canvas on which it was embroidered; by which is meant the society dramas of those days, the works of Dumas fils, Sardou, Augier, and Scribe. These same works also had a deciding influence on Ibsen's earliest technique, and their traces were never quite lost. Perhaps their effect on Schnitzler could be found not only in the technique of his larger works, while his shorter ones may be indebted to those miniature pieces, late descendants of the mimes of Herondas and Sophron, which came from the pen of Henri Lavedan, Abel Hermant, Courteline, and many others, and appeared in the columns of contemporary French weeklies, especially in Gil Blas from 1880 to 1890 or thereabouts; but also a further effect of this Parisian theatrical atmosphere is to be seen in Schnitzler's predilection for the problem of marriage, or rather of adultery, as the fulcrum of his larger dramas. Against this, the other prime mover of his theatrical production is thoroughly Viennese and expresses unmistakably the passionate love of the theatre which for a hundred and fifty or two hundred years has been the common grounds for all classes in Vienna, from prince to cab driver. I refer to "The Theatre" as a symbol, mustering all mortals for a mutual inspection, the comedy of words, manners, and social acts, the big and little scenes with which we serve one another in love, or the salon, or politics. Out of all this Schnitzler has assembled the mechanism of his larger and smaller pieces in the most skilful combinations and permutations of motives. Precisely in the construction and operation of these small but very subtle machines he showed his superiority as an artist.
The decisive element, the quality of international value, does not lie in these matters of structure, but in the vivid dialogue. Here great skill is employed to make the flow free and natural, while the characters analyse one another and frequently expose very deep undercurrents of thought and feeling; the conversation rolls on as though it were there simply for its own sake, to interest the people on the stage as well as those in the audience. For this reason it often happens that Schnitzler and Bernard Shaw are linked together, but they are fundamentally different in spirit and temperament. Their superficial point of contact is a preference for irony, but in this respect they could be classed with many men of genius, and especially with Plato's Socrates, who must be unconditionally reckoned among the fathers of ironic comedy. In fact, certain of the Platonic Dialogues are clever little comedies with Socrates as the leading character, the genuine farceur. And classic literary tradition, which con-
