t. To do this, the manager should avail
himself of the best archaeological and artistic help his generation can
afford him, while endeavouring to preserve what he believes to be the
spirit and the intention of the author.

It is of course possible for the technically informed reader to imagine
the wonderful and stirring scenes which form part of the play without
visualizing them. It is, I contend, better to reserve Shakespeare for the
study than to see him presented half-heartedly.

The merely archaic presentation of the play can be of interest only to
those epicures who do not pay their shilling to enter the theatre. The
contemporary theatre must make its appeal to the great public, and I hold
that while one should respect every form of art, that art which appeals
only to a coterie is on a lower plane than that which speaks to the world.
Surely, it is not too much to claim that a truer and more vivid
impression of a period of history can be given by its representation on
the stage than by any other means of information. Though the archaeologist
with symbolic leanings may cry out, the theatre is primarily for those who
love the drama, who love the joy of life and the true presentation of
history. It is only secondarily for those who fulfil their souls in
footnotes.[6]

I hold that whatever may tend to destroy the illusion and the people's
understanding is to be condemned. Whatever may tend to heighten the
illusion and to help the audience to a better understanding of the play
and the author's meaning, is to be commended. Shakespeare and Burbage,
Betterton, Colley Cibber, the Kembles, the Keans, Phelps, Calvert and
Henry Irving, as artists, recognised that there was but one way to treat
the play of Henry VIII. It is pleasant to sin in such good company.

I contend that Henry VIII. is essentially a realistic and not a symbolic
play. Indeed, probably no English author is less "symbolic" than
Shakespeare. "Hamlet" is a play which, to my mind, does not suffer by the
simplest setting; indeed, a severe simplicity of treatment seems to me to
assist rather than to detract from the imaginative development of that
masterpiece. But I hold that, with the exception of certain scenes in "The
Tempest," no plays of Shakespeare are susceptible to what is called
"symbolic" treatment. To attempt to present Henry VIII. in other than a
realistic manner would be to ensure absolute failure. Let us take an
instance from the text. By what sym