pardon gentles all,

The flat unraised spirit that hath dared