the Kaiser and his advisers from the perilous illusions to which they were the prey.

In these endeavours Count Czernin supported him so far as he was able. In Czernin's memorandum, already referred to, which ostensibly was addressed to the Emperor but was intended for the German Headquarters, he indicated point by point, with an insight into coming events positively prophetic, the chimerical and dangerous nature of those illusions. He gave an impressive warning of the danger of over-estimating the submarines and of under-estimating the resources of England and America; and with uncanny prevision predicted the revolution, which could not fail to come about if the war lasted any great length of time, the results of which must be the downfall of the thrones of the Habsburgs and the Hohenzollerns. If, at the German Headquarters, they had paid attention to this warning, the war would soon have come to an end and the reigning dynasties of Austria and Germany would still be occupying their thrones. The sacrifice made by Germany in giving up Alsace and Lorraine would have been counterbalanced by compensations in the colonies; for France would then have been prepared to make big concessions.

The German authorities, however, being blind and deaf, would neither see facts nor hear reason, and rushed to their ruin, dragging Austria-Hungary with them. Thus, the presumption of the Pan-Germans was not only the cause of Germany's ruin but also of the ruin of the Empire of the Habsburgs; and the statement that Austria paid for her alliance by her downfall is justified. Historical fact, therefore, is directly contrary to that which the German Nationalists and the Social Democrats, in their calumnious inventions, gave out to be the truth.

The German Nationalists and Social Democrats, usually the bitterest of enemies-but of one mind in their common hatred of the Habsburgs and Austria-believed that the hour at last had struck for their dreams to be realised. The Socialists hoped for a powerful German democracy, a social democratic bulwark in the heart of Europe; the Nationalists looked for the resurrection from the ruins of the Habsburg Empire of a great

German nation under the leadership of the Hohenzollerns, who should be restored to power.

This belief alone is sufficient to indicate the even childish naïveté of their political conceptions; for they might have realised that the Entente could hardly be so short-sighted and credulous as calmly to look on whilst Germany, by the annexation of German Austria, indemnified herself for the loss of Alsace and Lorraine and the Polish districts of Prussia. When, however, the demonstrations of the German Nationalists in favour of the union resulted in a decided 'No' from Paris, they expressed the greatest indignation, and appeared ready to continue their efforts in spite of this prohibition. This is but another example of their political childishness, for there was not the remotest possibility of their being able to carry out their purpose. Without an army and lacking money, foodstuffs, and coal, how could they hope to offer resistance to the Entente with its immensely superior resources?

The only result of this foolish announcement was a pitiable admission of impotence. With every aspect of the severest disappointment, they were compelled to abandon their illusory dreams. Their one consolation was, and is, the hope that these dreams have only been temporarily abandoned, and that the union of the two nations will, sooner or later, be accomplished. But the fulfilment of their desire seems very remote, for, so far as can be seen at present, it appears to be out of the question that the Entente, or rather the leading Powers in the Entente-for Italy sympathises with the desire for union-that England, and especially France, should ever consent to such a course. Looked at from their point of view, it is clear that they could not permit it, as it would be sheer folly to allow the final result of their enormous sacrifice of men and money to be-a greater Germany.

The two Western Powers, having such a danger in view, are far more likely to use their utmost endeavours to prevent such development. And the surest method of accomplishing this would be to see that the horrible chaos to which the ruins of the Habsburg Empire have fallen, should give place speedily to more regular conditions, and that the peoples who have been torn asunder

by the destruction of the Dual State should again be united, even if this were effected under conditions different from those which ruled formerly. Even if the many discordant races of Austria hate one anothertheir hatred is merely artificial, the result of decades of nationalist agitation-they cannot live without one another, because they are mutually dependent, and, whether they like it or not, belong to one geographical, economic, and political union. This was formerly acknowledged, both in London and Paris. Indeed, some twelve years ago it was an axiom of British and French statesmen to regard the maintenance of the Habsburg Empire, in view of Germany's proximity, as a European necessity. It is true that this axiom was abandoned at the outbreak of the Balkan crisis in 1908; but it was yielded reluctantly, and Austria-Hungary was treated as an enemy solely because she was friendly to Germany; for a friend of Germany, in the peculiar conditions then prevailing, could be no friend to England or to France.

Thus, after a desperate struggle, the Habsburg Empire was struck down. Now that she lies, helpless, bleeding, and dismembered, vainly endeavouring with her maimed limbs to rise again, statesmen in London and Paris may well be, uneasily, asking whether it was really necessary so to injure her. They will ask themselves this question the more anxiously, since Austria is stretching out her poor arms for help to her former ally. In London and Paris this painful sight must recall Palacky's famous epigram: 'If Austria had never existed, she would have had to be created.'

At the present time Austria, the Austria which that Czech historian had in mind, no longer exists; and, therefore, the logical sequel should follow that she must be re-created. If this is not done, the chaos on the banks of the Danube will continue indefinitely, and, in place of the Eastern question, Europe will be faced with the Austrian question-a far more dangerous problem.

THEODOR VON SOSNOSKY.

Art. 2.-PANTOMIME.

1. The Essayes or Counsels, Civill and Morall, of Francis Lo. Verulam. J. Haviland for Hanna Barret, 1625. 2. Britannia Triumphans; a Masque Presented at White Hall by the King's Majestie and His Lords, on the Sunday after Twelfth-night, 1637. By Inigo Jones and William Davenant. John Haviland for Thomas Walkeley,

1637.

3. The Works of C. Churchill. John Churchill and W. Flexney, 1774.

4. The Works of Henry Fielding. Edited by G. Saintsbury. Dent, 1893.

5. Criticisms and Dramatic Essays of the English Stage. By William Hazlitt. Routledge, 1851.

And other works.

'HATH not old custome,' asked the Duke, 'made this life more sweete?'-and though Hamlet would answer that custom is a monster, most of us in our sentimental moments would agree that it has, indeed, made life more sweet. For that reason, among others, we lament the dwindling of pantomime into a thing of little consequence; and by this we do not mean merely its exile from Drury Lane, the decreasing number of its London performances, and the tendency, a blessing in disguise, to make the Christmas show less ostentatious. These are outward troubles. Far more serious is the general forgetfulness of what a pantomime should be.

Since Grimaldi retired the traditions of his art have been decaying, and though the fabric was built so soundly upon the foundation of the national character that a century has not wrought its total destruction, the present ruins reveal only to the expert eye what was the original outline. The blame for this decay is laid upon the musichalls, but not quite fairly so; for their 'invasion' did not occur until pantomime, as the product of the theatres, was dead. That condition happened in the 'eighties, when Covent Garden opened its doors at Christmas to the circus, just after the management had taken from Drury Lane the services of the manager Chatterton, the famous Vokes Family of pantomimics, and Beverley, the scene painter-only to fail. Meanwhile, Drury Lane

kept the torch alight by recruiting a fresh company from every possible source, especially from the music-halls. As, however, these places of amusement were regularly supplied with performers who had begun their careers in pantomime, this was more of a migration than an invasion'; and much as we may dislike the breaking of a coherent fairy story by the interruptions of 'turns' that cannot adapt themselves to its needs, we should realise that their failure to please is the failure of the pantomime tradition to direct their training.

Directly the

The pantomime of the people, in fact, always relied on such folk. Before the music-halls came into existence, it took recruits from the old music-houses,' as before that time it took them from the fairs. It was not until the show became too 'fine' (to repeat the complaint of Theodore Hook) that the decline set in. theatre managers began to neglect the pantomimics and expended their funds in payments to rhyming journalists and Royal Academicians with a fondness for the stage, actionless verbosity and stationary canvas began to defy Leigh Hunt's rule of 'no more cessation than there is in nature,' and Hazlitt's plea that,

'If we must have a series of shocks and surprises, of violations of probability, common sense, and nature, to keep the brain and senses in a whirl, let us, at least, have them hot and hot, let them "charge on heaps, that we may lose distinction in absurdity," and not have time to dose and yawn over them, in the intervals of the battle.'

In short, from that time to this, it has been overlooked that the essence of pantomime is an appeal to the eye-the enlivening of a beautiful story with visible fun. Both Hazlitt and Hunt denounced the vogue of what was known as the 'speaking pantomime,' and a forgotten contemporary reinforced their argument by defining pantomime as 'the wit of goods and chattels.' They wrote while 'Mother Goose was still a fresh memory, and, therefore, they knew their subject. But their warnings were not heeded. In consequence, we have come to such a pass that even criticism is based on false suppositions. Is it then remarkable to find our old custom hastening to the time when it will no longer be observed?