HOW TO SAVE THE NATIONAL DRAMA.

MR. MACREADY, who has earned no less high a name by his endeavour to revive the decaying national drama, than by his own personal talents as an actor, has failed in his great object. Whether his relinquishment of Drury Lane is hastened by the recent decision that his regulations to exclude indecencies from a theatre diminish the value of a certain

occupancy, or whether it is merely because the speculation does not " pay," the result is the same ; and the attempted revival of the na- tional drama has not been sufficiently profitable to enable him to con-

tinue the experiment for another season. He abandoned it, indeed, this season; for Sappho is not the " national drama." It is good for the London public to hear CLARA NOVELLO and STAUDIGL, as it is good for them to see the paintings of the Old Masters ; but then, RAPHAEL and TITIAN are not " national " painters. Many will regret this failure

who have done nothing whatever to prevent it. The total destruction

of the national drama would indeed be a very serious affair. It has been a gross mistake to suppose that the stage, or works of fiction, aid

the pulpit in the way of admonition, or that they attract to virtue and

repel from vice by direct example. Men do not go away from the per- formance of As You Like It, virtuous because Orlando prospers and

Oliver and the false Duke succumb. Drama and fiction perform a much more useful function than if they were merely complementary to the pulpit : they have a distinct province of their own. Didactic admoni-

tion appeals to our intellect, but has little rapport with our desires : it

is the office of fiction to train our desires ; to practise the mind in the contemplation of desires carried out to their end ; to bring into a focus seductive desires and bad ends, less pleasing beginnings and happy ends; so that the mind, not on conviction, but by repeated association, leans more to the better course. It is a practical Epicureanism, in the higher sense. In studying fiction, man lives more, experiences more sensations and more events, and shapes his wishes on a broader and yet more concentrated experience, than his own life can furnish : and that not by the dry and ineffective means of precept, but by sympathy in his own person, freely, with all his heart and soul. As the most palpa- ble and objective of all fiction, the drama is on mans minds the most impressive. Its decay is the loss of a serious element in the curriculum of humanity. People deplore the absence of the Queen from Drury Lane ; not per- haps altogether unjustly, as the Monarch might sometimes have gone,

if only pro forma, to the " national " theatre. But is it to depend upon such stays as an occasional Royal visit to make it a fashion ? It must then be moribund indeed. F. L., a correspondent of the Times, boldly suggests an expedient for salvation of a more substantial kind than Royal visits- " I do not profess to understand much about theatrical speculations, but I believe that the Italian Opera-house is principally supported by a subscription. Might not something of the kind be attempted at Drury Lane? Is there no

means of securing Mr. Macready's services as an actor and manager, without subjecting him to pecuniary loss ? I am a very humble and quite unknown

member of the public; but I would willingly render any assistance in my power

that could in the slightest degree lead to the accomplishment of so desirable an end. Surely there must be many among the wealthy and the noble who care

about the possession of a theatre where intellectual performances grace the stege, where the comforts of the audience are so strictly considered, and, above all things, where female delicacy is never wounded by those filthy displays of debauchery which so long were the reproach of the national temples of the drama."

The instance given by F. L. is not altogether happy ; for the sub- scribers to the Italian Opera meddle in the management with little credit to their decorum, their taste, or their judgment. If the national drama

needs subsidies for its support, why not draw them at once from the nation, as in France? The nation might then exercise some wholesome

control over the conduct of theatres. Before any such thing could be done, however, it would be necessary to ascertain what the drama could or could not do for itself, in order to determine whether aid is necessary at all, and if so, to what extent.

The chief cause of failure seems to be the national epidemic—a dis- proportion of revenue to expenditure. F. L. says it must be evident to

all who have thought much about Mr. MACREADY'S "expense and

labour," " that the patronage which he has received has been far from adequate to afford him any thing like a fair remuneration. If his au- diences have been on the whole larger and more enthusiastic than any

other manager could command, they cannot have been sufficiently nu- merous to compensate for his incessant toil and outlay" The great

elements in outlay, especially at the Great Theatres, are, enormous rents; enormous salaries to " stars ; " multiplication of salaries, great and small, by the system of keeping several companies at once ; and ex- pense of " getting-up." The enormous rents of the Great Theatres are maintained by two in- fluences—the patents, which give them a monopoly of the regular

drama ; and the gambling among speculators, which the fallacious pro- mises of that monopoly encourage. If the monopoly were abolished, and the theatrical trade made free, rents would tend to find their

level : and probably, the first and best contribution which the nation could make to the drama, would be in the shape of compensation for that monopoly on its abolition. Were the theatres placed more on a level rank—were opportunities more numerous and actors of grades below the highest more in demand, they would not only rise in value, but would no doubt improve in quality. Salaries would tend to find their level, and would be neither so very high nor so very low. But this effect would be increased by the classification of theatres.

A classification of theatres would also enable each manager at once to combine in each branch of the drama the strongest talents, and to dispense with all the departments of his company, or rather additional companies, which he maintains for the other branches.

The expense of " getting-up " appears to be the most gratuitous of all. It is very doubtful whether a vast proportion of it is in any way advantageous. A painter shall produce you with a few shillingsworth of paint a scene fit for heaven : why not a scene- painter ? Picturesque effects do not always depend on costly materials ; nor does propriety of accesso- ries. In some instances, indeed, splendour may positively detract from the propriety and even from the beauty of the scene ; and such is often the case at the theatres. Even where it is not literally out of place, it may be needless. In the highest kinds of drama, whether colloquial or musical, splendid accessories are not strictly needed. Scenery and costume are useful as illustrating the scene, and as completing the thought, or preventing its being spoiled by incongruity. Scenery makes the action and position of the performers intelligible ; it fortifies the metaphors and allusions of the text : and costume completes the bodily development of the character. But in order to that much of help, a very modest amount of scenery and costume is all that is neces- sary. Good standing machinery, a conveniently-disposed stage, taste and ingenuity, might supply all needful illustrations of SHAK- SPERE'S text, where the main object was to hear the poet's words and see them done into action—to see the passion to which he gives voice. A splendid show distracts the spectator's thoughts from higher things. An enormous theatre prevents the sight of the actor's countenance, and makes sentiment and passion assume the utterance of mob oratory or a sea captain's voice, to reach the opposite shore of boxes beyond the pit. The highest drama, then, should not be found in the largest houses, nor in those most expensively endowed with "properties." This points to classification of the drama among different theatres. But it has other recommendations, some of them not always remem- bered. Supposing that theatres were classified, and that they were severally devoted to serious drama, comedy, vaudevilles, (or those little " Olympic " comedies and half-musical pieces,) opera, and spectacle : each manager would not only limit his outlay in salaries to an effective company in one branch, but his outlay for scenery, costume, and "pro- perties," would be corresponding. Mr. MACREADY, for instance, if he stuck to serious drama, would not need to keep up a comedy corps for occasional use, or an operatic corps for occasional use, with all the machinery of spectacle. Combined together in one branch of art, actors would acquire greater skill in acting together ; they would be more disposed to divide among themselves characters, not according to some " rank " on the stage or in the green-room etiquette, but according to fitness. A well-assorted body of intelligent men and women constantly playing the higher kind of drama—parcelling out and accepting the characters which they could best portray—each taking now a large part, now a " minor " part—would acquire a propriety and finish un- known to our stage. Frequenters of the theatres would have better opportunities of selecting the favourite entertainment according to the passing whim or constant disposition. The musician would bend his constant steps to the opera ; the intellectualist to the serious drama ; the laugher to the comedy or the vaudeville ; the universalist to all according to his mood. Now, you must take all kinds mixed higgledy-piggledy, with " stars " in the chief parts and bad actors in all the others, be- cause each manager can only afford two or three good performers in each of half a dozen different branches, instead of having twelve good actors to do one class of things. Until each style in the drama be relieved from the burden of sup- porting all the mediocrity and badness of its own incompleteness and that of other styles, with the expense of other styles, it never can be ascertained whether the drama absolutely needs aid ; only needs it under the present bad system; or if it needs it, to what extent. A partial success has attended the practical adoption even of some among the points indicated above. The Opera-house is a case in point : it sticks to Italian opera and ballet ; and it commands a certain class of audience, who go there frequently, and comparatively little elsewhere. A certain style of entertainment regularly drew a certain audience to the Adelphi Theatre : the same with the Olympic in its best days. Mr. MACREA.DY has done much good by making the theatre more orderly, more accessible to decent people ; and by introducing some common sense into the "casting" of parts, himself occasionally taking so-called " minor " characters. Possibly greater success would be realized by carrying out still further and combining all the means of seeking it. If people could go to a quiet place—paid a moderate price— were relieved of all trouble and " optional " fees for taking care of their out-door clothes—found comfortable seats, sure to command a good view—were certain of hearing fine poetry or interesting dialogue intelligently delivered, fine music well sung, and comedy played by none but sprightly performers—they would as soon go to the play as to lecture-rooms; and would be content to leave splendour to big houses and spectacles ; visiting that kind of sight when so inclined, but not when they only wished something better.