of a play, I make sure that I shall have an absolutely free hand over the entrances and exits:  in other words, that there is ample and legitimate reason for each character appearing in any particular scene, and ample motive for his leaving it.”  Mr. Granville Barker does not put on paper a detailed scenario.  He says:  “I plan the general scheme, and particularly the balance of the play, in my head; but this, of course, does not depend entirely on entrances and exits.”  Mr. Henry Arthur Jones says:  “I know the leading scenes, and the general course of action in each act, before I write a line.  When I have got the whole story clear, and divided into acts, I very carefully construct the first act, as a series of scenes between such and such of the characters.  When the first act is written I carefully construct the second act in the same way—­and so on.  I sometimes draw up twenty scenarios for an act before I can get it to go straight.”]

[Footnote 2:  A friend of the late Clyde Fitch writes to me:  “Fitch was often astonished at the way in which his characters developed.  He tried to make them do certain things:  they did others.”]

[Footnote 3:  This account of the matter seems to find support in a statement, by M. Francois de Curel, an accomplished psychologist, to the effect that during the first few days of work at a play he is “clearly conscious of creating,” but that gradually he gets “into the skin” of his characters, and appears to work by instinct.  No doubt some artists are actually subject to a sort of hallucination, during which they seem rather to record than to invent the doings of their characters.  But this somewhat morbid condition should scarcely be cultivated by the dramatist, whose intelligence should always keep a light rein on his more instinctive mental processes.  See L’Annee Psychologique, 1894. p. 120.]

[Footnote 4:  Sir Arthur Pinero says:  “The beginning of a play to me is a little world of people.  I live with them, get familiar with them, and they tell me the story.”  This may sound not unlike the remark of the novelist above quoted; but the intention was quite different.  Sir Arthur simply meant that the story came to him as the characters took on life in his imagination.  Mr. H.A.  Jones writes:  “When you have a character or several characters you haven’t a play.  You may keep these in your mind and nurse them till they combine in a piece of action; but you haven’t got your play till you have theme, characters, and action all fused.  The process with me is as purely automatic and spontaneous as dreaming; in fact it is really dreaming while you are awake.”]

[Footnote 5:  “Here,” says a well-known playwright, “is a common experience.  You are struck by an idea with which you fall in love.  ‘Ha!’ you say.  ’What a superb scene where the man shall find the missing will under the sofa!  If that doesn’t make them sit up, what will?’ You begin the play.  The first act goes all right, and the second act goes all