present-day use of English:—­some words are absolutely correct, now, yet based on events or movements in history since 1660.  An evident illustration is the word “boulevard” for a wide street or road; so “avenue,” in same sense, is New Yorkese and London imitation—­even imitated from us, I imagine, in Paris:  this would give a nineteenth century tone; while an “avenue lined with trees in a bowery” would not.  Don’t understand that I am telling you things.  I’m only illustrating—­to let you know what especial things in language I hope you will keep your eye on.  Of course Anneke couldn’t be “electrified”—­but you may find many less evident blunders than that would be.  She might be shocked, but couldn’t “receive a shock.”  We need free colloquial slang and common expressions; but while “get out” seems all right from Stuyvesant to Bogardus, for Barry to say “Skedadle” would put him in the 87th New York Vols., 1861-64.  Yet I doubt whether we have any more classic and revered slang than that word.

The evident ease, yet thoroughness, with which Mr. Howard prepared for his many tasks, is seen in his extended reading among Civil War records, before writing “Shenandoah.”  The same “knowledge” sense must have been a constant incentive to Professor Matthews, in the preparation of “Peter Stuyvesant.”

“The manual of arms,” Howard declares, “is simply great.  I think we can get the muskets pointed at Barket in about 4 or 5 orders, however; taking the more picturesque ones, so far as may be possible.  I went over the [State] librarian’s letter with a nephew with the most modern of military training:  and as I was at a military school in 1860—­just two centuries after our period—­we had fun together.  Even with an old muzzle loader—­Scott’s Tactics—­it was “Load and fire in ten motions,” now antiquated with the breech-loaders of to-day.  The same operation, in 1662, required 28 motions, as we counted.  By the bye, did I tell you that I found the flint-lock invented (in Spain) in 1625—­and it “soon” spread over Europe?  I felt, however, that the intervening 37 years would hardly have carried it to New Amsterdam; especially as the colony was neglected in such matters.”

From these excerpts it is apparent that Howard had no delusions regarding the “work” side of the theatre; he was continually insisting that dramatic art was dependent upon the artisan aspects which underlay it.  This he maintained, especially in contradiction to fictional theories upheld by the adherents of W.D.  Howells.