La verdad sobre las máscaras/The truth of masks: Edición bilingüe/Bilingual edition – hinnat ja saatavuus

Al ser atacada con violencia la genial postura esc nica que caracteriza actualmente las reposiciones shakespearianas en Inglaterra, los cr ticos parecen suponer t citamente que Shakespeare era m s o menos indiferente a los trajes de sus actores, y que si pudiesen contemplar las representaciones de Antonio y Cleopatra de Mrs. Langtry, dir a probablemente que la obra, y s lo la obra, es esencial, y que todo el resto no es m s que piel y ropa. Tambi n, a prop sito de la exactitud hist rica en la indumentaria, lord Lytton dec a en un art culo la Nineteenth Century, como dogma art stico, que la arqueolog a se encuentra totalmente fuera de lugar en la representaci n de cualquier obra de Shakespeare, y que intentar destacarla era una de las pedanter as m s est pidas propias de una poca de sabihondos. M s tarde estudiar la situaci n en que se pone lord Lytton; pero en lo concerniente al rumor de que Shakespeare no se ocupaba en absoluto del vestuario de su teatro, cualquiera puede comprobar, si estudia atentamente el m todo de este autor, que ninguno de los dramaturgos franceses, ingleses o atenienses se preocupaban tanto como l de la indumentaria de sus actores y de sus efectos ilusionistas. Como l sab a perfectamente que la belleza del traje fascina siempre a los temperamentos art sticos, introduce continuamente en sus obras danzas y m scaras, s lo por el placer que proporcionan a la vista. n many of the somewhat violent attacks that have recently been made on that splendour of mounting which now characterises our Shakespearian revivals in England, it seems to have been tacitly assumed by the critics that Shakespeare himself was more or less indifferent to the costumes of his actors, and that, could he see Mrs. Langtry's production of Antony and Cleopatra, he would probably say that the play, and the play only, is the thing, and that everything else is leather and prunella. While, as regards any historical accuracy in dress, Lord Lytton, in an article in the Nineteenth Century, has laid it down as a dogma of art that archaeology is entirely out of place in the presentation of any of Shakespeare's plays, and the attempt to introduce it one of the stupidest pedantries of an age of prigs. Lord Lytton's position I shall examine later on; but, as regards the theory that Shakespeare did not busy himself much about the costume-wardrobe of his theatre, anybody who cares to study Shakespeare's method will see that there is absolutely no dramatist of the French, English, or Athenian stage who relies so much for his illusionist effects on the dress of his actors as Shakespeare does himself. Knowing how the artistic temperament is always fascinated by beauty of costume, he constantly introduces into his plays masques and dances, purely for the sake of the pleasure which they give the eye.