AN I N T R O D U C T I O N T O

D R A MA T IC T H EO R Y
BY
A L L A R D Y C E N ‘I C O LL M A . .

L E RER IN EN LI LA N A E
CTU G SH LI ERA RE I N
GU G AN D T TU

LLE E N IVER I
’
K IN G S CO G LN N
U S T Y OF O DO

A R W ILLI A M LA E
UT H O OF
$
E R
B K A N D m s PO T Y

R EN D YD E R A N D m s PO T Y

BR E NTAN O S
’

FI FT H AV EN U E £5 2 7 T H S T RE ET
N EW YO RK
Pr m ted in G r e at B r zta m
 PR E FAC E
H I LE in a w o r k of t h is kind dealing wi th th e

s
;
,

p r in c ip le s of t ragedy and comedy i t was necessary ,

t o devo t e considerable space t o th e fundamen ta l

sources of comi c and of t ragic enj oymen t i t mus t be poin t ed
,

ou t tha t t h is book does no t profess t o presen t a new th eory

of laugh t er or a psychological analysis of t he pleasure derived
from t ragedy All t h rough I have con fined myself s t ric t ly
.

t o the th ea t re and have endeavoured t o analyse existing

,

works of dramati c ar t ra th er t han t o probe back from

these works t o t he more primi tive sources of laugh t er and
of t ears . My ai m has been t o wri te an in t roduc t ion t o
the s t udy of drama an d for th is purpose I have t reated
,

th e d rama t ic productivi ty of Greece Rome F rance I t aly , , , ,

Germany and Englan d as one in an a tt emp t t o cap

, ,

t ure those essen t ial charac t eris t ics by wh ich all are linked
t oge ther .

Myapology for wri ting th is book i f apology be needed is

, ,

tha t there is a t presen t no sa t is fac t ory work on comedy as a

type of drama and tha t even wi th t ragedy cri t ics have been
, , ,

more inclined t o analyse particular branches of th e subj ec t

t han t o t rea t all as one I t has been my obj ec t here t o
.
'

show that there is somethi n g fundamen tally i n common

no t only be tween fEsc hylu s and S hakespeare bu t be t ween ,

S hakespeare and Ibsen ; t ha t t he fines t produc t ions of

modern Elizabe t han and classica l drama t ic ar t are bound
, ,

to ge th e r b
\ y t ies which al t hough
,
less visi bl e coun t for far
,

more t han the apparen t di fferences in style in spi ri t an d , ,

in cons t ruc t ion .

 I N T RO D U CT I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H EO RY

S ince wri ting of th is book t wo impor t an t s t udies

th e

rela t ed t o my subj ec t have been published Dr J S S mar t s

, . .
’

essay on Tr agedy (English Associa t ion S t udies v o l vi i i )

, .

an d Mr J Y T Greig s The Psycho logy of La ughte r a n d

. . .
’

C o m edy. Bo t h of t hese presen t a p e n e tra tin g analysis and

‘

cri ticism of t heories of drama t ic ar t ; and I am glad to

be able t o refer t o t hem h ere and occasionally i n foo t no t es
,

in th e body of t h is vol ume t h e more so because I find m y

,

self almos t comple t ely i n accord wi t h many of D r S mar t s ’

views and because I have fel t th e clari t y of t hough t and

th e observan t ph ilosophy of M r Greig s vol ume
’
.

A s t h e book is in t ended t o form an in troduc t ion t o t he

s t udy of drama t ic ar t I have appended t wo brief biblio
,

graphi es bo th designed ra t her t o sugges t some fur ther

,

reading on t h e par t of s t uden t s and ama t eurs of t his subj ec t

than t o provi de anyth ing in t h e shape of a comple t e lis t
of cri tical or o t her vol umes .

ALLARDYC E N I C O LL
 C O N T EN T S
P AG E
I . T RA G E D Y AN D C O ME D Y

( i) I N T RO D U C T O RY
A r is t o tle an d th e G
k D r am a — H o r a c e an d
r ee

th e R o m a n D r am a — M e die v al an d N e o —c lassic
t t
C r itic ism — R o m an ic C r i ic ism — T h e D iffi c u l ie s t
o f D r a m a tic T h e o r y .

( )
11 T H E RELA T I O N S OF T RAG E D Y AN D C OME D Y
fi t
T h e A f n i yo f T r a g e d y an d o m e d y— T h e R e la C
t b
io n s e tw e e n T yp e s o f T r ag e d y a n d o f o m e d y C .

( iii ) T H E FA EL E
F ar c e an d M e lo dr am a— P lo t an d Ch ar ac e r t .

ARAC T E R A T A D I WA E
( iv) C H IZ I ON N N RD N ss

I w d n i T g d y— I w d
ar n e ss n ra e n ar n ess in C o m ed .
y

( ) T H E C FL C T
v ON I

O t C fli t i T g dy— I
u er o n c n ra e n n er C o n flic t in
T r ag e d y— C lic
o nf ti C n o m ed
y .

( v i) U NI V R SAL T Y
E I

II . T RA G E D Y

( i) U NI V E RSA L T Y I IN T RAG E D Y
t
T h e I m p o r an c e o f th e H e r o — I n r o d u c io n o f t t
th e S u p e r n a tu r al— T h e S e n se o f F a e — T r ag ic t
Ir o n y P a h e tic t
F a lla c y T he S u b -p lo t
b
S ym o lism in th e H e r o — E te r n al S ym o lism x b
H e r e di y t .

( II) T H E S PI RI T OF T RAG E D Y
P ity an d T e r r o r — T r ag ic R e lie f : ( a ) H e r o ic
G r an d e u r i
; ( b ) T h e F e e l n g o f N o ili y ; ( c ) T h e b t
S e n se o f U n iv e r sali y ; (d) t
o e ic al E ffe c ; P t t
( e ) M alic io us P le asur e .
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T HE O RY
PAG E

( ii i ) S T YL E
T he yr L
ic al E le m e n i n T r ag y
e d — t
Blan k e r se V
a n d R im e — Blan k e r se an d V
r o se — T h e U n iv e rP
salit
y O f R h y h m — t V
e r se as a T r ag ic Re lie f .

( )
iv T HE T M G IC H E RO
t
T h e I m p o r an ce o f th e H
e r o — T h e T r ag ic Fla w

U n c o n sc io u s Er r o r o n sc io u s Er r o rC
t
T h o u g h le ss F o lly— I m p o e n c e an d A m i io n t bt
Of th e H e r o — T h e F la le ss H e r o — T h e w er o H
s w
a ed b
y y T w o I d e a ls— T h e F la ar isin g fr o m w
C t P t
ir c u m s an c e s— T h e o si io n o f th e H e r o in th e
P lay— T h e T in w H
e r o — T h e H e r o less T r age d y
—T h e H e r o in e .

( v) T Y P ES OF T RA G E D Y?
F e atu r e s o f G
r ee k T r ag e d
y : ( a ) T he h o r us ; C
t t
( 6 ) T h e U n i y o f A c io n ; ( c ) T h e U n i y o f t
t
T im e ; ( d) T h e U n i y o f lac e ; ( e ) T h e S tag e P
zbt
E ar ly E li a e h an T r ag e d y M ar lo e w
S h ak e sp e ar e — H e r o ic T r ag e dy— H o r r o r T r ag e dy
t
— D o m e s ic T r a e d
g y .

III . C O ME D Y
( i ) U N I VE R S A L I T Y IN C O ME D Y
T he S u p e r n a u r al— t C
lass S ym o lism — S u b -p lo b t
xt
E e r n al S ym o lism — S yle an d b a h e ic t P t t
Fallac y .

( 1 1) T HE S PI RI T OF C O ME D Y
C l ssifi c t io n
a a D r a m a — D is in c io n
Of e wee n t t bt
D r a m e an d C o m e dy— S a ir e a n d C o m e d y t
T h e S o c ial A sp e c o f C o m e d y— T h e S o u r c e s o f
t
th e C o m ic I n c o n g r u i y— H u m o u r — Lau g h e r
t t
a
r isin g fr o m P h ysic al A r i u e s L au g h e r tt b t t
a r isin g fr o m t
C h ar ac e r — L au g h e r ar isin g fr o m t
S itu a io n — L au g h e r ar isin g fr o m M a n n e r s
t t
L au g h te r ar isin g fr o m Wo r ds — Wit — H u m o u r
in C o m e d y— S a ir e t .

( iii ) T Y P E S OF C O ME D Y
Fa r c e — T h e o m C e dy o f Ro m an c e ( C o m e d y o f
H u m o ur )— T h e Co m e dy O f
‘
H u m o u r s ( C o m e dy
’
 C O N T EN T S
PAG E
o f S a ir e )— T h e o m e dy o f M an n e r s (
t C C o m ed
y Of
W it) -T h e e n e e l o m edy— T h e
G t C C o m ed
yo f
t t t C
I n r ig u e — S e n im e n al o m e d y .

( )
iv T R A G C
I — O ME DY
Ch t
ar ac e r isti cs Of t
S e n im t
e n al D r am a — O th er

T yp e s o f T r ag i-c o m e d
y .

A PPEN D I X
I BR I E F BI B L I O GRA P HY O F D RA MA T I C T H EO RY
.

II BR I E F BI B L I O GRA P H Y O F S EL E C T D RA MA TI C WO R K S
.

I N DEX
 AN IN T R O D U C T IO N TO
D R A MAT IC T H E O R Y

I
T R AG ED Y AN D C O M ED Y

()
i I NT RO D U C T O RY
RA M A T I C theory is a subj ec t wh ich has occupied

D the minds of many of the mos t brillian t li terary

cri tics and philosophers from th e very dawn of
theatrical ar t in Greece to our presen t days T h e drama is .

at once the mos t peculiar the mos t elusive and the mos t
, ,

enth ralling of all types of li terature I t is so near to t he

.

deeper consciousness of t he nation in wh ich i t takes i ts

rise ; i t is capable of appeali n g so wi dely and so diversely
t o peoples of far distan t ages and of varying C limes ; i t is so
in t ima t ely bound up wi th th e thea t re the meeting-place of
,

all classes of h umani ty ; i t is so social in i t s aims an d in i ts

obj ec t s ; i t is so prone t o descend t o th e u t termost dep ths of
bu ffoonery and of farce and ye t is so capable of risi n g to
,

the mos t glorious heigh t s of poetic inspi ra t ion that i t sta n ds ,

undoub t edly as the mos t in t eres t ing of all the li terary

produc t s of t he human intelligence .

A R I ST O TLE A N D TH E G R EE K D RA M A — T h e foun t of all

.

t r u e s t udy of the essential elements of th is type of li tera t u re

lies as is well known i n th e Po eties of A ris totle I n th e
, , .

considera t ion of t his work so brillian t and so illumi n ati n g

,

t ha t i t still s tands as a recognized analysis of dramatic form ,

th ere are several facts which require careful examination .

A ris t o t le was born in the year 3 8 4 B C . He died a t th e

. .

I I
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T HEO RY

age of sixty-t wo i n 3 2 2 B C His Po etic: presumably mus t . .

have been planned and wri tten abou t th e yea r 3 3 0 B y .

tha t year 3 3 0 B C A thenian t ragedy had risen t o i ts fulles t

, . .
,

heigh t and was al ready showing violen t signs of th a t decay

wh ich appears inevi ta ble i n t he grow t h and developmen t
of any species O f l i tera t ure fEsc h ylu s ( 5 2 5 —45 6 .

apparen tly t aking up t h e rudi men t s O f t ragedy left by A rion

( c 6 00 B C
.
) and .Ph r n ic h u s
y .
( fl 5 I 1 —
4 7 2 wi th a massive .

s t reng th and a power over chara c t er h i ther to undisplayed ,

laid t he de fi ni t e founda t ions of t he Greek drama I n th e .

year 49 9 he won t he t ragic prize and thereaft er con t ribu t ed ,

t o t h e th ea t re some seven t y plays of wh ich only seven are ,

now ex ta n t 1 H is successor was S ophocles (49 5 —40 6

.

a fi g u re more t ypically G reek more mellowed and more ,

harmoniously ar t is t ic A ft er S ophocles ca me E uripides .

(4 48 0 - 06 more h umani tarian no t so religious bring , ,

ing down t ragedy from th e h eigh ts t ha t hi t her t o i t had kep t

t o t he levels of ordinary h uman experience Beau t y was .

i n all th ree bu t a fter th em t h is beau t y perished T hey

, .

were t o be followed by none of th ei r own t ype A ris to tle .

,

th erefore wri t ing in 3 3 0 had before h i m the very fines t

, ,

works of t ragi c inspi ra t ion wh ich Greece coul d o ffer A .

far di fferen t t ale has t o be t old O f comedy C omedy was .

evi den tl y of slower grow th and i n t h e minds of t h e ,

A th enians was relega t ed t o an i nferior posi t ion I t is usual .

to divide t h is comic e ffor t of Greece in t o t h ree divisions ,

styled O ld ‘
middle and new respec t ively T h e old
,
’ ‘
,
’ ‘ ’
.

comedy wh ich ex t ended approxima t ely from 4 7 0 t o 3 9 0 B C

, . .
,

saw i ts mos t prominen t represen ta tive i n A ris tophanes ( born

e 448
. I t was largely poli t ical i n charac ter and gave ,

way t o t h e social comedy of th e middle period T h e la t es t .

type of all which migh t almos t be styled a comedy of

,

1
F o r lis t o f p lay s an d t a sl t io n s o f JE ch yIu s an d
r n a s o f th e o th er
dr a at t
m is s se e th e bib lio g ap h y in A pp e n d ix I I
r .

I2
 T RA G E D Y AN D C O ME D Y
manners developing mos t in th e hands of Menander di d
,
1
,

no t come in to being until abou t the year 3 2 0 B C It . .

flourished un t il the middle of th e th i rd cen t ury B C and . .

,

t hen like t ra gedy disappeared

, , .

A ris t o t le accordingly was no t fully capable of app r e

, ,

c iatin
g t h e d r a ma t ic work of Greece T h e da t e a t which .

he lived preven ted h im from realizing comple t ely th e wor th

and the possibili t ies O f th e comic Spi ri t of his land As a .

consequence th e Po etics deals mos t largely wi th t ragedy

,

and wi th th e epic— th e t wo t yp es of li t era t ure wh ich Greece

had i n his t ime developed fi n e ly— and hardly a t all wi th
comedy I t is O bvious therefore tha t A ris to tle s declara
.
, ,
’

t ions regarding th e na t ure of drama even when con fined ,

a nd a pplied t o t he li t erat ure of his coun t ry c an never be ,

looked upon as all -embracing and final .

I t is also obvious tha t regarded from a s t ill broader s t and

,

poin t h is j udgmen ts mus t oft en have a purely t opical value

, .

All t h rough th e ages t ill th e la te eigh t een th cen t ury his

s t a t emen t s were accep t ed as final and defini t e A ris t o t le .
,

i t was believed had lai d down laws which were of universal

,

applica t ion T h e topical a nd temporary na t ure of h is

.

declara t ions was r arely i f ever perceived I n prac t ice , , .

,

of course men li ke S hakespeare ut t erly disregarded bo t h

,

h is work and t he works of h is successors i n cri t icism bu t ,

i t was no t t ill D ryden s t ime tha t a cri ti c in th eory could be

’

found bold enough t o sugges t tha t perhaps A ris to t le would

have modi fied his views had he known of t he modern develop
men ts in t he ar t O f drama ; a nd even long aft er D ryden s ’

t ime th is suggest io n i mpor tan t as i t appears t o us t o -day

, ,

was comple tely neglec t ed .

I n reading th e Po etics then we mus t always remember , ,

tha t th e au thor of t ha t work lived in th e fourth cen t ury B C . .

,

1
fi a
O n th e sign i c n c e o f h is an d o h e r t t t e c h n ic al a n d se m t
i- e c h n ic l a
a t
lite r r y e r m s se e S e c io n I I I o f h is
, t t b oo k .

I 3
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T IC T H E ORY

th at he could have had no idea O f th e glori es of la t er roman t ic

drama and tha t even in th e sphere of A thenian theatrical
,

p roduc t ivi ty h e knew no th ing of the la t er comedy of

M enander A still fur ther warn ing mus t be given T h e
. .

Po etics as i t has come down t o us is n o t a book of cri t icism

, , ,

as is le t us say th e work of A rnold or of M eredi th N o t

, , .

only are t here serious diflic u ltie s i n th e t ex t i t sel f due ,

possibly t o corruption bu t whole passages have been con

,

de m n e d as spu rious T h e possibili t y is t ha t what we know

.

as th e Po e tics is only par t of a very much greater whole ,

po ssibly merely lec t ure no t es of some pupil who had l is t ened

to the mas ter in t he w ep iwa r o o t he shady walks of th e”
,
$
,

L yceum Remembe ring th is we may be able to explain

.
,

t o ourselves why such large par t s of th is work deal wi th

apparen t ly t rivial de ta ils T hese deta ils— o f t echnique of
.
,

scenery and of plo t— migh t well fi t in t o a large vol ume ; i n

,

the work as we h ave i t they loom up disproportiona tely large .

H O RAC E A N D T H E R O M A N D RA M A — A fter A ris t otle .

there is a long period of silence i n drama t ic cri t icism ; and

when i t did arise once more i t was destined for cen t uries ,

upon cen tu ries to remain based u pon his j udgmen t s I n

,
.

H orace ( 6 5 — 8 B C ) we see t he beginnings of what may be

. .

styled neo -classic li t erary t heory A ristotle s method had .

’

been largely analytic H e t ook play after play dissected

.
,

each and finally gave h is opinion as t o th e main charac

,

te r istic s of all H e lai d down the law i t is t rue bu t

.
, ,

not i n an aggressively didactic manner and only after ,

carefu l perso n al i nvestiga t ion in to particular dramatic works .

H orace s me thod is far di fferen t H is s tatements a r e

’
.

u tterly d o gmatic and we feel no t O ften d u ly considered in

, , ,

the l igh t of fact I n The Ep istle to the Piso s we find h is

.

ideas i n thei r most succi n c t form T h e types of po e t ry .

there have been defini tely se t tled ; a special me t re i t is ,

de t ermined is appropria t e t o each C haracters in dramas

, .

I 4
 T RA G E D Y AN D C O ME D Y

an d inpoems alike must be types T here mus t no t be .

brough t on to the stage what o u gh t to be done beh ind the

”
scen es ; a play must no t be longer o r shorter th an fi v e
acts ”
o n ly th ree speaking persons mus t be on th e stage
at one time ; above all L e t the Greek patterns be never ,
”
out of o u r hands by nigh t or day .

E veryth i n g is cu t and dried ; there is li ttle scope for any

origi n ali ty save the origi n ali ty of new wording Possibly .

because of t his Rome did not see so grea t a drama as

,

did Greece Of th e Roman drama however i t is exceed

.
, ,

in gly di ffi cul t to j udge Ou t of the enti re works of the

.

trio of once famous playwrigh ts Enni us (2 3 9 — 1 6 9 ,

Pac u v iu s ( 2 2 0 — 1 3 0 an d Acci us 1 0 86 B C only

( 7 ) —
. .

a few fragme n ts have come down t o us S eneca s ten ,

t ragedies alone survivi n g the sh ipwreck of L atin serio u s

drama Plau tus (d 1 8 4 B C ) an d T erence (c 1 8 5 — 1 5 9
. . . . .

certainly wrote th en thei r comedies bu t comedy was

, ,

co nsidered by the cri tics again possibly followi n g A ristotle s

,
’

lead as a lower species of li terary composi tio n

, .

M E D I E V A L A N D N E o -C L A SS I C C R I TI C I S M — I n the M iddle .

Ages the old drama practically vanished I t was prese n t .

,

no doubt on the C o n tinen t as here in debased forms bu t

, ,

even record O f i t is very scanty A t th is period o n .

,

the other ha n d a new dra m a arising no t o u t O f pagan

, ,

ceremonial bu t ou t of th e services of t he C hurch was ,

born Gradually step by step from mere two or th ree

.
, ,

li n e tr op es 1 i t grew until in the fourteen th ce n t ury i t

,

appeared in the form of the vas t cycles of th e mystery plays .

T his drama however was purely of the people ; i t was

, ,

unli terary and wi th i t wen t no new cri t icism By th e

, .

four t eenth cen t ury in I taly the Renascence the rebi r th of ,

1
T r o p es w t
e r e th e a d d i io n s m a d e t o th e r e u l r se r v ic e s o f th e
g a
C i a
h u r c h , le ad n g o n th e o n e h n d t o t h e d e v e lo p m e n t o f h ym n s,
t
a n d o n t h e o h e r t o th e r ise o f
p r m iv e d r a m a c fo r m i it ti .

1 5
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T HE O RY

en th usiasm for th ings classical was well on i t s w a y and , ,

once more drama t ic t heory revi ved bu t i t was drama t ic ,

theory di vorced from th e t ypically medieval drama being ,

based almos t enti rely on H orace F ollow the anci en t s .

”
,

was th e genera l c r y; D on t t ry novel ty

’
K eep t o
$

your five ac ts ; I mi ta t e S eneca

” $
above all K eep t o ,

th e uni t ies T h ese rules of the neo -classicis t s t o be dis

”
.
,

cussed in great er de ta il herea ft er were t o be th e skele t ons ,

i n t he cupboards of drama t ic cri t ics and of dra ma t is ts for

cen t u ri es t o come T h e dead bones of H o r ace domina t ed
.

and made t imorous even th e con temporaries of S hakespeare .

Charming as S idney s d p o logie fo r Po etr ie is i t is wholly

’
,

under th e sway of th is ar t i ficial theory S idney condemns .

t ragi -comedy wh ich was t o be one of th e glories of Eliza

,

be than drama ; h e condemns all t hose wri t ers who l ike ,

S hakespeare indulged i n roman t ic excess

,
H e speaks o f .

$
ou r T ragedies and C omedies ( no t wi thou t cause cried
,

ou t a gains t ) O bserving rules n e yth e r of hones t c ivilitie nor

, , ,
”
of skilfu ll Poe t rie excep t ing G o r ho duch — G o r bo duc one
, ,

of th e dulles t and t h e mos t mono t onous of mid -six teen th

cen t ury drama t ic produc t ions A fter S idney came Jonson
.
,

who t ried t o pu t i n t o prac t ice wha t both he and S idney

preached i n theory Jonson s cri t icism is fragmen ta ry
.
’
,

being con ta ined mainly i n h is li t tle vol ume ca lled Disco v er ies ,

bu t h is neo -classic t endencies can be seen clearly in h is

t wo t ragedies S ejan us and C atilin e obviously wri tten i n
, ,

direc t opposi t ion t o t he roman t ic plays of S hakespeare .

S O followed many ano th er cri tic a nd drama t is t I n th e la t e .

seven teen t h cen t ury came Rymer arch -pries t of neo ,

classicism I n The Tr age die s of the La st Age C o n sider ed

.

( 7 )
I 6 8 and A S ho r t Vie w o
f T r age dy ( 1 6 9 2 —9 3 ) he shows

us t h is par t icular type of cri ticism carried t o a r eductio

a d a bsu r dum Iago for Rymer is impossible Wh y ?
. .

Because i t is a recognized fac t tha t all soldiers are hones t ,

1 6
 T RA G E D Y AN D C O ME D Y
and because i t is also recognized tha t all human beings
should show gra t i t ude t o those wh o are good t o th em T h is .

is simply Horace s doc t rine of t ypes sugges t ed by th e ar t

’
,

O f Greece run t o excess

,
.

D ryden as we have seen broke away

, H is famo us , .

Essay of D r am atich Po esie published in 1 6 6 8 presen t s in , ,

dialogue form t he s t ruggle be t ween t hose n e O-cl as sicists

who looked t o F rance for inspi ra t ion and those free r
cri t ics who could appreciate S hakespeare T h e Essay of .

D r am a ticé Po esie is a work wh ich like A ris t otle s Po etics

’
, ,

should be read by all who would s t udy no t only the develop

men t of li terary cri ticism bu t th e essen t ials of th e ar t of th e
,

drama D ryden s cri t ical remarks are i t is t rue no t con

.
’
, ,

fined t o th is work One of his mos t pene t rating s t a t emen t s

.
,

indeed appears only as a manuscrip t note i n a copy of

,

Rymer s work ’
I t is not enough h e says t here tha t
.
”
, ,

A ris to t le has said so for A ris t o t le drew h is models of

,

t ragedy from S ophocles and Euripides : and i f h e had seen ,

ours migh t have changed h is mind

,
” 1
On th e o ther hand .
,

th e Essay of D r am atich Po esie con ta ins the brief abstrac t

of all tha t D ryden held mos t sure in regard t o th e theory
of drama .

D ryden s maj es t ic independence however w as no t t o be

’
, ,

followed up for many years Addison was an enligh t ened .

,

bu t no t a great critic His j udgmen t s are essentially

, .

safe from t he Augus tan poin t of view All th rough th e .

eigh t een th cen t ury t he rules of t he neo -classic creed were

followed by wri ter aft er wri t er inconsis t encies arising ,

because al though S hakespeare had broken every one o f

,

those rules every cri tic nevertheless fel t hi m to be a grea t

,

wri ter I t did no t dawn upon anyone in t ha t age excep t

.
,

Dr Johnson and in h is case bu t dimly tha t S hakespeare

, , ,

1
a
O n th e se m n u sc r ip n o e s t t se e th e S c o tt -S ai t b n s ur y D r yd e n ,
xv , 3 79 a t
an d S in sb u r y s L o o t
’
C r i ti c i, pp . 1 57
—8 .

B 1 7
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H EO RY

because he broke rules migh t be poin t ing ou t a newer

,

a nd t ruer way for li tera t ure .

R O M A N TI C C R I T I C I S M — I n Johnson s t ime al though h e

.
’
,

h imself was t he las t grea t exp onen t of t he n e O -classic ideals ,

signs O f a change were visible Alrea dy the precursors .

of romanticism i n theory and in practice had come in t o

, ,

being Gray was wri t ing his Odes C ollins was indulging
.
,

i n reveries on t he th eme of Gaelic romance ; C ha t ter t on ,

Mr s Radcli ff e and a hos t O f o thers geni uses and C harlata ns

, , ,

were t en ta tively feeling th ei r way t oward a new poetry

and a new prose C orresponding t o t h is fresh crea t ive
.

movemen t came t he rise of roman t ic cri t icism H urd t h e .

,

War tons and o thers were s t ri ving t o display t o men th e

,

beau t ies O f th e long-despised M i ddle Ages T h e drama .

,

however lay somewha t apar t I n the la t e eigh teen t h

, .

cen t ury th e t hea t res were no t i n a flou rishing con di tion .

S en t imen ta lism ruled comedy ; th e t ragi c drama t is t s could

no t free themselves from th e rigid fe tters of C lassicism and ,

when they di d so in t he nine t een th cen tury t hey swep t i n t o

the i nani t ies O f ul t ra -roman t ic melodrama Managers O f .

th e th ea t res found tha t show was more paying than

‘ ’

regular plays ; t he spec tat ors were eager t o welcome all

kinds of spectacles A ccordingly we fi nd tha t fo r years
.
, ,

even i n th e very mids t O f the full roman t ic movemen t ,

drama was largely neglec t ed by cri tics and by poe t s alike .

Many of th e poetic dramas of the early nineteen t h cen tury

were cl oset dramas li ke Byron s Wer n e r nei ther in t ended
’
,
’
, ,

$ ”
nor i n any shape adapted for the stage ,
Renewed .

s t udy of S hakespeare however and of S hakespeare s con

, ,
’

t emporaries along wi th a renewed appreciation of the t rue

,

glories of Greek li teratu re gave rise to a reconsideration

,

of th e grea t masterpieces of the pas t C oleridge led the .

way developing an enti rely new type of cri tical analysis i n

,

h is lec t ures and in h is N o tes o n S ha ke sp ear e Hazl i t t a t .

1 8
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O DRA MA T IC T H EO RY

innumerable B rillian t s t udies ha v e been made of fEsc h ylu s

.

and S eneca of S hakespeare and Moli e re bu t only too O ften

, ,

th e di ffi cul ties inheren t i n th is subj ec t have preven t ed a

t rue analysis of th e quali t ies shared ali ke by S hakespeare
and lEsc h ylu s by M oli ere and A ris t ophanes
,
‘

T H E DI FF I CU LT I ES O F D RA M A T I C T H E O RY —T h ese ditfi .

c u lties
,
as mus t have been evi den t even from the brief
accoun t of th e his t orical developmen t of drama t ic t h eo ry
given above are t ruly enormous T h e drama is not a par t
, .

of l i t era t u re alone I t is always dependen t on t he t heatre

. .

I n considering any piece of drama t ic ar t no t only mus t a

pic t ure of t he par t icular thea t re i n wh ich i t was fi rs t pro
du c e d and for wh ich i t was originally wri t ten be con t inually
presen t in ou r minds bu t we mus t even a tt emp t t o visualize
,

i n some vague manner th e ac t ors who played th e par ts .

I n s t udying H am let we mus t place ourselves in imagination

i n the Globe playhouse and crea t e for ourselves an i mage
of th e E lizabethan ac tor B urbage I n s t udying Ven ice .

Pr e se r v d we mus t en t er Wren s T hea t re Roya l i n D rury

’ ’
f

Lane an d wi t ness th ere t he actress for whom O t way u n

doub t edly crea t ed h is C h ief female par t t h e incompara ble ,

Mr s Barry Apar t from t h is t oo the audience mus t be

.
, ,

remembered T h e drama s tands away from pure poe t ry i n

.

tha t i t is pri marily an a r t-form tha t makes i ts appea l t o a

precise and often li mi t ed body O f spec ta t ors A poe t l ike .

Blake may i n secl usion produce his prophe t ic rhapsodies

, ,

independently of h is public ; he may wri te more for the

readers yet unborn than for the readers O f h is t ime ; bu t
th e drama t is t mus t always bear in mind th e audience before
whom h e is to presen t h is work T h is dependence of the
.

drama t is t on the public necessarily leads t oward t h e con

fusion of diverse forces T h e t emporary and th e topical
.

will mi n gl e i n h is work wi th the permanen t and t he eternal .

H amlet will give h is advice t o the players and rail at th e

2 0
 T RA G E D Y AN D C O ME DY
child -ac t ors a t th e very t ime tha t he is engaged i n a soul
s t ruggle which proves h is kinship wi th the t ragic hero e s
of pas t ages and of th e fu t ure T h e dependence of the .

drama t is t on the t hea t re on t he actors and on th e audience

, , ,

we may place as th e fi rs t di ffi cul ty in any endeavour to

analyse the quali ties common t o all th e grea t drama t is t s O f
th e world .

T he thea t re also is par t ly responsibl e for th e second

grea t diffi c u lty— th e sharp line O f demarca t ion be tween t h e
classic and t he roman t ic dramas T hese are th e t wo main .

divisions of t ragic e ffor t deal t wi th by Professor Vaughan in

h is admirable work on Typ es of Tr agic D r a m a ; and u n
doubtedly th e plays of ancien t Greece wi th thei r descen dan t s , ,

the plays of Racine V oltaire and Alfi e r i presen t to ou r

, , ,

view quali ti es en t irely alien t o th e charac t eris t ics O f th e

Elizabe t han S panish and German dramas
, , S ome t imes i t .
,

mus t be fel t there is no th ing in common be tween S hake

,

speare and S ophocles so s tartlingly di ff eren t are the t echnique

,

and th e expression of those two drama t ists T h e very con .

c e p tio n of the t ragic spi ri t di ffers so entirely i n th ese t wo men

tha t almos t no thing migh t appear t o uni t e them save th e

mere fac t tha t bo th wrote i n dialogue works t o be presen t ed
before an audience T h is di ffi cul ty one o f paramoun t
.
,

impor ta nce we shall consider in grea t er de tail la t er

, .

N o t only however is th ere th is line of demarca tion

, ,

be t ween th e t ypical drama of Greece F rance and I taly and , ,

the drama O f England S pain and Germany ; th ere is also

, ,

a striking varie t y of types bo th O f t ragedy and of comedy

, ,

wi t h in th e bounds O f the drama t ic produc t ivi t y of any one

nation England may be taken as an example Wha t we
. .
,

may well ask ourselves is t here t ruly in common be t wee n

,

Ar den of F e v er sham or Moore s G am este r and th e romantic

’

t ragi -comedies of Beaumon t and F le tcher ? Ho w can

S hakespeare s dramas share in any way t he spi ri t o f D ryden s
’ ’

ai
 I N T RO D U C T I O N TO D RA M A T IC T H E O RY

C o n q u est f
o G r a n a da ? Wha t rela t ion is there be tween
S teele s ’
and 1 1 M idsum m er N ight s D r e a m 3
C o n scio u s L o v er s
’

O r between Jonson s Vo lp o n e and C ongre v e s The Way of

’ ’

th e Wo r ld I t would almost appea r as i f the only method

of t rea t ing t hese t ypes would be t o consider th em ei ther
purely from the his t orical poi n t of view o r else purely from
th e poin t of view of each apparen tly independen t speci es .

I t is th is di ffi cul t y o f discerning t he quali ties common to t he

v arious types tha t has led t o so many C h ronologies O f
’

E nglish d r ama and t o the n umerous Specialized works on

th e separate divisions of t ragedy and of comedy .

F inally t here is a di ffi cul ty wh ich l ies apar t from those

,

no t ed above— th e fac t tha t drama more than poe t ry requires

a psychological analysis A study of th e C harac t eristics
.

common t o lE sc h ylu s and S hakespeare t o T erence and ,

Moli ere will take us deep t o t he roots of th e h uman emo

,

t ions T h e play-ac t ing spi ri t is o n e tha t rises ou t of th e

.

mos t pri mi t ive forms of h uman society T h e question o f .

wha t consti t u t es ou r pleasure in wi tn essing a t ragedy demands

a knowl edge O f half-savage emo t ions whil e the s t udy o f ,

th e sources of th e comic leads us t oward an investigation

in t o th e causes tha t produce laugh t er of th e crudest and
mos t elemen tal form I t may appear s t range to connec t
.

a sa vage dancing in toxica t ed wi th h is own emotion over

, ,

th e palpi ta t ing body O f a newly slain foe wi th a ho n m o t ,

of M i rabel ; bu t th e connexion be t ween t he two is readily

demons t rable and p erhaps we may not be able t o diag n ose
,

arigh t the spi ri t of tha t ho n m o t before we have analysed

th e crude emo t ions of t h e savage 1 .

O ther di ffi cul ties O bviously there are i n any considera

, ,

t ion of an ar t-type such as th is ; bu t th ey are di ffi cul ties

surmoun table We shall no t however be able to proceed
.
, ,

1
O n th e m a if tat i
n es o ns o fl a u gh te r in p r im t
i iv e r ac e s se e J . S u lly,
An E ss a y o n L gh t
au er .

2 2
 T RA G E D Y AN D C O MED Y
far i f we do not always bear in mi n d a t leas t these chief
problems tha t l ie in our path T here must be no attemp t
.

to slur them O ver A res u l t will be a ttained no t by over

.

looking th e diffi c u ltie s bu t by appreciating to t h e fu ll th ei r

,

importance and by passing beyond thei r boundaries I t is .

no t by ig n oring the presence of th e audience i n Greece ,

in Elizabethan England or in th e E ngland of the R e sto r a

,

tion that we shall be able i n some way or ano ther t o C onnec t

th e CEdip us Tyr a nn us of S ophocles the H a m let of S hake
,

speare an d th e d u r eng—Ze he of D ryden but by an ap p r e ,

c ia tio n of the fu ndamen tally di ff ering characteristics of

t hose th ree audiences and by a consequen t discoun ti n g of
,

the purely local and t emporary elements called forth in the

respective dramas by t hose th ree separa t e bodies O f spec tators .

(i i) T H E RELAT I O N S O F T RAG EDY AN D C O MEDY

T HE AFF I N I T Y O F T R A G ED Y A N D C O MED Y — At th e .

beginni n g of an i n vestigation such as th is i t mus t be

noted tha t t ragedy and comedy are no t dissimilar and not ,

so fu ndamen tally opposed t o one ano ther tha t th ey can be

treated only in isola t ion T here is in poin t of fact more in
.
, ,

common between high tragedy an d fi ne comedy than there

is be t ween certa i n types of tragedy or be t ween cer tain types
of comedy I n Greece and in E ngland alike tragedy and
.
,

comedy bo t h t ook thei r rise not o n ly a t approximately t h e

same time bu t ou t of th e same forms I n Greece th e c h o r al
, .

so n g chanted rou n d th e al tar of th e god developed along th e

twin lines of t ragic and of comic or satirical expression .

T h e services of th e C h urch ou t O f wh ich spra n g the col

,

le c tive mysteries of th e M iddle Ages gave rise both t o th e ,

t ragic themes of Abraham and Isaac and t o the comic in ter

l udes of Mak and th e shepherds Pla t o t rea t i n g th e s u bj ect
.
,

in a more or less abs t rac t manner discerned i n his Phile hu s

,

2 3
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA MA T I C T H EORY

bo t h pleasu ra ble and painful elemen ts i n all laugh t er ; and

modern inves t iga t ors have shown clearly how closely allied
are th e t wo moods o r Les Pa ssio n s de l xfm e t o employ the ’
,

t i tle of tha t book of Descar t es wherein t h e rela t ions be t ween

sadness and laugh t er are sub t ly discussed I n the flourish .

ing period of Greek t ragedy comedy was allowed t o en ter

in perhaps no t so freely as in S hakespeare bu t a t any ra t e
, ,

consciously and of se t purpose 1 Many are th e individual .

wri t ers who have excelled i n th e t wo grea t branches of

drama I n England S hakespeare wro t e h is i s Yo u Like It as
.

well as H am let Jonson h is Ev ery M an in his H um o ur as well

,

as S eja n us and C a tilin e A gain t he same nations have pro .

,

du c e d both species con t emporaneously I n F rance Racine .

framed his brillian t neo -classic t ragedies wh ile Moli e re w as

penning and ac t ing h is sparkling comedies I n I taly Goldoni .

flourished i f no t con t emporaneously wi th a t leas t in t h e

, ,

same age as the fines t t ragic d rama t is t of t ha t land Vi tt orio

, ,

Alfi e r i .

fac t is t ha t t ears and laugh t er lie in close proximi t y

T he .

I t is bu t a s t ep from the one t o th e o t h er T h e mo t or .

”
cen tres engaged remarks S ully when in th e full swing, ,

of one mode of action may readily pass t o th e o ther and ,

par t ially similar action ” 2

We feel no th ing incongruous .

i n practice i n laugh ing a t t he j es t s of M ercu t io and a t the

same t ime wi t nessing th e t ragic s t ory o f Julie t and her $

Romeo j us t as we feel no th ing incongruous when i n a

”
,

novel of D ickens we pass from h ilarious laugh t er t o t h e mos t

t earful forms of the path e t ic I n all essen t ially creati ve ages .

th e tw o have been freely used t oge ther i n every kind of

l i terary ar t T h e Greek dramatists as we have seen did no t
.
, ,

con fine th em t o wa t er t igh t compar t men t s t he Elizabe thans

1
Th [E h yl s p
u s, itt d th H ald t o
sc t i t o h i S pp li s
u er m e e er en er n s u ce
an d th N e i t h C h ph
u r se wh i l th e A ti g
n o is f S ph o c l s
oo o r ce , e n o ne o o e
has it W t h a
s d th O
a c t o f E
m ip id s its P h yg ia n S la e
n an e r es es ur e r v .

J S lly A E y L gh t
. u , n
p 7 ss a o n au er . 0.
 T RA G E D Y AN D C O ME D Y
freely mingled th em T h e doctrine t ha t the two are
.

fundamen tally opposed is largely the developmen t of la t er

cri ticism— no t so much of free cri ticism as exempli fied ,

i n A ris totle and i n th e roman t ics as of de r ivativ e an d ,

‘ ’

ar tificial cri t i cism as exempli fied in H orace and th e neo

’
,

classi c wri t ers of F rance and of eigh t een t h -cen t ury Englan d .

I t is no t iceable tha t wherever a cri tic of t he n e O -classi c

school breaks away in t o a more independen t or na t ural
posi tion t here vanishes from h im the necessi ty for any s t ric t
division between th e two moods or species D ryden s tands .

i n such a posi tion th e leader of the rising school of restrain t

and of in tellectualism h e ye t preserves an independence
,

wh ich owes some thi n g t o h is ties O f kinship wi th th e au thors

of th e early seven t een th cen t ury H e says in the person.
,

1
of N eander
A co n tin u e d G rav i ty ke e ps th e S pi r it to o m u c h b e n t ; w e m u st
r e fr e sh it so m e ti m e s as w e bait in a J o u r n e y t h at w e m ay go o n
, ,

w ith gr eate r ease A S c e n e o f Mi r th m ix d with T r a ge dy h as th e

.
’
,

sa m e e ffe c t u p o n u s w h i c h o u r Mu si c k h as b e tw i x t th e Ac t s w h i c h ,

w e fi n d a Re li e f to u s fr o m th e b e st Pl o ts an d La n gu a ge o f th e
S ta ge if th e D i sc o u r se s hav e b e e n lo n g
,
I m u st th e re fo re have
.

st r o n ge r Ar gu m e n ts e r e I am c o n v in c d t h at C o m passi o n an d M i r t h
’
,

in th e sa m e S u bj e c t d e st r o y e a c h o t h e r an d in th e m e an tim e
, ,

c an n o t b u t c o n c l u d e to th e H o n o u r o f o u r N ati o n
,
that w e hav e ,

i nv e n te d in c r e as d an d p e r fe c te d a m o r e pl easan t w ay o f w r itin g
,
’
,

fo r th e S ta ge t han w as e v e r kn o w n to th e An c i e n ts o r Mo de r n s o f
,

any N ati o n w h i c h is T r a gi -C o m e d
, y .

An d t his l e ads m e to wo n de r w hy Liside ius an d m an y o t h e r s

sh o u l d c r y u th B a r r e nn e ss O f th e F r e nch Pl o ts a b o v e th e Va r i e t
p e , y
an d C o pi o u sn e ss o f th e Eng lish . T h e ir Plo ts ar e si n gl e t h e y ,

car r o n o n e De si gn w h i c h is p u sh d fo r wa r d b
y all th e Ac to r s
’

y ,

eve r
y S c e n e in th e Play c o n t r i b u ti n g an d m o v i n g t o wa r ds it : O u r
Plays b e si de s the m ain De si gn hav e U n d e r -Plo ts o r By-C o n c e r n
, , ,

m e n ts , o f l e ss c o nsi de r a b l e Pe r so ns an d I n tr i gu e s wh i c h ar e
, ,

1
A n E ssay of D r am atz c k P o e si e .

2 5
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T IC T H E O RY

c a r r i e d o n with th e Mo ti o n o f th e m ai n Pl o t As the y say the O r b

o f th e fi x d S ta r s an d t h o se o f th e Pla n e ts t ho u gh th e y hav e
’
, ,

Mo ti o ns o f t h e ir o w n ar e w h ir l d a b o u t by th e Mo ti o n o f th e
,
’

p r im um m o hile in w h i c h t h ey ar e c o n tain d : T h at S i m ilitu de

’
,

e x p r e sse s m u c h o f th e Eng lish S ta ge : Fo r if c o n t r a r y Mo ti o n s

b f u n d in N at u r e to a gr e e ; if a Pla n e t c an
m a
y e o go Ea st an d
West at th e sa m e ti m e ; o n e w ay b y V i r tu e o f h is o w n Mo ti o n ,

th e o t h e r b y th e fo r c e o f th e fi r st Mo v e r ; it wi ll n o t b e d iffi c u lt

to i m a gi n e h o w th e U n d e r -P lo t w h i c h is o n ly di ffe r e n t n o t
, ,

c o n tr ar t th r e a t D e si gn n at u ral l b c o n d u c t e d al o n
y o e g m a
y , y e g
w ith it .

however does no t s t and alone I f he was t he

D ryden , , .

fi rs t mover of t h e neo -classic school D r Johnson w as ,

a cen t ury la t er the very h igh pries t and dic ta t or of t he

,

A ugus ta ns ye t wi th a re ta ined na t uralness and a lack o f

, .

men t al servi tude wh ich is seen nowhere more C learly t han

in h is famous pronouncemen t on th is precise theme .

I kn o w n o t w he th e r h e that p r o fe sse s to r e ga r d n o o th e r la ws
t han t h o se o f natu r e w ill n o t b e i nc li n e d to r e c e i v e t r a gi -c o m e dy
,

to h is p r o t e c ti o n w h o m
,
h o we v e r ge n e r all y c o n de m n e d h e r o w n
, ,

lau r e l s hav e h ith e r to shad e d fr o m th e ful m i nati o n s o f c r iti c i sm .

Fo r w hat is t h e r e in th e m i n gl e d d r a m a w h i c h i m pa r tial r easo n

c an c o n d e m n T h e c o n n e x i o n O f i m p o r tan t w it h t r i v ial i n c i de n ts ,

si n c e it is n o t o n l c o m m o n b u t p e r p e t u al in th e w o r l d m a su r e l
y y y ,

b e all o w e d u p o n th e stage w hic h p r e te n ds o n ly to b e th e m i r r o r

,
.

o f life . T h e i m p r o p r i e ty o f su pp r e ssi n g passi o n s b e fo r e w e hav e

r ai se d th e m to th e i n t e n d e d a gitati o n an d o f d i v e r ti n g th e e x p e c ta
,

ti o n fr o m an e v e n t w h i c h w e ke e p susp e n de d o n l y to rai se it m ay ,

b e sp e c i o u sly u r ge d Bu t w ill n o t e x p e r i e n c e sho w t h i s o bj e c ti o n

.

to b e r at h e r su b tle t ha n j u st ? Is it n o t c e r tai n t hat th e tr agic k

an d c o m ic k a ffe c ti o n s ha ve b e e n m o v e d alte r n at e l y w it h e q ual

fo r c e an d t hat n o plays hav e O fte ne r fill e d the e ye w it h te a r s an d

, ,

th e b r e a st w it h palp itati o n t ha n t h o se w h i c h ar e va r i e gat e d w it h

,

i n te r l u d e s o f m ir t h
1
T h e R a m bler , N o . 1 56 .

2 6
 I N T RO D U C T I O N TO D RA M A T I C T H E O RY

Res t ora tion comedy T h e reason of t he harmony may be

.

discovered probably i n th e fac t t ha t bo th are ar t i ficial T h e .

heroism of th e Drawcansi r serious dramas is as removed

from th e physical real i ties of li fe as is th e ai ry dallying of
th e comic muse of C ongreve I t is th e ar tifi c iality wh ich .

forms th e l in k be tween th e t wo 1
.

Passing s t ill far th er we may find a bond of un ion be tween

,

th e comic par t s o f th e sen t imen t al drama of th e eigh t een t h

cen t ury and th e domes t i c drama of th e sa me age T h e .

domes t ic drama depends upon reali ty H o w t rue a pic t ure .

i t may be o f actual li fe will of course res t wi th th e par , ,

tic u la r geni us of the drama t is t bu t i t will never seek t o ,

en ter ei ther t he realms o f th e S hakespearian t ragedy o r th e

dominion of th e arti ficial heroi c species T h e roman t i c .

comedy of S hakespeare th erefore unless considerably , ,

al tered would hardly harmonize wi t h i t s spi ri t and s t ill

, ,

further t h e comedy of manners would be wholly alien t o

i t s ou tlook an d aim T h e comedy t ha t is associa t ed wi t h
.

th e sen t imen ta l gen r e however also makes an appeal t o , ,

reali t y I t may he oft en a spurious form of comedy bu t

.
,

tha t is no t of i mpor ta nce here Wha t is of importance .

is t ha t i t is able t o go along wi th th e domes t ic t ragedy wi th

ou t producing t ha t clash of t wo spi ri t s wh i ch is no t iceable
i n some t ransi t ion plays— the plays t ha t come be t ween t h e
E lizabe than an d th e Caroline periods and t hose be tween ,

th e eras of Res t ora t ion wi t and of eigh t een th - cen t u ry

sen t imen talism .

T h is t hen is a poin t we are bound t o no t e in all a tt emp t s

, ,

t o rela t e i n any way th e spi ri ts of t ragedy and of comedy

the correspondence of cer ta in typ es of t ragic and of comic
expression T h ere is besides a species of converse t ru th
.
, ,

1
T h i a t ifi i l ty
s r f c d p
c a i d la g ly p
, o i t ll t a l
o u r se , e en s r e u o n n e ec u

q ali t i
u esT h W t f th
. e dy f i a e
o d th e h t o ic o f
co m e o m nn rs an e r e r
th e h ic t a g d y
er o re th b d t g t h b y th e c o o tie
e ar us o un o e er m m n
o f at i al
r on pp se d to o t io al c at i n
as o o em n re o .

2 8
 T RA G E D Y AN D C O ME D Y
wh ich is no less observable N o t only are cer tain t ypes of
.

comedy unsui t ed for cer tai n t ypes of t ragedy bu t as will be , ,

perfectly apparen t t ragedy and comedy can bo th develop

,

along separa t e lines so as to become i n an extreme form , ,

fundamen ta lly opposed T h us for example a violen tly

.
, ,

cynical spi ri t will e ffec t ually extinguish even th e possibili t y

of a cer ta in t yp e of t ragic expression L e t us ta ke Othello . .

I f Othello is t o be apprecia t ed arigh t an a t mosphere a mood , ,

mus t be creat ed in th e mind fi tt ed for t he recep t ion of t h e

tragic spi ri t of the play Le t bu t one th ough t of cynicism
.

as rega r ds th e developmen t of th e plo t en ter in and th e ,

whole e ffec t will be los t Rymer thus found i t impossi b le

.

t o apprecia t e th is t ragedy par tly no doub t beca use of neo

,

classic prej udice bu t mainly because h e was no t prepared

,

t o accep t cer tain axioms wh ich S hakespeare had lai d down .

C ynicism on t he other hand is no t inimical t o t he heroi c

, ,

t ragedy precisely because tha t heroic t ragedy is far beyond

,

the reach of cynicism Me n of t he Res t ora t ion age migh t

.

laugh a t honour cynically j eer a t love bu t th ey could

, ,

appreciate i n thei r own way the Love and H onou r dramas .

F arce for a di fferen t reason is alien t o almos t all forms of

, ,

t ragedy T here could be no purely farci cal under-plo t i n

.

ei ther a S hakespearian o r a Res toration tragedy D ryden .

could take Tr o ilu s a n d C r essida heroicize th e C harac t ers of ,

th e lover and his mistress crea t ing t hereby a t ruly t ragic

,

conclusion and a t t he same time make cynical th e figure

,

of Pandarus bu t he could not have in t roduced i n th e midst

of h is serious scenes the sligh tes t elemen t of farce wi thou t
i rretrievably ruining h is drama I n worki n g along the two .

lines of heroics and of cynicism he realized t hei r a ffi ni t y ;

farce he kep t for h is purely comic inventions .

I f we bear in mind th ese distinctions remembering on ,

the one hand t he i n t ima t e relations t ha t exis t be tween

t ragedy and comedy and on t he o th er the fac t tha t comedy
,

2 9
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA MA T I C T H EO RY

c an so develop as t o precl ude any idea of harmonious j ux t a

posi tion wi th t ragedy o r wi th certain t ypes o f t ragedy we ,

may find i t possible t o analyse or t o presen t suggestions ,

for an analysis of t hose characteristics which t ragedy and

,

comedy appear to have in common Fo r th is pu rpose i t .

will be bes t as far as is possible t o con fine our a tt en tion

, , ,

i n th is preliminary inqui ry a t least t o t he more aris tocra t ic ,

realms of the dramatic m u se dealing principally wi th wha t ,

we may call high t r agedy and fine comedy A sligh t glance .

a t the signi fica t ion of th ese t erms may fi tlyfollow here .

iii
( ) T H E F A BL E PL o T ) 1

F ARC E A N D M E L O D RA M A — H igh t ragedy may be appro .

p r ia te l
y opposed t o melodrama al though t here are o t her ,

t ypes of serious drama as we shall fi nd wh ich canno t be , ,

incl uded along wi th t he plays of lEsch ylu s and of S hake

speare and yet possess no elements wh ich could possibly be
,

styled melodrama t ic : fine comedy may as appropriately be

opposed t o farce C oncre t e instances will make the posi
.

tion clear We call B randon T homas s C ha r ley s Aun t a

.
’ ’

farce : we call K yd s The S p a n ish Tr age dy a melodrama ’

.

Wha t are our reasons for th us labelling those t wo I n t he

fi rs t place there is t o be no t ed t h e use of the words farce
,

and melodrama so tha t we may no t be misled by ancien t or

,

popular associa t ions F arce according t o t he e t ymologis ts is

.
, ,

a word derived ulti ma t ely from the L atin far cio I stu ff ,
‘
,
’

so tha t farce means th e type o f drama stu ffed wi th low ‘

h umou r and extravagan t wi t 2

T h e word came in t o fr e .
’

quen t use in England on ly t oward t he end of the seven teenth

1
F bl a th e gisl a w d
e drei -c la
u i c it i i
r fo r th e u se n nee ss c r c sm o r

pl t o as o
pp d t th o se h t of th p la y eTh d i ti ti
c ar a c s er s o e . e s nc o n i

t b
o t
e d b k t A i t tl
r ac e ac o r s o e .

2
Th d el p t f
eve o i g in t h i w d f
m en o th w ld
m ean n f s o r , ro m e o r o

p h y i al t h i g t th
s c n sl f th
o l gy d th
e rea m t th t h at o eo o an e nce o e e r e,

m a y b f lly t d i d
e u th O xf d D i ti
s u e y in e or c o n ar .

30
 T RA G E D Y AN D CO ME D Y
cen t ury and was t hen and t hereafter employed no t always
,

in a s t ric t and circumscribed sense T here was a cer ta i n .

degenera t ing movemen t in comedy which s tar t ed from abou t

th e year 1 6 7 5 and the tas tes of the audience ever more and
,

more drew th e dramatis ts t o in t roduce weaker and frailer

types of h umorous drama A fashion sprang up for th ree
.

ac t plays T hese t h ree—ac t plays were generally no t so

.

wi tt y or so brillian t as the fuller fi ve -ac t dramas of th e more

regular au t hors ; bu t the word farce was applied t o th em
solely i n con t radistinc t ion t o the richer and more ex t ended
comedies of th e t ime F arce then ca me t o mean simply a
.
, ,

shor t humorous play As however i n a shor t play t here

.
, ,

is usually no t ime or opportuni t y for t he broader display of

character and of plot farces came rapi dly t o deal only wi th
,

exaggerated and hence often i mpossible comic incide n ts

, ,

wi th frequen t resort t o mere horseplay Wi th this sign i .

fi c atio n t h e word has endured t o modern times M elodrama .

has a somewhat similar developmen t of meaning D erived .

from th e Greek uéxo s a song i t originally signi fied only

, ,
’

a serious drama wherein a number of lyrics were in t roduced ,

becoming in some respects equivalen t to opera I n th is way .

both a t ragedy of lEsc h ylu s and a piece by Me tas tasio migh t

be included under the one t erm Wi th th e opera t i c t en .

de n c ie s of th e eigh teen th cen t u ry however melodrama , , ,

as distinguished from tragedy t ended t o become i n creasingly

,

more sensa t ional neglecting th e characteriza t ion and th e

,

t rue t ragic spi ri t for t he sake of mere e ffect S ong show .

, ,

and inciden t became the prevail ing charac t eristics in i t as ,

bu ff oo nery and extravagan t developmen t of plo t did i n farce .

PL O T A N D C H ARAC TE R — I n both farce an d melodrama

.
,

therefo re there is an und u e i n sistence u po n i n ci den t As

, .
,

however we fo u n d tha t farce was opposed to fine comedy

,

a n d that m elod r ama was one of the ch ief an ti theses to h igh

tragedy we may expect to fi n d t ha t all grea t d rama whether

, ,

3I
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D R A M A T I C T H E O RY

i t be t ragedy comedy o r a species i n wh i ch bo t h are

, ,

mingled will be distinguished above al l th ings by a pe n e trat

,

i ng and ill umina t ing power of C harac t eriza t ion or a t lea s t ,

by an i nsis t ence upon someth ing deeper and more profound

than mere o u t ward even ts T h e plo t will accordi ngly no t .
, ,

be of paramoun t impor tance T his sta t emen t bri n gs us a t .

once i n t o con fl ic t wi th wha t has always been regarded as

one of th e mos t famous dic ta of A ris t otle I t is well known .

tha t A ris to tle has gi ven t o drama six main par ts : Fabl e ,

C haracter D iction T hough t D ecora t ion and M usic and

, , , , ,

has deci ded cat egori cally tha t of all these par t s th e mos t
i mpor ta n t is th e combi nation of inci den t s ”
Because ”
.
,

he explains T ragedy is an i mi ta t ion no t of men bu t o f

, , ,

Ac t ion — O f l i fe ; and l ife consis t s i n Ac t ion and i t s en d ,

is A c t ion of a cer tain kind no t quali t y N o w men s , .

’

C harac t er consti tu tes thei r quali t y bu t i t is by th ei r A c t ions

that th ey are happy o r t he con t r ary T ragedy th erefore, .
, ,

does no t i mi tat e A ction fo r th e sake O f i mi tating Charac t e r ,

bu t in th e i mi ta t ion of A c t ion tha t of Charac t er is of course

i nvolved ; so tha t th e Ac tion and t he Plo t are t he end of
T ragedy ; and the end is of principal i mpor ta nce
” 1
.

I t is fai rly O bvious here tha t A risto tle has fo r once be e n

mis taken t ha t we have in fac t t o deal wi th a logica l error
, .

I t may be admi tt ed t ha t no drama can exis t wi thou t some

kind of a plo t however sligh t D rama after all is the
, .
, ,

telling o f a s t ory i n dialogue Even an apparently mo t ion .

less play such as Mae t erlinck s L es Av e ugles has a plo t a

,
’
, ,

story fl imsy perhaps bu t never th eless th e background agains t

, ,

wh ich th e C haracters are outlined A t the same t i me i t .

,

can never be admi tt ed t ha t the plo t i s of ch ief i mpor tance

1
P ti oe h apt e r
cs , i T h e e a d i g o f th fi t s t
c v . c f t h is
r n e rs en en e o

q uotat i s i th i p lifi d f
o n i n w I b li
e s m s lly p f
e d
o rm , no , e ev e, u ua r e er re .

Th gh B t c h
ou u k a p l f a w id
er m a es f p ag th aea o r er se n s e o r is n

a ti
c o nth fa t a i t h at l i a l e th i t f
e c r em ns th Re c a ss c n u s as s ro m e
n a to A
sc e n c e ld h a allo we d A i t t l s i n i t c e n a c t i n
r no ve r s o e
’
s s en o o

t g id t h
o u e em .

32
 T RA G E D Y AN D C O ME D Y
in a drama o r tha t i t is t he plo t tha t gives to a grea t
,

tragedy or t o a grea t comedy i ts outs tanding posi tion T hat .

ou tstanding posi t ion mus t come from th e presen tat ion of

character from th e i deas and th e a t mosphere a nd the s tyle
,

of th e drama fo r all of wh ich th e plo t bu t forms th e se tt ing

, .

T h e Greek t ragic poets u t ilized mere th readbare ta les ;

S hakespeare wi t h a divine hand drew h is s tories from
, ,

scatt ered volumes O f I talian n o v el/e or from dramas wh ich

had been wri t ten by h is predecessors T h e plo t is merel y .

the framework on which is embroidered t he gorgeous tapes t ry

of th e poet s inven t ion
’
.

On t he o t her hand a certain plea may be made for ,

A ris totle s sta t emen t T h e drama cannot be looked at

’
.

from one angle alone T here are indeed two main me thods
.
, ,

of approaching t ragedy and comedy t he one th rough the ,

prin t ed page and t he other t h rough th e medi um of th e

,

spoken word i n t he th ea t re I t by no means follows tha t .

the two views will coincide so as t o presen t the same obj ec t

in t he sa me ligh t L e t us take as examples H a m le t and
.

A M idsum m er N ight s D r eam I n reading ei ther of these

’
.

plays we hardly th ink of th e plo t Is i t H am le t ? A t .

once th e figure the character the wo rds of th e hero spring

, ,

in t o our mind After tha t i t is t he charac t ers of the lesser

.
,

dr am a tis p e r so n a t ha t flash before us ; then th e more

salien t scenes of the play— the ghost walking on th e battle
men t s t he play wi thi n th e play the scene of the gravediggers
, ,
.

C haracter diction si tuation — all of t hese no t the plo t make

, , , ,

H a m le t great for us in the s t udy I s i t A M idsum m er .

Night s D r ea m H ere probably th e characters do no t stri ke

’

us so forcibly al though at once Bottom and h is com

,

panions spring up before ou r minds I t is i n t h is case rather .

the atmosphere of th e play th e delicate aroma of spring ,

floweri n g poe t ry the fai ry-world that cap t ure ou r a tt en tion

, , .

Again si t uation dic t ion character— never the plo t

, , .

C 33
 I N T RO D U CT I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H E O RY

If on th e other hand we t urn t o the thea t re wha t do

, ,

we find ? N o t only wi th Elizabethan bu t also with modern

audiences i t is th e plo t tha t absorbs mos t a t ten tion I n .

H am le t i t is th e peculiar singularly delayed action of the

,

piece i n A M idsum m er N ight s D r ea m the s t range inversions

,
’

an d compli ca t ed amou rs tha t serve to a tt rac t and keep in

,

te r este d t h e atten tion of t he specta t ors We have then to

.
, ,

face fai rly th is exceedingly di ffi cul t problem— wh eth er th e

d rama should be studied as a par t o f l i t era t u re or as a produc t
of th e t heatre . A grea t drama regarded as a piece o f
literature depen ds for i t s grea t n ess on some t h ing far other
than mere plo t ; a play t o be successful on th e stage
( unless i t be a pu re piece of show as have been no t a few of
ou r more recen t Eas t ern t ri umphs) demands a plo t well
kni t intriguing fu ll of in t erest and artistically conceived
, , , .

T h e poin t of view of th e th eatre and th e poin t of view of

the study therefore no t only do not coalesce bu t are poles
, , ,

asunder I t is no t th e poetry of H a m let tha t has made tha t

.

drama a grea t stage success from th e seven t eenth cen t ury

onward and wh ich has made i t appeal t o the audiences of
,

coun tl ess lands ; i t is t he plo t th e theme of revenge cleverly

,

told I t is no t th e pl o t of H am le t on the o th er hand that

.
, ,

has made t ha t play th e mos t ou t standing and the mos t pro

found i n the eyes o f the ama teu rs and the cri tics of S hake
Speare ; i t is the inner quali ties tha t have consti tu ted i t a
work of supreme li t erary ar t .

( )
iv C H ARA C T E RI Z ATI ON
I NWARDN ES S
AN D

I N WA R D N Ess I N T R A G ED Y -I n pursuing ou r investiga

.

t ion we have found tha t in every grea t t ragedy wh i ch has had

a stage as well as a close t success there is in reali ty a double
tragedy ; in every great comedy t here is li kewise a double
sou rce of th e comic spi ri t T h e inner t ragedy is wha t has
.

34
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H EO RY

H a m le t and i n Lea r , even i n lesser plays such as Webster s

’

The D uchess of M al /i and O tw ays The Or p ha n wh ich is

’
,

lacking i n S ophocles E dip us C o lo n e us and Philo ctetes

’
.

T h is i nwardness , t o use Professor Vaughan s ph rase 1 is th e

’
,

marked chara c t eristic of modern as O pposed t o ancien t

drama and i t is arri ved a t par t ly from a deeper power and
,

sense of psychological analysis— th e presen t a t ion of é ta ts

de l am e ra t h er t han of mere si t ua t ion — par t ly by t ha t
’ '

grea t er freedom of th e roman t i c drama wh ich permi t s of

developmen t of C harac t er and par t ly also by a new a t mo
,

sphere connec t ed wi th t hese t wo things ye t i n some ways ,

independen t of bo t h T h e very fac t tha t we c an wa t ch

.

L ear C hanging from a heads t rong i mperious monarch t o ,

a chas t ened h uman being the very fac t t ha t we c an wa t ch

,

th e developmen t of charac t er i n a figure such as M on imia

2
,

shows t o us t he power t ha t l ies i n th e roman t ic drama

discovered only i n t h e Mi ddle A ges an d unknown t o t h e
ri gidi ty of th e G reek s tage T ha t t h is i nwardness has
.

i n creased rather t han degenera t ed i n t he s t ill more recen t

period is a fac t that requ ires li ttle proof M odern i nves t iga .

t ions i n to the realms of psychology have opened up new

ways for t he playwrigh t s and in a drama t is t of th e geni us
,

of I bsen we discover tha t charac t er and a t mosphere have

been s t ressed far more deeply than i n preceding drama .

I f we come s t i ll la t er i n t o th e presen t cen t ury and glance

a t t he plays of Mae t erlinck we fi nd t here has been ye t
a farth er advance from th e i nwardness of E lizabethan
drama for M aeterlinck s peculiar geni us reinforced by h is
,
’

ph ilosophical beliefs is able t o carry us i n to a s t range

,

world wh ere only t he subconscious sel f t he soul is heard , , .

1
Th e u l im t at
e fo r m o f h is d e c is io n is h t at
th e u n v r yin g a
t ta
e n d e n c y o f r g e d y— a n d e v e n t h e w b
o r k o f I se n is n o e c e p io n x t
b a
h as e e n fr o m t h e le ss t o t h e m o r e id e l fr o m t h e le ss to th e m o r e
w
,

in a r d ( Typ es of T r ag ic D r am a , p .

1 I
n O tw a y s T h e
'
O r pha n .

36
 T RA G E D Y AN D C O ME D Y
T he m
yste r i o u s c ha n t I n fin ite th e o m i n o u s S il e n c e o f
o f th e ,

th e so u l an d o f G o d, th e m u r m u r o f E te r n i ty o n th e h o r iz o n th e ,

d e sti ny o r fatality t hat w e ar e c o nsc i o u s o f wit h i n u s t h o u gh by ,

what to ke n s n o n e c an te ll— do n o t all the se u n de r li e K i n g Le ar ,

Ma c b e th H a m l e t ? An d w o u l d it n o t b e p o ssi b l e by so m e
, ,

i n te r c han gi n g o f th e r hles to b r i n g t h e m n e a r e r to u s an d se n d th e
, ,

ac to r s far th e r o ff Is it b eyo n d th e m ar k to say t hat th e tru e

t r agi c e l e m e n t n o r m al de e p-r o o te d an d u n i v e r sal that th e t r u e
, , , ,

t r agi c e l e m e n t o f l ife o n ly b e gi n s at th e m o m e n t w h e n so -c alle d

adve n tu r e s so r r o ws an d dan ge r s hav e d i sapp ear e d ? Is th e ar m
, ,

o f happi n e ss n o t l o n ge r t ha n t hat o f so r r o w an d do n o t c e r tai n o f ,

its att r i b u te s dr a w n e ar e r to th e so u l M u st w e i n de e d r o ar li ke
th e Atr id es b e fo r e th e Ete r nal G o d wi ll r e v e al H i m se lf in o u r
,

li fe ? an d is H e n e v e r by o u r si de at tim e s wh e n th e air is cal m ,

an d th e la m p b u r n s o n u n flic ke r in g ?
,
I n de e d w h e n I go ,

to a t h e at r e I fe e l as th o u gh I w e r e sp e n d i n g a fe w h o u r s w it h m y
,

a n c e sto r s w ho c o n c e i v e d li fe as so m e th i n g that w as p r i m itiv e a r i d

, , ,

an d b r u tal ; b u t t h i s c o n c e pti o n o f t h e i r s sc a r c e ly e v e n li n ge r s in
m y m e m o r y an d su r e l y it is n o t o n e t hat I c an sha r e
, I am sho wn .

a de c e i ve d h u sban d killi n g h is w i fe a wo m an p o i so n i n g h e r lo v e r
, ,

a so n ave n gi n g his fath e r a fath e r slau gh te r i n g h is c h i ldr e n Ch il d r e n

, ,

pu tti n g t h e i r fath e r to d e ath m u r de r e d ki n gs r av i sh e d v i r gi n s

, , ,

i m p r i so n e d c itiz e n s— in a wo r d all th e su b li m ity o f tr aditio n b u t

, ,

alas h o w su p e rfic ial an d m ate r ial Bl o o d su r fac e -tea r s an d

, , ,

d eat h What c an I le ar n fr o m c r e atu r e s w h o hav e b u t o n e fix e d

i de a an d w h o have n o ti m e to li v e fo r that t h e r e is a ri val o r a
, , ,

m i st r e ss w h o m it b e h o ve s t h e m to
p u t to de ath
1
,

probably is the mos t impor tan t piece of crea t ive

T h is , ,

cri ticism on t he drama tha t has appeared for t he las t cen t u ry .

We see i t expressed in the t heatre i t se l f no t only i n Pelle a s

'

e t M élisa n de bu t i n many of t he domestic dramas of I bse n

, .

T here is an a t temp t in both t o pass from t he S hakespearian

conception of t ragedy to another conception more fi tting
t o the modern age T here is an endeavou r t o move .

sa y o Th T agic al i D a ily
1
Th T e
f th H bl
r e asu r e o e um e, es n e r n
Lif t a slat d b y Alf d S t
e, r n e re u ro .

37
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O DRA MA T I C T HEO RY

from th e t ragedy of blood and of a pparen t great n ess t o t h e

t ragedy where dea th is n o t a t r agic fac t and wh ere apparen t
grea tn ess is dimmed by an inner grea tness S hakespeare .

found t h e world of character of inner t ragedy ; t he modern

,

age has found t h e world of t h e subconscious adap t ing i t as , ,

eve r y age has ada p ted the desires and the moods of its t ime ,

t o t h e requi remen ts of t h e t h ea t re I t is for th is reason

.

tha t we may regard th is and si milar pron o uncemen ts of

Mae t erlinck as th e grea t est con t ribu t ion t o th e develop
men t of th e drama since t h e end of t he six t een th cen t u ry .

I t is a proof tha t t h e creative ins t inc t i n t he t hea t re is s t i ll

v i tal and pulsa t ing.

I N WAR D N ESS I N C O MED Y — I n comedy t he same or a

.

simila r movemen t may be t raced I f we C on t ras t a play of

.

T erence wi th a play of S hakespeare or a play of Congreve

we discover tha t wh ereas i n t h e Roman piece mos t of
,

th e s t ress of t h e comi c spiri t was laid upon inciden t wi t h

occa sional characterization the comedy of S hakespea re

,

depends largely on charac t er wi th th e in t roduction of th a t

,

peculiarly modern branch of t h e comic t o wh ich we gi ve

t h e name of h umou r and tha t th e comedy of Congreve
,

depends largely upon an inner wi t independen t oft en o f ,

inciden t and o f plo t S hakespeare s comedi es are good ac t ing

.
’

plays because h e has been ca reful t o elaborate ar t is t i ca lly

a n in teres t ing s tory paying a tt en t ion bo t h t o th e inner
,

comedy an d t o t h e ou t er ; bu t th e modern t endency can be

carried so far both in t ragedy and i n comedy t ha t t h e plays
, ,

cease t o in t eres t save i n a wri tt en form One of t he reasons .

why so many of th e t ragedi es produced during the period

of the Roman t ic Revi val failed on the s tage was tha t i n those
plays the poe t s were in t erested solely in th e developmen t
of an inner t heme leaving t h e ac t ual t ale ei ther un t old
,

o r bu t has t ily ske t ched i n Where S hakespeare had kep t

.

a balance they swep t t o t h e ex t reme t ha t li es opposed t o

38
 T RA G E D Y AN D C O ME D Y
melodrama I n comedy the same phenomenon is visi ble
. .

Many cri tics have pronounced C ongreve s The Way of ’

th e Wo r ld th e fines t E nglish comedy ; ye t why was tha t

play a failure on the s t age a t i t s fi rs t production and no t
very popular t h ereafter ? Precisely because th ere is in i t
no plo t because t he comi c is all of the inner t ype capable
, ,

of being apprecia t ed only in slow and del iberate reading .

Th e Way of th e Wo r ld is t oo fine t o be appreciated in

the theatre ; the laugh t er i n i t arises no t from inci den ts
or even from si t ua t ion , bu t from th e use of words and t h e
graceful playing of a brill ian t fancy Jus t as t he t rue force
.

of H am let is los t on t he s tage so the t rue wi t of C ongreve s

,
’

mas t erpiece is los t and i n i t t here is no t hing t o ta ke th e

,

place of the absorbing theme of H am let T h e t ru th of th is .

is easily demons t rable by a glance a t the o t her plays o f th e

Restora t ion comic drama t is t Lo v e fo r Lo v e was success
.

ful ; The Old Ba tch elo r was successful Wh y Because i n .

these t wo plays while there is a sparkling inner wi t t here

, ,

is al so an appeal made t o t he ou tward sources of laugh t er .

Plot incidents and si tuation are all u t ilized for comic e ffec t
, , .

Far q u h ar s plays were probably s t ill more successful on th e

’

s tage because in them t he inner wi t t ha t C ongreve knew

is for t he most par t absen t th e comic of si t ua t ion taking
,

i ts place T h e scene be tween M rs Parley and C olonel

S tandard in A Tr ip to th e 7 u hile e an d the scene be t ween
,

L ady L u r e w e ll and Monsieu r Marquis i n t h e same play ,

depend for thei r e ffec t purely on o u t ward sources of

la u gh t er ; t here is in them no t a sparkle of C ong reve s ’

genius Dryden s grea t es t s t age successes have th e same

.
’

quali t ies S ir Ma r tin M a r -a ll made i t s appeal for no wi t

.

of words or of fancy bu t for t he comic developmen t of

,

th e plo t T h e h umou r of Am p hitr yo n depends enti rely o r

.
,

almos t en t i rely upon mere absurd si t uation T h e presence

, .

of Jove in a man s form t he opposi tion of th e th ievish

’
,

39
 I N T RO D U C T I O N TO D R A M A T I C T H EO RY

M ercury and t he sh ivering aggri eved S osia— t h ese are wha t

,

made t h is play a success i n i t s own t i me and in t h e eigh t een t h

cen t ury and called for th laugh t er a t th e recen t revi val of
,

i t by t he t n ix S ocie t y .

O ur i nvestiga t ion th en has led us sligh t ly far t her t o a

, , ,

realiza t ion of a se t of fac t s wh ich may t h us be summarized

t h e spec ta t or demands primari ly inciden t th e reader inner ,

comedy and inner t ragedy ; wh ile th e t endency of modern

drama bo th serious and comic has been t oward a s t ressing
, ,

of th e i nner a t t he expense o f t h e ou t er .

( v) T H E C O N FLI CT

O U TE R C O N FL I C T I N T RA G ED Y — T h e fac t s j us t men
.

tio n e d become s t ill more apparen t when we come t o consider

tha t cardinal par t of drama t he con fl ic t A ll drama

, .

ultima t ely arises ou t o f con fl ict I n t ragedy th ere is ever

.

a clash be tween forces physical or men t al o r bo t h ; i n

comedy t h ere is ever a con flic t be t ween personali t ies ,

be t ween t h e sexes o r be t ween an i ndi vi dual and socie t y

, .

I n t ragedy the pi t y an d t error ,

”1
t o use A ris to tl e s famous ’

ph rase issues ou t of th is con fl ic t ; i n comedy t he essence

,

of t h e laughable is derived from t h e same sou rce .

I t is obvious tha t i n t ragedy there may be mani fold

varieties of th e principle of con flic t mani fes t ed no t only
i n di ff eren t dramas bu t even in one single play T h e pu rely .

ou tward con fl ic t is th e fi rs t t ype to ca t ch ou r a tt en t ion .

H ere a s t ruggle be t ween t wo physical forces ( which may be

characters ) or be t ween t wo minds or be t ween a pe r son
, ,

and a force beyond t ha t person is t o be found mos t fully

,

expressed i n the d rama of ancien t Greece B ecause of .

th e res t rictions of th e A thenian s tage inducing as t hey ,

di d a th ea t rical produc t ivi t y of sta t uesque propor t ions and

1
O n th e ali d it y o f th e p h as e h we e se e i f a p p 7 1 fi
v r , o v r, n r , . .

40
 T RA G E D Y AN D C O ME D Y
a tm o sphere th e t ragedy of lEsc h ylu s o f S ophocles and of
, , ,

E uripides presen t s the paradox of dependi n g upon ac t ion ,

in th e sen se th a t t he tragic con fl ic t is an ou t ward con fl ict ,

and yet of ruli n g ou t action in t he sense of movemen t

, ,

from the developmen t of th e plo t I t migh t be more correct

.

to say as Professo r V aughan has poin t ed ou t th at th e Greek

, ,

drama is a drama of si tuation a particular species of drama t ic

,

e ffor t handed on t o t he neo -classi c playwrigh ts o f F rance

and I taly T h is si tuation is nearly always one of ou t ward
.

s t ruggle struggle of a man wi th some force ou tside h i mself ,

as wi th Orestes and th e F uries o r struggle of man wi th,

man as wi th Agamemnon and C lytemnes tra Ulysses and

, ,

Andromache 1
. T his ou t er con flic t is obviously the mos t
primi tive of all t ypes of t ragic struggle I t requi res geni us t o
.

raise i t to t he heigh t of impassioned art A minor dramatis t .

working on a roman t ic theme in a roman t ic manner may

in some place reach a heigh t tha t is truly arresting ; bu t
only a Raci n e and an Alfi e r i c an make of th e drama of
si t uation a t h ing of pulsating t ruth and in teres t T h e .

ou t er con fl ic t on the o t her hand is not o f cou rse con fined

, , , ,

to t he classi c or to the n e O -classic schools T h e founder .

of the English romantic drama C h ristopher M arlowe , ,

excep t in one scene of D r Fa ustus and in t he h is t orical

play of Edw ar d I I presen t s no t h ing t o us bu t the clash of
,

external figures and forces T ambu r laine t he Great i n th e

.

play of tha t t i tle stands in opposi tion t o th e force of li fe ;

Barabas in t he 7 e w of M a lta is a t ragic figu re because of
h is similar posi tion T h e in teres t of bo th plays depends
.

fi rs t on the clash be t ween one domina t ing personali ty an d

a world of lesser figures and secondly on the clash between
,

tha t domina t ing perso n al i ty and a power beyond and above it .

I N N E R C O N F L I C T I N T R AG ED Y -Opposed t o t his is th e
.

inward con flic t impossible of realization in i ts pu res t form

, .

’
1
In S e nec a s T r o ades .

4I
 I N T RO D U CT I O N T O D RA M A T IC T HE O RY

I nwardn ess as we have seen is a C harac t eristic of t he modern

, ,

as con t ras t ed wi th th e ancien t drama and th is inwardness ,

is nowhere be tt er seen than i n t he field of tragic s t ruggle .

I n spi t e of th e ri dicule cas t by academi cians on t he old formula

of S eneca morali t y S hakespearian drama one canno t ,
’

avoi d be l i eving tha t t he old s t ruggle i n th e morali t ies wi th ,

th e stock figures of H u m an u m Genus o r Everyman bese t

by temptations and befri ended by good angels mus t have ,

been t he inspi ring force i n t h e developmen t so marked i n

E lizabe than t imes of a con fli c t going on wi thin th e mind of
th e h ero a con flic t no longer of force wi t h force o r even of
, ,

mind wi th mind bu t o f emo t ion wi t h emo t ion of t hough t

, ,

wi th though t I n t he Elizabe than drama appea rs for th e

.

fi rs t t ime t he conception of an inner s t ruggle moving along

side O f an ou t er con fl ict th e one mingling wi th t h e other
, ,

both con t ribu t ing t o t he essence of th e t ragedy bu t th e ,

former assuming grea t er and more domi n a t ing impo r tance .

T h us i n Othello we have t he ou t ward con fl ic t be t ween

O thello and Iago wh ich t akes up the a tt en t ion of t h e eye
,

bu t beyon d t ha t t here is O thello s own mind and i t is th e

’
,

ba tt le tha t rages there wh ich has made Othello in t o a mas t er

piece o f t he world s ar t I n H am le t similarly th ere is t h e
’
.
, ,

ou tward con fli c t be t ween Hamle t and t he Ghos t be t ween ,

H amle t and C laudi us bu t th e real essence of t h e t ragedy l ies

,

wi th in th e mind of Hamle t h imsel f T h e ou t ward s t ruggl e

.

is more apparen t in Lea r ; bu t i t vanishes again in Macbeth ,

wherein th e value of t he play lies in the s t ruggle so clearly

marked wi th in t he mind and t he hear t of t h e mu rderous
king .

As the roman t ic drama is no t all o f t h is t ype so we find ,

tha t t he n e O -classic dramas based though th ey may be on

,

th e older Greek concep t ion and misled though t hey may

,

have been by classical en th usiasm for th e fable have ,

’

neverth eless many of t hem combined t he inward and t he

, ,

42
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA MA T I C T H E ORY

works of Mae t erlinck and h is school t here is an i nward and

an outward con fl ic t ; bu t t h e inward con fl ic t is no t t he
con fl ic t of S hakespeare s h eroes T here is a s t ruggle here
’
.
,

no t be t ween love and honou r no t be tween t wo though t s or

,

t wo emotions bu t between t he conscious and t he su bc o n

,

scious mind between h uman ties and th e t ies of the soul

, .

I n Pellea s e t M élisa n de we have t he ou t ward s t ruggle

'

between Pell e as and G o lau d bu t t ha t is of small impor t

ance when placed alongside of t he deeper s t ruggle i n t h e
soul of Pell eas and in the so u l o f t he h usband T h e force .

of t h is new orienta t ion on t he par t of some dramatists of

modern days is well seen i f we compare t his play of Pellé a s
e t M é lisa n de wi t h a play of si milar theme bu t derived from
,

th e di rec t S hakespearian tradi tion S t ephen Ph illips Pa o lo

,
’

a n d F r a n ce sca I n the la tt er t ragedy t he inwardness is of

.

th e mos t h uman ki n d T h e struggle in the hear t of

‘ ’
.

Paolo is one of simple love and honou r i n tha t of Mala t es t a ,

of love for h is wi fe and love for h is brother T h e con fl ic t .

of Mae t erlinck is removed one stage onward and i t is ,

probable as we have seen t ha t here as i n o t her ways t he

, ,

thea t re is adap t ing i tself t o the requi rements of th e t ime ,

an d is showing i tsel f ready for expansion to echo arigh t t h e

demands of t he newer age .

C O N F L I C T I N C O MED Y — T h is principle of con fl ic t i n

.

t ragedy is as was poin t ed ou t no less marked a fea t ure o f

, ,

comedy H ere also the ou t ward and the inward struggle is t o

.

be seen al though i t takes oth er forms and has di fferen t ends

, .

One of the commones t and mos t obvious sources of

th e comic i n t h e world of t he thea t re is the opposi tion
of an individual or of a profession to society as a whole .

M Bergson i n h is en t er taini n g book Le R ir e has declared

.
, ,

tha t all lau h te r is socia in character and t ha t i t is funda

men tally the re roof of a ar t icular societ t o an e c c e n
tr IC I ty on ffi e par t of a single person or o
m
f
a special class .

44
 T RA G E D Y AN D C O ME D Y
Whether that view be accepted or not i t is plain that here ,

lies one of t he great and most commo ly u tilized media for n

the comic playwrigh t S atire may frequently en t er in for

.
,

i t is di ffi cul t to exclude sa t i re from comedy bu t the essence ,

of t he comi c lies i n t he implied or di rectly stated con t ras t

and con flict T h e old father of T erence the hypocri tical
.
,

T ar t u ff e of Moli e re the longwinded Poloni us of S hake

,

speare th e Res tora t ion fop of C ongreve th e eigh teen t h

, ,

cen t ury beau of C ibber t he no t orious M r s Malaprop of

,

S heridan — all these are se t over agai n st a world of normal

society figures A world of Po lo n iu se s wo u ld no t be
.

laughable nor would a world of Malaprops N o r would

, .

these figures be laughable i f we imagined t hem de t ached

and abs t rac t ed from th ei r envi ronmen t T h e whole of .

our mirth arises from t he fac t t ha t th ey are se t i n j uxta

posi tion wi th other ordinary t ypes S o Poloni us becomes
.

amusing when we se e hi m se t agai nst Hamlet and H ora t io ,

Mr s Malaprop when con tras t ed wi th C harles S urface an d

the rest t he Res t ora t ion fop wh en compared wi th th e fine
,

cul tured gen t leman of t he age .

T his con fli ct of the individual and of socie t y is naturally , ,

oft en indistingui shable from a con fl ic t between t wo i n di

v idu als ; bu t a dis t inction may be made We find often .

tha t in comedy the la u ghable elemen t is i ncreased by the

direc t opposi tion of t wo eccentric individuals one t o a n other ,

an d by t he indi rect opposi tion of both t o society as a whole .

T hus D ogberry and V erges are foils to one another al though ,

nei ther is comic un t il we th ink of both as opposed to a world

of normal intelligences Benedick and Beatrice are similarly
.

amusi n g al though in a di fferen t manner bu t both take thei r

, ,

h umorous complexion so to speak from the presence beside

, ,

them of C laudio on the one hand and of H ero on the o th er .

C omedy however does no t always depen d upon e cc e n

, ,

tr ic itie s or abnormali ties and i t would appear as if a con flict

,

45
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA MA T I C T H E O RY

betw een an i ndi vidual o r a group wi th society is no t always

presen t i n the mind of th e dramatis t or of th e audience ,

ei ther di rectly or indirec t ly O n e of th e ch ief m o tifs of .

artistic comedy has no direct bearing on this namely the $

, ,

comedy tha t arises ou t of a con fl ic t of the sexes A ccording .

to M eredi th t rue comedy demands a cer tain stat e of socie ty

,

where men and women mee t on equal t erms t he laugh ter ,

arising o u t of t he C lash of th e male and female tempera

men ts N o w we may have whole series of t ragedi es wh ich
.

depend almos t en ti rely on heroes alone Marlowe s are .

’

th us pu rely masculine and even H am let is more masculine ,

than feminine On t he o th er hand mos t comedy is cer

.
,

tain l
y bisexual W e migh t search
. i n vain among th e

thousands of our comedies to discover one single play wherein

there was no t a t least one principal woman fi gu r e 1 T h e .

h umou r of Tw elfth N ight the gaiety and t he brilliance of ,

The Way of the Wo r ld the sparkle of The S cho o lfo r S ca n da l

, ,

are all heigh tened by or else take th ei r very inspi ration ,

from th e con fl ict between th e minds of men and of women

, .

T h is laugh t er of the sexes as we may style i t is apparen tly , ,

one of the mos t pri mi t ive emo t ions and i t s sou rce as is , ,

perfec t ly obvious arises di rectly ou t of an implied or sta t ed

,

an ta gonism T h e man who is gaily outwi t ted by the

.

woman as in F le t cher s The Tam er Ta m a th e ch iding

,
’ ’ ’
,

woman mastered by her h usband as in The Tam ing of the ,

S hr e w t h e primi tive ma t e-h un t refi n ed in t o C ul t ured forms

, ,

of the woman fo r the man as in F letcher s The Wild—G o o se ,

’

C ha se or of the man fo r t he woman as i n the same au t hor s

’

, ,

The S co r nful La dy will always remain s t ock si tua t ions in

,

o ur th ea t re .

All of t hese a re ou t ward con flic t s s t ruggles be tween an ,

1
As M d i th h s p i t e d
ere t i h i e a y O th I d
a o n f C dy o u n s ss n e ea o om e

an d th U e
f th C i S p i i t th w
se s o e ft
om h ad w
c r , e o m en o en o vers o

the m e Th e t yp ic al e x a p l i M ll
n . nt i Th W y f th m e s i am a n e a o e
Wo r ld .
 T RA G E D Y AN D C O ME D Y
individual and socie t y between two individuals or be tween
, ,

the sexes T here is no h int here of a comic inner s t ruggle

. .

T h is is no t so easily developed as a sense of inner t ragic

con flic t and is bu t rarely t o be discovered C omedy more .

frequen tly deals wi t h simple than wi th complex charac t ers ,

and accordingly has not th e means whereby t o sugges t a

struggle be t ween two emo t ions i n th e heart of th e one
man or of th e one woman Where complexi ty enters i nto .

comedy th ere is usually a h in t ei th er of th e pathetic or

of the t ragic T here is something laughable in S hylock s
.
’

Myda u gh ter O my ducats O my daugh t er I partly

because of the incongrui ty be t ween th e two obj ec t s bu t ,

partly because of t he inner s t r u ggle they reveal Y et .

S hylock s words are not comic

’
they approach very near
t o th e borders of t he t ragic I n th e same way there is .

occasional la u gh t er tha t arises from the words of L ear s ’

fool because these words reveal in th e mind of th e F00 1 a

,

con flic t be t ween profound i n telligence and disordered wi ts .

H ere again however th e figure of the F 0 0 1 is no t comic

, ,

bu t pa t hetic a fi tting foi l to L ear s agony T h e inner

,
’
.

con flict of th is t ype t hen al though i t is the glory of all

, ,

post-Elizabeth an t ragedy will be found no t fi tted for pure

,

com i c express i on .

T here is however one t yp e of inner con fl ic t wh ich

, ,

marks ou t th e works of th e finest comic dramatists a con ,

fl ic t no t be tween two though t s or t wo emo t io n s but between ,

two fancies leading toward what is usually known as esp r it

,

or wi t Wit is a word t ha t has often been exp lained

. .

Locke as is well known has defined i t as bei n g tha t quali ty

, ,

of our mind tha t brings t oge ther ideas wi th quickness and

variety Addison adop t ed L ocke s definition bu t added
.
’
,

tha t w it often deals not only wi th th e co n grui ty of ideas

but also wi th t hei r opposi t ion Whatever defini tion we adopt
.

we shall find tha t wi t is opposed t o h umour and t o the absurd

47
 I N T RO D U C T I O N TO D R A M A T I C T H E O RY

in t ha t i t is in t ellec t ual conscious ar t i ficial and refined

, , , .

I t is conscious and in t ellectual i n tha t th e crea t or of wi t ,

al though he may be laughed wi th is never laughed a t ; h e is ,

delibera t ely saying laughable th ings I t is ar t i ficial in t ha t .

i t arises no t ou t of n atu ral bu ffoonery or unconscious

eccen t rici t y I t is re fined i n tha t i t appears nowhere in
.

pri mi tive na t ions having been developed by long cen t u ri es

,

of i ntellec t ual pursui ts and of cul t u red conversat ion .

F undamen tally wi t arises o u t of the C on fl ic t of two i deas

,

or of an i dea and an obj ec t T h e ho n m o t is the expression

.

of a clash between two several fancies o r i deas combined for ,

one momen t t ogether I n i ts most O bvious form i t issues

.

forth as a pun in i ts h ighes t i t appears as a merely implied

confusion o f two conceptions I t marks an i n t ellectual .

acumen th e swi ft j uxtaposi tion of t wo ideas fundamen tally

,

inharmonious .

I t is th is con fl ic t of fancies t ha t appears as t he marked

characteristic of modern comedy I t appears in S hake .

speare s plays as a kind of e ffervescence over th e prevalen t

’

atmosphere of h umou r ; i t assumes C hief place in the

comedies of C ongreve and h is companions of the manners
school O n th is depends t he charm of The Wayof the Wo r ld
.
,

The S cho o lfo r S can dal and The Im p o r ta n ce of being Ea r n est

, .

( )
vi U N I VERS ALI T Y

So far i f we may pause for a momen t t o summarize ou r

,

resul ts we have found tha t con fl ic t is t he prime force i n all

,

drama tha t an outward con flict is what appeals mos t i n

th e thea t re ; and t ha t an i nward con fl ict appeals mos t i n
th e s t udy A play will be grea t as a piece of li teratu re only
.

when i t leaves t he borders of farce on t he one hand and of

melodrama on the other i t will be a grea t s tage and li terary
success only when i t combines t he t wo charac t eris t ics .

48
 T R A G E D Y AN D C O ME D Y
We may have however a tragedy or a comedy wherein
, ,

charac t er is deeply s t r essed and the inward is consciously

or unconsciously marked and which ye t may no t be a grea t
,

li terary t ri umph I t may be lai d down as an axiom tha t

.

beyond the C harac t eriza t ion and t he i nwardness there must

go some general a t mosphere or spi ri t which as i t were , ,

enwraps th e whole developmen t of the fable and t inges

the charac ters wi th a peculiar and domina t ing h ue T his .

spi ri t or a tmosphere I shall call universali ty .

Le t us agai n t urn from abs t rac t theories t o concrete

exa mples Le t us t ake the anonymous E lizabe than t ragedy
.

of Ar den of Fev er sham T his is a well -conceived an d a

.

well -penned drama t he very fac t tha t i t has been a tt ribu t ed

t o S hakespeare pro ves tha t N o t only is the dialogue ex
.

c e lle n t bu t th e cons t ruc t ion is balanced and harmonious

, ,

and th e charac t ers are delinea t ed i n a manner reached by

bu t few of t he E lizabe t han playwrigh t s We canno t de n y .

tha t th e play is a good one and ye t when we place i t along ,

side o f H am let or Lear or M ache th we feel no t only t ha t ,

i t is not as grea t as th ese bu t t ha t i t does no t stand in th e

,

same class of drama t ic productivi t y H am let and Lea r and .

Macheth we say are high t ragedies : Ar den of Fev e r sham

, ,

is merely a serious drama T here is evidently someth ing

.

lacking in t he play bu t i t is no t hing direc tly concerned wi th

,

plo t dic t ion or character What precisely is i t t ha t c o n

, , .

stitu te s i t s failure ? Or conversely wha t is i t lacking i n

, , ,

Ar den of F ev er sham which makes S hakespeare s plays great

,
’

Ar den of Fe v er sha m is a domestic t ragedy i t is merely a

drama t ized ballad t elling of a h usband murdered by his wife
and her lover I t is a domestic play bu t domestic plays
.
,

are no t necessarily t o be ruled ou t of the realms of high

t ragedy mos t O f I bsen s dramas rise t o a heigh t approach
’

ing t he masterpieces of S hakespeare ; so does O tw ays ’

The Or p ha n and Heywood s A Wo m a n Kille d w ith Kin dn e ss

’
.

D 49
 I N T RO D U CT I O N T O D RA M A T IC T H E OR Y

When we come t o look deeper we see tha t t h e real cause of

failure does no t lie in the subj ec t bu t in th e t rea t men t o f th e
subj ec t Ar den of Fe v er sham deals wi t h an independen t
.

and isola t ed even t and we call i t sordid as we would call a

, ,

similar newspaper accoun t of some recen t murder sordid .

T h e emotion i mpl ied by t his adj ective canno t perhaps be

very well defined accura t ely bu t i t signi fies a t any ra t e t ha t
,

t he reader of the play or of t he newspaper parag r aph has

no t been th rilled by wha t has been pu t before h im T h e .

accoun t see m s bald and bare uninformed by any broader ,

and h igher signi ficance T here is to use th e word wi t h

.
,

which we s t ar t ed no universali t y in i t T here is uni

, .

ve r salit
y i n H am le t ; t h ere is uni versali t y i n O th ello which ,

deals we may no t e wi th a theme somewha t similar t o th a t

, ,

of Ar d n of Fev er sh m ; th ere is un iversali t y i n Ven ice

e a

Pr s r v d and in A D o ll s H o use and i n R o sm er sho lm

e e
’ ’
1
It .

is a spi ri t of universali ty tha t marks ou t every grea t drama ,

no mat t er when or where th a t drama was produced I n .

wha t th is uni versali t y consis t s and how i t is a ttained may be

fi ttin gly left t o ou r more precise i nves t igation of th e na t ure
of t ragedy i t self .

Uni versali ty of a kind will also be found t o mark ou t

fine comedy T here is a sense i n al l grea t comedy as there
.
,

is in all grea t t ragedy t ha t t h e even t s and t h e characters

,

are no t isola t ed T hey are rela t ed in some way or another

.

t o t he world of ordinary li fe I n t he T artu ffes and t he .

Bo badills and t he Dogberrys of fine comedy we see as i t ,

were abs t rac t s of mankind ; there is nothing particular

,

or isola ted abou t them I f however we find in a comedy

.
, ,

a person such as D ryden s Bibber i n The Wild G ll n t ’

,
a a ,

we have a feeling t ha t t ha t person is independen t tha t he is ,

i t gg t t h at O t wa y H yw d
1 I d o t h no d t
er e n en o su es d , e oo , an
Ib se n ar e g t d
as ti t
rea Sh k p
r am a s s b t ly t h at
as a es e ar e , u m ere
th i fi
e r t play b l g t th a
n es s e on l o f d at i p d
e s m e c a ss o r am c ro uc
t i v ity .
 I N T R O DU CT I O N T O D R A MA T IC T H E O RY

retelling in drama t ic form of an ac t ual O ccurrence ; bu t

nowhere does A ris t otle analyse i n de t ail the charac t eristics
of t hose dramas which i n h is j udgmen t rise above t he
, ,

his t orical plane t o tha t of t he more philosophical

’ ’

poe t ry I n t he following pages t herefore t he t rea t men t

.
, ,

of t ragedy has frequently had t o be carried along lines no

where mapped ou t by t he Greek cri tic and as a consequence
,

we mus t no t e tha t al though h is r d xa dhk o v is ever wi t h

,

u s ye t for de t ail and for t he es t ima t ing of par t i cular means

,

and e ffec t s excep t perhaps where h e speaks abou t t he na t ure

,

of t he t ragic hero he has left us in his work no guiding clues

, .

52
 II
T R AG E DY

i( ) U N I VERS ALIT Y IN T RAG EDY

N passing from t he more general consideration of
the main characteristics of the h igher t ypes of dra m a
to a more detailed analysis of t ragedy and of comedy
in particular i t will be necessary even a t th e risk of some
, ,

repeti tion to cover some of th e ground already t raversed

, ,

in an endeavou r t o investigate t he methods and th e s t yles

of the various dramatists As the question of universali ty
.

is as has been shown one of paramoun t importance i n

, ,

an y s t udy O f tragedy , i t may form the groundwork of th is

analysis.

T H E I M P O R T A N C E O F TH E H E R O - We have al ready
.

seen tha t universali t y is an absol u t ely necessary elemen t

in every grea t t ragedy T h e ques t ion now arises as t o h ow
.

and by wha t particular methods i t has been ach ieved by

drama t is t s ancien t Elizabe than and modern I s i t arri ved
, , .

a t ex t ernally is i t instinct in th e conception of charac t er

, ,

or is i t a ttained bo t h from wi th in and from wi tho u t ?

H ere there is space only for a few considera t ions and
suggestions .

We may well s tar t ou r inves t iga t ion by quo t ing a few

words of A ris t o t le T h e t ragic hero h e s ta t es should be
.
, ,

some one of h igh fame and flourish ing prosperi t y ”

H igh .

fame and flourish ing prosperi t y are ph rases no t exac t ly

synonymous wi th kingsh ip bu t su ffi cien tly close t o i t t o
,

make A ris totle responsible for all t he la t er neo -classic dic ta

concerning t he illus t rious na t ure of th e h ero of t r agedy .

S3
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T IC T H E O RY

Wh ere th is subj ec t of illus t riousness is no t deal t wi th by any

la t er C lassical cri tic we may assume t ha t i t wa s so m uch
,

t aken for gran t ed tha t no th ing needed t o be sai d of i t F o r .

th e Greeks domes t ic t ragedy would have been impossible ;

for th e A ugus ta ns i t was ana t h ema .

N o t only classical precep t however demanded a monarch , ,

o r an i llus t rious person for a t ragic h ero I n medieval days .

i t was t aci tly assumed t ha t all t ragedy dea l t wi th kings and

wi th princes an assump t ion arri ved a t independen t ly o f
,

A ris t o t le and h is followers Chaucer s Monk says .

’

T r a ge di e is to se yn a c e r te yn sto r i e ,
As o l de b o ke s m a ke n u s m e m o r i e ,
O f him that sto o d in gr e e t p r o sp e r ite e
An d is y-fal le n o ut o f h e i gh de gr e e
I n to m i se ri e ,
an d e n de t h w r e c c h e dl 1
y .

A n d th e s t ories t ha t h e t ells deal almos t en t i rely wi th

ea r t hly po t en t a t es save fo r a few B i blical and my t hological
,

personages .

T h e conception of t ragedy as t h e falling from prosperi t y

i n t o misery and wre t chedness we shall consider i n grea t er
detail h ereafter ; for t h e momen t le t us concern o u rselves
solely wi th t h is view of th e t ragi c hero a view shared ,

by t h e classical an d by th e medieval t radi tion al i ke Wh en .

we consi der th is view in the ligh t of th e spi ri t of uni versal i t y

i t is evi den t t ha t h ere we have one of th e crudes t al th ough ,

a t th e same t ime one of th e commones t me t hods of secu ring ,

some a tmosphere t ha t goes beyond t h e mere figures presen t ed

on t h e stage T h e presence of a person of prominence as
.

a h ero gives t h e sense tha t more is in volved than is apparen t

on th e su rface I n th e t imes wh en kingsh ip mean t more
'

1 t
I t sh o u ld b e n o e d h e r e h t at as dr a aw
m la r g e ly n o n -e is e n
as x t t
i
in th e m e d e v a l w
o r ld , e c e p x t in th e s h a p e o f t h e m ys e r ie s , t
t r a edy
g a
m e n s fo r h u c er m C a e r e ly r gic ta le s su c h as h i s Mo n k
ta
t
p u s fo r wa rd .

54
 T RA G E D Y

t han i t does t o -day (a t leas t for th e maj ori t y of Wes t ern

na t ions) men saw in t h e monarch -h ero no t merely an
,

individual in t h e pangs of misery and despai r bu t a symbol ,

of the whole fa t e of a kingdom I n modern days of course

.
, ,

this me thod of securing universali ty is of no avail Having .

los t all respec t for kings living as we do in lands wh ere

,

democracy reigns i n fac t i f no t always in t heory we have ,

abandoned t his i dea t ha t a king s for t unes are necessarily

’

bound up wi t h t h e for t unes of h is subj ec t s I t is fu t ile .

now ; a t i t s bes t i t was perhaps bu t a feeble way o u t of a

di ffi cul t y ; bu t for th e age of classical Greece and for th e
medieval world i t was a thoroughly legi tima t e method of
gaining th is end I n Elizabe t han days i t s power and i t s
.

value were al ready fading T h e appearance of Ar den of

.

Fev er sham and of A Wo m a n Kille d w ith K in dn ess i n the la t e

six t een th and early seven t e en t h cen t uries may be regarded
as t he a tt emp t s of unconscious revol utionaries t o overth row
the old conven t ions t o express someth ing more in keeping
,

wi th a newer age T hose plays are t o be associa t ed wi th

.

th e gradual rise of parliamen t ary con t rol an d th e emergence

of the middle classes j us t as L i llo s Th e Lo n do n M er cha n t

,
’
,

wh ich was ac t ually as revol u t ionary as t he Jacobins is t o ,

be looked a t from t he poin t of view of tha t rapidly changing

Engl ish socie t y of t h e mid —eigh t een th cen t u ry .

While we recognize however tha t th e presence of th e

, ,

monarch -h ero as a means of securing universali ty is n ow

impossible and t ha t even in Elizabe than t imes th e conven t ion
,

was becoming t h readbare we mus t remember tha t i f we

,

abandon such t hemes of fi t t ing magni t ude th en some

th ing mus t be in t roduced wh ich may take th e place of t ha t
emotion wh ich the fall of a ki n g or of a prince aroused in
earlier days T here is th e warning of Ar den of Fev er sham
.

ever before us T h e theme of th is play is lowered from

.

the seven t een th -cen t ury poin t of view and no th ing is given ,

55
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T IC T H E O RY

i n compensa t ion H erein we shall find l ies one o f th e

.
, ,

main difli c u ltie s o f t h e domestic drama .

I N T R O D UC T I O N O F T H E S U P E R N A T URA L — I t mus t no t be .

supposed of co u rse tha t th e i n t roduc t ion of a royal h ero

, ,

was th e sole method employed by t h e ancien t d rama t is t s

to secu re un iversal i ty T here are many o th ers no t men
.
,

tio n e d by A ris t o t le bu t figuring in plays G reek as well

,

as E ngl ish O f th ese probably t h e mos t po t en t is th e

.

di rec t presen t a t ion of some force tha t is ex t ra -h uman a ,

force t ha t a t once serves as a fai rly powerful means o f

ob t ain ing an a t mosph ere broader t han th e mere indivi dual
even ts enac t ed upon t h e s t age and of provi ding some ,

emo t ion of awe wh ich i t wi ll be found is one of th e prime

, ,

essen tials of t ragedy I f we t ake t h e famous t rilogy of

.

lEsc h ylu s— Aga m em n o n C ho ep ho r ce and E um en ide s— w e

, ,

discover t ha t par t a t leas t of the spi ri t of t h ese plays comes

from t h e sense of th e superna t u ra l presen t ed no t only visibly ,

bu t by in t ellec t ual sugges t ion T h e F u ries en t er upon .

th e s tage i n person ; t h e ghos t of Cly t emnes t ra rises and

addresses t h e audience ; and over and above t hese t here , ,

i s a vas t indefini t e background of fa t e A wh ole h ouse is .

doomed D isas t er misery crime follow on th e foo t s t eps of

.
, ,

i t s every scion N o one can escape ; t h e curse li es beyon d

.

t h e power and con t rol of t h e par t icular ac tors I mme .

dia te ly by t h is means an o t h erwise sordid s t ory of m u rder

, ,

and revenge has been carried t o h igh er levels and assumes ,

a t once a peculiar signi ficance of i ts own .

T h ere appear na t u rally many divergen t means of in t ro

, ,

du c in g t h is superna t u ral in t ragedy s t re t ch ing from th e crude ,

presen ta t ion of a gh os t ly figu re t o th e meres t sugges t ion of

an in de fi n ab le a t mosph ere wh ere no t h ing is dogma t ically
sta t ed bu t wh ere vague h in t s half-visionary fl oa t ing wisps
, ,

of t hough t and feel ing are cas t before t he spec t a t ors T h e

, .

in t roduc t ion of a god in t o a play is t h e mos t simple of all ,

56
 T RA G E D Y

bu t th is as is perfec t ly obvious was possible only in the

, ,

dramas of Greece and in t h e primi tive mys t eries of medieval

E urope . I n E lizabe than plays as in th e modern th ea t re
, ,

t he presence of a heavenly visi tan t is almos t always im

possible T h e failure o f F letcher s C up id s R ev enge is du e
.
’ ’

entirely t o the inser t ion of th e God of L ove in h uman shape

persecu t ing th e mor tal figures around h im T h ere is a t .

o n ce some th ing crude and incongruous in h is presence We .

have los t t he religion t ha t migh t have made possible fo r us

h is in t erference in t h e developmen t of th e plo t and we have ,

los t t he medieval n a iv eté t ha t migh t have acquiesced i n h is

appearance M ore delica t e use of heavenly agen t s may
.

perhaps be found in the angels of Massinger and De kke r s ’

Th e Vir g in M a r tyr or in t h e disguised spiri t s of Yea t s

’

C o untess C a thlee n bu t for t h e mos t par t th e i n t roduction

of heavenly or diabol ic forces i n modern drama m us t be
abnormal and unsui t ed t o t he t as t es and beliefs of t h e
age Ghos t s on th e con t rary domi na t ed t h e E lizabe t han
.
, ,

as they domina t ed the G reek stage T h ey were accep t ed .

by the spec tators wi th a kind of awed wonder T h ey were .

drama t ically t rue in those days ; and even in th is t wen t ieth

cen t ury t h ere are some among us who have no t abandoned
fai t h i n th ei r real i t y and t hei r power I n lEsc h ylu s as .
,

we have seen they made t hei r early appearance T h ey

, .

were t aken over by E uripi des and especially developed by

,

h im as spi ri ts symbols and even instrumen ts of revenge

, , .

S eneca seized upon th em and t hence t h ey passed over t o

,

K yd and t o t he E lizabe than th ea t re generally T h e ghos t .

of Hamlet s father is th erefore th e di rec t descendan t wi th a

’
,

clearly t raceable genealogy of th e ghos t of C ly t emnes t ra

,

i n t h e Eum en ides .

I t will a t once be observed tha t t h e dramatic force of th e

ghos t j ust as tha t of the monarch -hero will depend largely
, ,

upon t he fai th of t he audience I f a ghos t be pu t fo r ward

.

57
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T IC T H E ORY

as an in t egral par t of a serious play in p r op r ia p er so n a a

, ,

t ouch of cyn icism o r of ac t ive disbel ief will kill a t once

th e par t icular mood wh i ch i t is th e business o f t ragedy t o
call for t h in u s T h is t ru th apparen t ly was realized prob
.
,

ably unconsciously by S hakespea re and h is example is so

, ,

importan t tha t perhaps a momen t may be spen t here in con

side r in g h is special t rea tmen t of th is t h eme T h e Greek
.

ghos t s were for th e mos t par t ordinary superna t u ral visi ta n t s ,

wh ich though connec t ed wi th t h e l ives an d th e ac t ions of

,

th e dr am a tis p e r so n e were fundamen ta lly separat ed from

e ,

th em . Wi th S hakespeare th e superna t u ral is always rela t ed

t o t h e th ough ts an d th e i deas of a t leas t one l iving t ragic
charac t er H am let will serve as an example I n th is play
. .

th e prince is made t o have h is suspicions of th e mu rder of

h is fa th er before ever he sees t he spi ri t I doub t some foul
.

play are h is words a t th e close of A c t I S cene I I

,
”
, O .

my prophe t i c soul 1 h e cri es on h ea ring t h e t ru th from

”

th e i mma t erial lips of h is si re ( A c t I S cene v )

, T h e ghos t
.

i n H am le t is th e crudes t of all S hakespea re s gh o sts an d ’ A

ye t how wonderfully i t is sugges t ed and how far S hakespea re

,

has escaped th e di ffi cul t ies presen t ed by dogma t ic in t roduc t ion

of th e superna t ural in an age of doub t an d Of specula t ion ,

m a wel l be seen wh en we compare th e ghos t of H am le t

y
wi th th e ghos t of A n drea i n Th e S p a n ish Tr agedy I n th e .

la tt er th ere is no prepara t ion made for th e spi ri t s appea ra nce

’
.

I t is th rus t fo rward on t o th e s tage a t th e s ta r t and i t s very

,

cruden ess mus t s ta r t le an d disappoin t no t only th ose wh o ,

i n Jonson s words are somewha t cos t ive of bel ief bu t

’

,
$ ”
,

those wh o fi rmly bel ieve i n these visi tan t s from ano th er

wo rld .

I t may be no ted fu r th er t ha t S hakespeare no t only t h us

sugges t s i n th e words of t h e h ero th is connexion be t ween
, ,

th e personali ty of H amle t and th e ghos t i tself bu t i n ,

o t her ways t ends t o mi t iga t e t h e crude appea ran ce o f th e

58
 I N T RO D U CT I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H E O RY

wi t ches had appeared t o h i m on t h e hea t h T hese wi t ch es .

,

th erefore are i n par t co rporeal in par t superna t u ral in par t

, , ,

th e personi fied temp t a t ions o f Macbe th h imself T here is .

th e sense tha t we are i n t ouch wi th in fin i t e in de fi n able , ,

and i n tangible forces of t h e un iverse and ye t th ere remains

a doub t T h e subtle t y of S hakespea re disarms o u r pre
.

conception whe th er t ha t preconcep t ion be o f bel ief o r of

,

disbelief .

T H E S E N S E O F F A TE — T h e ghos t however even when

-
.
, ,

t rea t ed wi t h th e gen i us of a S hakespeare will always remain ,

a somewha t crude method of in troducing t he superna t u ral .

M uch more e ffec t ive probably an d more refined is t he general

sense of fa t e whi ch is presen t ed i n a n umber of t ragedies
bo th ancien t and modern I n a drama such as G dip us .

Tyr a n n u s we feel tha t t here is some t hi ng wh ich cons tan tly

b a flle s h uman e ff or t F a t e appears above th e s t age li ke a
.

fou r t h actor playing a principal part cheating deceiving

, , , ,

be t raying wa t ch ing wi th a grim smile t he bl undering ac t ions

,

of th e miserable king Wi th S hakespeare agai n th is sense

.

of fa t e in t ragedy reappears al th ough once more i n a modi fied

,

form T h e only drama of h is in wh ich i t is deeply t o be

.

fel t is R o m eo a n d 7 uliet and t h is play is separa t ed i n many

,

respec t s from t h e other grea t t ragedi es .

T here a re t wo poi n ts wh ich migh t h ere be no t ed F i rs t .

,

S hakespeare presen t s t o us in t h is and i n h is o t her dramas

both chance or l uck and fa t e Wi t h chance t here is barel y
, , .

a sense of an ou t er-worl d power governing ou r actions ,

al t hough t ha t sense may be h in t ed a t vaguely and i n hesi ,

t ating accen t s wi th fate however t here is a di rec t assu m p

, ,

tion t ha t a conscious o r unconscious superna t u ra l agen t is

gu iding and shaping o u r ac t ions I n R o m e o a n d ffulie t as .
,

we have seen the la tt er i dea of fa t e is expressed T h e lovers

, .

are ill -sta rred from th e very beginn ing J ulie t has her .

premoni t ory vision of ill -for t une Romeo s wo rds of hope .

’

60
 T RA G E D Y

a t t he opening of Ac t V are sha tt ered and t ransfo rmed as i f

some leering imma t erial being had heard them an d were
j esting wi th h is miserable puppe t below I n th e oth er .

t ragedies S hakespeare appears usually t o have preferred t o

imply simply chance I t was chance tha t led to Hamlet s
.
’

boarding th e pi ra t e sloop i t was chance t hat made D uncan

come t o Macbeth ; i t was chance tha t brough t B ianca in
wi th th e handkerch ief when O t hello was eavesdropping .

F ate di rect fate occurs only in th e one early play

, ,
1
.

On t he other hand i t is very noticeable particularly as

, ,

according wi th h is usual habi t of suggestion and wi th h is

own elusive a t ti tude toward ma tt ers of doubt tha t S hake ,

speare has frequently in t ensi fied th e fatal as opposed t o the

chance sense of h is t ragedies by th e in t roduction of some
conversa t ion be t ween h is C haracters on supernatu ral themes
and on t he in fl uence of th e h eavenly bodies upon h uman
ac t ion T h is conversation on sta rry in fl uence however is
.
, ,

inconcl usive in th e sense that i t tells us noth ing of S hake

speare s own a t ti t ude
’
T h is is the excellen t foppery of
.

tha t wh en we are sick in

”
the world sneers E dmund
, ,

for t une often t h e surfei t of our own behaviou r we make

, ,

gu il t y O f ou r disasters th e sun th e moon and th e stars ,

”
, .

I n th e same play K en t uninformed of E dmund s words

,
’
,

says ,
It is th e star s ,

T h e star s a b o v e u s go v e rn o u r c o n d it io n s
,
.

I n o th er t ragedies charac t ers such as Iago wi th his I t is

in ourselves tha t we are t h us and t h us ech o th e words of
E dmund wh ile o thers repea t in di fferen t forms the beliefs
,

of K en t I t has bee n already noted by Professo r B radley

.

tha t S hakespeare puts all h is anti -fa t e speeches in to th e

mou t hs of h is bad charac t ers Edmund an d Iago in particular ;
,

1
O n S h ak e sp e r ea ’
s u se o f Fo r t une Dr S m a ts
r
’
e ssa y o n T r age dy
t
sh o u ld b e c o n su l e d .

6I
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D R A M A T I C T H EO RY

bu t th e converse t o t ha t has hardly been obse r ved I t is .

t rue tha t these speeches are pu t in t o th e mou ths o f evi l

persons bu t those evil persons are clever and men t ally aler t ;
,

wh ereas th e belief in fa t e and in s tarry in fl uence is all i n t he

mou ths of good hones t people who are however like K en t
, , , , ,

usually s t upi d an d unin t ellec t ual S hakespeare again t akes

.

up an a t ti t ude nei th er approvi ng no r disapproving He .

u tilizes th e sense of fa t e bu t never employs any di rec t

,

in terven t ion i n h uman a ff ai rs on th e par t o f th e gods nor ,

delibera t ely enuncia t es a belief i n superna t ura l in fl uence .

E ven h is use of chance is inciden t al E xcep t i n R o m e o a n d

.

u lie t i t never operates on t h e main plo t of a play so

7 as
to bring abou t th e ca tas t roph e T ha t Hamle t was brough t
.

back t o D enmark was a pi ece o f chance bu t th e dea th ,

covered s tage a t th e close of th e play arose ou t of no chance

i t was th e di rec t resul t of th e queen s indecision and weak ’

ness of th e king s dupl ici ty of Laer t es ha t e and of Hamlet s

,
’
,
’
,
’

loss of all ca re and in t eres t in l ife .

T RAG I C I R O N Y -Besides th ese methods of secu ring a

.

sense of superna t u ral forces above and beyon d th e drama

enac t ed upon th e s t age t here are many o t hers probably less
, ,

tangible and less i mmediately apparen t ye t none th e less ,

e ffec t ive T h e simple use of t ragic i rony really presupposes

.
,

o r a t any ra t e h in t s vaguely a t a force ou t side h uman ken

, .

Wi th t h e G reeks t ragic i rony was t ruly th e warping by the

gods of a speech o r a promise of one of th e dr am a tis p er so n a
in a drama T h is device is used bu t sparingly by S hakespeare
.
,

for i t demands t h e assumption of a conscious fa ta l powe r

in th e un iverse— an assump t ion wh ich as we have seen , ,

S hakespeare was no t prepared t o admi t T h e d ramatic .

i rony wh ich arises o u t of t heatrical ci rcums t ances is common

in h is works bu t th e deeper more pagan i rony i s largely
, , ,

absen t M inor supernatural e ffec t s h owever almos t always

.
, ,

in t roduced by narration h e employs constan t ly We h ear

'

.
,

62
 T RA G E D Y

of th e dead gibbering in th e s t ree t s of Rome after C m sar s ’

fall we are told of horses going mad i n M a che th Ye t here .

again the sense of t he superna t ural is only partial .

T he n i gh t h as b e e n ruly; w h e r e w e lay
un ,

O u r c him n e ys w e r e b l o w n do wn an d as th ey say , , ,

Lam e n ti n gs h ea r d i th e air str a n ge sc re a m s o f de ath

’
, ,

An d p r o p h e syi n g w ith a c c e n ts t e r r i b l e
O f di r e c o m b u sti o n an d c o n fu se d ev e n ts
N e w h atc h d to th e w o fu l ti m e th e o b sc u r e b i r d
’

C lam o u r d th e li v e l o n g n i gh t so m e say th e e a r t h
’
,

Was fe v e r o u s an d did shake 1

So we are t old ; bu t we canno t be sure t ha t L ennox is no t

mis taken T h e supernatural even ts are given in hearsay
.
,

no t in reali ty I t is noticeable in th is speech tha t not only

.

are th e strange even t s no t in troduced upon th e s tage bu t

1'

,
’
those wh ich are mos t peculiar th e lamentings in th e ai r ,

and the shaking of t he ear th are prefaced by L ennox h imself

,

wi th t he quali fying ph rase as they say All h e avers h e .

has seen or heard is t h e fall of ch imneys and th e hooting of

the owl S omewha t of th e same na t ure is C asca s accoun t
.
’

of the prodigies wi tnessed before th e death of C aesar 2

.

He h imself has cer t ainly seen a tempest dropping fi re ”

,

a slave whose hand was bu rning a lion wh ich wen t surly ,

by bu t the men all in fi re tha t walked up and down

”
,

th e s t ree t s were viewed no t by h im bu t only by a grou p

, ,

of t error-stricken women .

PA TH ET I C FA LLA C Y — T hese las t quo t a t ions from 7 uliu s

.

C m sar and from M a che th also illus t ra t e one o t her minor

me thod of inducing a superna t ural o r semi -superna t ural
e ffec t a method employed most largely by S hakespeare
, .

In h is t ragedies and even in h is comedies t here is u t ilized

, ,

wha t may be s tyled a kind of path e t ic fallacy o r rather , ,

1
M ac be th Ac t I I S c e n e I I I
, , .

j u li u s C aes a r Ac t I S c e n e
2
, , I II .

63
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T HEO RY

perhaps a species of na t u ral symbolism I t is apparen t in a

, .

sl igh t way in Po r t ia s I t is almos t morn ing in th e las t

’ ”
,

act of The M er cha n t of Ve n ice More clearly is i t t o be .

found i n th e words of Pedro in t h e las t ac t of M uch Ado

a bo u t N o thing

G oo d r w m aste r s p u t yo u r t o r c h e s o u t
m or o ,

T he wo l v e s have p r e y d an d l o o k th e ge n tle
’

, day,
Be fo r e th e w he e l s o f Ph ce b u s r o u n d a b o u t ,

Dappl e s th e d r o wsy e ast w it h sp o ts o f gr ey .

I t is eviden t in the darkness and t he gloom of t h e cas t le in

wh ich D uncan is mu rdered an d i n th e s orm scenes of Lea r ,
t
,

where th e lash ing hail and t h e driving wind seem t o sympa

th iz e wi t h th e aged king th e t empes t ou tside symbolizing i n
,

a way th e t empes t of madness in h is own brain T h is na t ural .

symbolism has of course been used by o th er dramatic poe t s

, , ,

ancien t and modern bu t no t t o t he ex t en t in wh ich i t appears

,

in S hakespeare s dramas T h e mos t marked example from

’
.

t h e G reek s tage is in t he background of S ophocles al mos t ’

roman tic t ragedy of Philo ctetes .

T H E S U B -P L O T — T h e presence of t h e monarch -hero a nd

.

the use of t he superna t ural i n one of i ts many forms are as ,

we have seen t wo of th e mos t frequen t means of securing

,

a feel ing of un iversali ty employed by t he Greek and by t h e

E l izabe than playwrigh t s We may pass now t o consider a
.

fai rly common roman tic expedien t den ied because of t h e , ,

restrictions of th ei r s tage to t he ancients T h is is th e use

, .

of th e su b -plo t T o coun ter th e sense of individual i t y and

.

of detached tragic spi ri t wh ich is raised by th e presence in

all grea t dramas of an ou tstanding personali t y for th e hero ,

th e E lizabethans and S hakespeare in par t icular frequen t ly

, ,

made th e sub -pl o t a dupl ication o r an explanation of t h e

mai n theme of th e play T h us L ear s ci rcums t ances and
.
’

fa t e are no t sol i tary and de tach ed He is driven ou t by t h e .

64
 T RA G E D Y

daugh ters who professed to love h im and is cared for by th e ,

daugh ter h is own folly had driven away I n exactly similar .

manner Gloucester is chea t ed and be t rayed by h is loved

son E dmund wh ile E dgar whom he has i n j ured j oins
, , ,

h im in h is misery and rel ieves h is cares T h is parallel so .

apparen t i n t he sub-plo t and evidently i n t roduced for a

,

conscious pu rpose gives the sense that th e ill -trea t men t of

,

L ear is no isolated t h ing : i t is re flected elsewh ere in th e

posi tion of Gloucester and seeing th is we are led u n c o n
, , ,

sc io u sl t o believe tha t i t may have a much broader and wider

y
sign i ficance S o t oo in M a c he th Banquo is assailed by
.

t emp ta t ions similar t o th ose wh ich had drawn th e king t o

”
murder and to a life of crime H ush no more h e says
.
,

a t th e beginning of Act I I I h is evi l though ts dwelling ,

upo n ideas of kingsh ip Macbeth is t h us no t en t i rely alone

.

h is posi t ion is no t unrelated t o th e posi tions of o th ers Pe r .

haps also we may see someth ing of a similar phenomenon

, ,

in Othello and i n H am let I n both of th ese plays the sub

.

plo t works ra th er by con t ras t than by parallel T h e tragedy .

o f Oth ello depends upon t h e apparen t i n fi deli t y of a wife ;

and th is theme of i n fidel i ty is caugh t up again in th e rela t ions

be tween Iago and E milia 1
S o i n H a m le t th e th eme is
.

revenge for a fa ther s mu rder and t h is is repeated in an al tered

’
,

form i n th e passion of L aertes a t th e death of Poloni us .

H ere as in Othello h owever the con trast is emphasized

, , ,
.

Jus t as Iago is opposed t o O th ello and Emilia s vulgari ty to ,

’

Desdemona s innocence so H amle t is opposed t o th e tem

’
,

p e stu o u s and resol u t e L aertes and Polon i u s garrulous and , ,

weak t o th e imaged figure of th e royal Dane

,
”
.

Once more as S hakespeare sh ows us actual enunciation

, ,

is no t requi red in t ragedy ; suggestion mere h in ts fac t s , ,

mentioned in passing as pu rest tr ifl e s suddenly and often u n ,

consciously assume tremendous and dominating impor t ance .

P s ib ly a lso i t h s o f C as io a d B i a c a
1
o s n o e s n n .

E 65
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T IC T H E O RY

S Y M BO LI S M T H E H E R O —T h e employmen t of a sub
IN .

plo t rela t ed t o t h e main th eme o f the play is no t one much

u t il ized in ou r modern drama T here has been a cer tain .

reaction t o t h e sometimes formless roman t icism of t h e

earl ier s tage and th is coupled wi th t he new requi remen t s
, ,

of t he twen t ieth -cen t u ry t h ea t re has t ended t o reduce ,

bo th t rag edy and comedy t o some th ing approach ing classical

proportions H ardly one of t hese meth ods we have already
.

considered th erefore may be freely an d na t urally employed

, ,

a t th e presen t day T h ere are h owever o th er ways open

.
, ,

t o modern dramatis t s and of t hese th e ch ief perhaps is th e

,

i den ti fica t ion no t necessarily expressed in so many words

, ,

of th e h ero wi t h an i deal wi t h a fai th o r wi th a class , ,

a method u t i lized to a minor ex t en t by t h e G reeks hardly a t ,

all by S hakespeare an d mos t largely by t he drama t is t s of

,

th e las t t wo cen t u ries I f we refer once more t o Ar den of

.

F e v e r sham we shall find tha t A rden represen t s absol u t ely

no th ing o u t side h imsel f Had h e been as i t were th e .
, ,

symbol of a t ype of men had h e embraced in h imself th e ,

expression o f a h igh i deal had h e passed beyond the limi ts ,

of mere individual exis t ence th en t h e play o f wh ich h e was ,

th e h ero migh t have risen almos t t o t h e level of S hake

sp e ar ian grea tn ess Al t hough lacking all o t her means of
.

ob taining th e feel ing of uni versali t y by royal t y o r suggestions ,

of th e superna t u ral or sub -plo t i t would ye t have taken on ,

a new complexion ; i t would have gripped ou r a tt en t ion

and th rilled us as now i t canno t do .

I t has been poin ted ou t by Professo r V aughan wh o ,

has th us followed t he l ine lai d down by H egel tha t th e ,

An tigo n e of S ophocles employs t h is device 1 C reon t here is .

th e r e p r e se n tative of a j us t ice t ha t is based on ear th ly laws ;

l
1
t
Al h o u gh P r o fe sso r Va u gh a h s
n a no t t
r e la e d th e d e v ic e to th e
i
s e c u r n g o f u n iv e r s l y a it . Fo r r a c iti i
c sm o f H e ge l s
’
v ie w s in r eg a rd
to t i a
h s p l y se e D r S m r at ’
s T r a ge dy .

66
 I N T RO D U C T I O N TO D RA M A T I C T H E O RY

grandi principi i ignorato — bu t th e Elizabe than age was

”

l ike tha t T h e passion for a fai th apar t from rel igion grew
.

largely i n la t er years I t was presen t i n t he C ivil Wa r O f

.

1 6 42 i t was presen t in th e Rebellion of 1 6 8 8 bu t i t did

no t reach i ts in t ensi ty un til th e F rench Revolu tion had
founded a new world on t h e ashes of the old T h e t en .

den e y of li tera t ure as of li fe since 1 7 8 9 has been t oward

th e expression of social iza t ion toward a grouping o f ,

personal i ties under bro ader standards ; some t imes t oward t h e

very n ega t ion of personali ty sometimes as i n anarch is t
, ,

t hough t expressed in li tera t ure by William Morris t oward ,

th e realiza t ion of personal i t y only th rough grouping o r col

le c tiv ism . F u t u re d rama expressing these t endencies will
, ,

t herefore veer toward t h e presen ta t ion of vas t er forces of ,

classes of bel iefs ei ther in abs t rac t form or symbolically

, , , , ,

t h rough t he concre t e presence of a represen ta t ive personali ty .

S uch plays as Galsworthy s S tr ife an d 7 ustice are n o t mere

’

problem dramas th ey are t ragedies i n wh ich t h e forces and

classes and bel iefs of presen t-day exis t ence mee t and d ash .

I n S tr ife th e con fl icting charac t ers are no t i ndividuals as ,

t hey wo uld have been i n Elizabe t han days ; th ey are bu t

fi gu r e -heads symbols of elemen ts t oo vas t t o be presen t ed
,

wi th i n the l imi t s o f an o rdi nary th eatre E verywh ere i n .

modern ar t we c an wi t ness a passion for t h is i dealiza t io n ,

for t h e embodying of abs t rac t o r collective forces i n con

cre t e form I t reach es i ts fulles t expression i n a un i versal
.

d rama such as Hardy s Th e Dyn asts We may even expec t

’
.

t o se e in t h e near fu t ure an enlargemen t and al t eration of

t h e th ea t re co rresponding t o th e fuller real ization o f th is
,

passion Reinhardt s new playhouse wi th i ts vas t er s tage

.
’
, ,

capable of in troducing crowds and masses of people may wel l ,

be taken as an example of t h e modern developmen t in s ta ge

construction 1 .

S e e infr a , p p 3 ff
1
. 1 1 .

68
 T RA G E D Y

EX TE R N A L S Y M B O L I S M .
— C losely connected
wi th th is iden
tifi c atio n of the hero of a drama wi th a class or a fai th goes

tha t other use of what may be called external symbolism ,

a device employed by playwrigh ts of all ages bu t probably ,

wi th most e ffect in ou r own days T here is a typical instance

.

’
of th is in th e wild d u ck wh ich is introduced in to I bsen s
play of tha t name T h e horses in R o sm e r sho lm are examples
.

of th e same t endency S yn ge s R ide r s to the S ea has a

.
’

similar atmosphere T h ere is i n all of these an endeavour

.

to fix on some one O bj ect ou tsi de th e ch aracters th emselves

an d to treat th at O bj ect as a force or symbolic of a force , ,

opera t ing from wi thou t on t h e action of th e drama o r else ,

to treat i t as symbolic of a vas t er sph ere of action connec t ing ,

the dr am a tis p er so n e wi th the uni verse a t large I t serves

a .

th e double pu rpose of fu sing t ogeth er in one atmosphere

the varying figures of th e play connec t i n g them wi th the
,

audi ence and wi th the world beyond the audience and of ,

providing some suggestion of forces apart from the events

given on th e stage T h e roaring wa t ers referred t o so often
.

i n Mase fi e ld s The Tr ag edy of N a n act somewhat in th is

’

way T h e ring an d t h e well i n Maeterl inck s Pellea s e t

'
’
.

M elisa n de are symboli c and permanent th i n gs immutable

’

as the characters are no t T h e backgrou n d of Pr z yb y

.

sz e w ski s S n o w has the same force H ere the wide expanse

’
.

of snow visible t o the audience th rough the wi n dows of

,

the cosily warmed room provi des a general atmosphere fo r

,

the tragedy T h e snow is not only a symbol of B r o n ka s

.
’

mind ; i t is a symbol of someth ing outside B ro n ka of ,

some th ing grea t er and eternal Occasionally th is external

.
,

symbolism is expressed in th e form of a person an d in th is ,

manner links i tself wi th the use of th e supernatural T h e .

nurse in th is las t-mentioned play of Pr z yb ysz e w ski s is ’

symbolic half-connec t ed wi th another world T h e ol d

, .

madman in The Tr age dy of N a n has a similar power T h e .

69
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H E O RY

wi tch es give uni ty of t one and universali t y t o M ache th as ,

does t h e Ghost to H am le t .

H E R ED I T Y — T h e introduc t ion
. however of such a
, ,

symboli c person is usually esch ewed i n modern t ragedy for

reasons tha t wi ll a t once be apparen t T h e Old sense o f fate
.

has gone and th e di rect sugges t ion of a superna t ural force

,

is someh o w incongruous S cience and explanation of facts

.

by natural means have taken t he place of supers t i tion and

th e belief in a di rec t superh uman in fl uence T h is change
of a t ti t ude is seen n owh ere more clearly t han i n t h e dis
appearance o f the anci en t Greek theme of a doomed h ouse
and i n t h e substi tution t h erefor of th e u se of heredi t y .

H eredi t y is t h e fa t e of ou r presen t-day exis t ence j us t as ,

t erri ble an d j us t as awe -inspi ring t o t h e modern a theis t o r

sci en tis t as ever th e th ree sisters were t o an ancien t Greek .

T h e most famous example of i ts u t ilization appears in I bsen s

’

G ho sts bu t th ere are many o th er hardly less marked occu r

,

ren e es Of i t i n modern d rama I n G ho sts th e real t r agic

.

Spi ri t arises no t from th e pai n and th e su ffering of th e indi

v idu als alone bu t from t h e realization in the minds of readers
,

an d audience t hat t h is is a curse t ha t passes beyond the borders

of th e li fe and death of an i ndivi dual and t ha t h eredi t y has
,

sway over all I n i ts pu rer form of course th is th eme

.
, ,

could no t O ften be t reated wi tho u t becoming t edious and

mono t onous ; bu t i t can be adap t ed i n countless ways so as
t o appear i n a disg u ised bu t no t necessarily less poten t shape .

T h e t wo dramas men t ioned i mmediately above The Tr age dy ,

o
f N a n and S n o w have i
,
t sugges t ed in a certain way i f no t ,

ac t ually sta t ed T h e tragedy of N an arises ou t of h eredi ty

.
,

ou t of th e cu rse laid no t by th e gods bu t by society upon an

, ,

innocen t girl I n S n o w heredi ty is h in ted a t con tinually

. .

B r o n ka s sister we are told ended her l ife t ragically and no t

’
, , ,

only so bu t precisely in the same manner as th e h eroine

,

before us A t once we feel the co n nexion between th e t wo

.
,

70
 T RA G E D Y

and th us apprecia t e subconsciousl y the rela t ionsh ip be t ween

the charac t ers on the stage and forces beyond th e theatre .

T here are of course o ther me thods of obtain ing th is

, ,

feeling of universali ty T h e means are l i t erally innumerable

.

by which drama t is t s ancien t Elizabethan and modern have

, ,

carried th ei r plays ou t of th e limi tations of th e actual and

the par t icular t o o t her planes of existence S ome of these .

means are intimately connec t ed wi th th e very source of th e

tragic spiri t i tself such as tha t impression of waste wh ich
,

Professor B radley has discerned in all the S hakespearian

t ragedy T h is impression of was t e gives power and digni ty
.

to th e whole t ragic impression in th e presen tation of th e

vas tness of th e universe T h e ch ief methods however
.
, ,

wh ich appear t o be mos t noticeable and mos t analysa ble have

probably all been no t ed above .

O ur investigation th erefore O f th is aspect of tragedy has

, ,

led us toward the real ization of a truth that may be th us

formally expressed whenever a tragedy lacks th e feeli n g
of universali ty whenever i t prese n ts merely the temporary
,

and th e topical th e de t ached in ti m e and in place th en

, ,

i t becomes simply sordid T h e cardi n al elemen t in h igh

.

tragedy is universali ty I f we have not th is howe v er well

.
,

wri t t en th e drama may be however perfect th e plot an d

, ,

however brilliantly delineated th e characters th e play will ,

fail and be classed wi th Ar den of Fev e r sha m rather than

,

wi th H am let an d Othello .

( )
11 T H E S PI RIT O F T RAG EDY

PI T Y AN D T E R R O R — T h is
uni versa li ty explains one th i n g
abou t t ragedy : i t shows t o us that part a t least of the
emotion wh ich we gain from reading a great drama arises
from the fact that we are led into contact wi th a series of
events wh ich themselves are related to the uni v erse wi tho u t .

71
 I N T RO D U CT I O N T O D RA MA T IC T H EO RY

T h is , h owever is only par t of th e emo t ion tha t comes t o us

, .

I t is t h is ques t ion of t he emo t ions aroused by t ragedy t ha t

we may now consider in greater de t ail .

A ris t otle has decided tha t t he O bj ec t of a t ragedy is t o

” 1
arouse pi ty and terror T h e theme of t ragedy is always .

an unhappy one I t frequen t ly in t roduces m isery t ormen t

.
,

physical and men tal and crime T h e old medieval no t ion , .

of tragedy as a falling from prosperi ty t o unhappin ess has

th is general t ru th in i t tha t all tragedy of all na t ions has ,

always had abou t i t an elemen t Of pain and misery T here .

are t wo questions wh ich here may arise ( I ) A re pi t y and

terror truly the emotions wh ich a drama t ist should seek
t o produce in a t ragedy and ( 2 ) I f t ragedy t h us deals wi th
misery what pleasure do we gain from i t ?
T h e answer to the second of th ese t wo questions O bviously
depends upon th e answer wh ich we shall find for th e fi rs t ,

and therefore A ristotle s statemen t may have primary con ’

sideration Pi ty and terror — w e canno t qui te be assu red

.

what A ris t o t le mean t by these words bu t taking th em at , ,

thei r ordinary English val ue we may well medi ta t e whe th er ,

they express exactly th e genuine tragic emo t ions T error .

,

assuredly is frequen tly called for th by a great drama al th ough

, ,

terro r is no t the ch ief emotion in an audience ; bu t as

regards pi ty we may t ruly feel doub t ful wh e t h er i n a
,

h igh t ragedy i t may to any great exten t en t er in T ragedy .

,

after all is no t a th ing of tears Pathos s tands upon a lower

, .

plane of dramatic ar t j us t as sen timen tal ism is lower t han ,

a gen ui n e h uman i tarian spi ri t Pathos is closely connec t ed .

wi th pi ty an d nei th er is ge n erally indulged in by t h e grea t

,

dramatists as the main tragic m o tif T h e ai r of [Esc h ylu s .

is ste m and hard T h e characters h e has in troduced are

.

above us men tally and morally because of t hei r loftiness

, ,

1
O n Ar is t tlo
’
e s w o r d s an d o n th e we a
po n wh i h t ag
c r e d y e ff e c s t
se e t
B u ch e r
’
s Ar i s to tle s
'
T h e o ry o f P o e tr y a n d F i n e A r t p p ,
. 2 40 fi .

72
 T RA G E D Y

and thei r nobili t y and we may hardly express pi ty for what

we feel is loftier and nobler than ourselves We can pi ty .

a man or an animal bu t we canno t pi ty a god T h ere is no

,
.

call for sympathetic t ears toward Prome th eus or Orestes ,

precisely because in the grandeur of thei r being they are

greater than we are We do no t sympath ize wi th O thello
.

to the exten t of feeling pi ty because O thello is a force

,

beyond ou r ken primi tive perhaps bu t strong and maj es t ic

, , .

We do no t weep at th e death of C ordelia because she has a ,

power and a fi rmness in h er nature wh ich defy ou r analysis .

I f we t ake then the great tragedians by th emselves

, ,

lEsc h ylu s S hakespeare Alfi e r i I bsen — o r s t udy individual

, , ,

works of thei rs we shall be struck by th is fi rmness and hard

ness in thei r characters and thei r plays T here is always .

some th i n g ste m an d maj es t ic abou t th e h igh est tragic art .

Wi th S hakespeare we do someti m es descend to pathe t ic

scenes and i t is exceedingly di ffi cul t to determine whether
,

th is is due to that spi ri t existing in th e early seventeen th

cen t ury wh ich gave rise about 1 6 0 8 to th e romantic tragi
comedi es of Beaumon t and F letcher or wheth er i t is because
,

S hakespeare fel t th e necessi ty of pathos bo th as a species of

relief from t oo h igh tension and as a kind of con trast to the
genuine tragic sternness A fter t he misery and horror of
.

L ear s wandering on the storm -swept h e ath a fte r Gloucester s

’ ’

eyes have been torn o u t co r a m p op ulo we suddenly fi n d ou r

,

selves borne in t o that scene of essential pathos when th e aged

ki n g awakens to discover h is daugh ter bending over h im .

T hat would appea r to be almost the only passage i n Lea r

where S hakespeare has deliberately s t riven to arouse ou r pi ty
and ou r feelings of tendern ess All is as rock a round th is
.

one scene forms a relief to the t remendous e ffec t of th e pre

ceding acts and a momen t of respi te ere we pass to th e even
more tremendous conclusion Mag n i ficen t passage th ough
.

i t be artistically conceived and placed i t is nevertheless

, , ,

73
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T IC T H E ORY

wh en considered alon e seen to be on a lower plane of tragi c

,

expression than th e res t of t h e play T h e same phenomenon

.

may be studied i n S hakespeare s o ther dramas D esdemona

’
.
,

weak an d unin t eres t ing is made an obj ec t for ou r pi ty : in

,

H a m le t th e mad scene O f Oph elia is pa th etic in i ts aim .

Bo th th e pathos o f D e sde m o n a an d th e path os o f O p h e lia fo rm

rel iefs to th e tragic tension of th e dramas i n wh ich they appea r .

C onsidering th us th e rela t ions between genuine t ragic

expression and path os we can well real ize why th ere is such
,

a chasm be t ween th e serious plays of 1 6 3 0 — 40 and th e

t ragedies O f S hakespeare an d wh y modern plays such as
,

Th e S e co n d M r s Ta n q u er ay fall below th e level of th e h ighest

art S ome of th ese dramas are excellen tly cons t ruc t ed
.
,

magni ficen t i n thei r t echnique ; bu t th e appeal i n th em is

di rected t o th e softer parts of ou r na t ures One wonders .

whe th er th is t ru th regarding tragedy was no t i n reali ty t ruly

divined by th e classic and th e neo -classic cri tics when th ey
fough t wi th all th ei r s t rength agains t roman t i c colou r and
variety A l though t h e neo -classicists never expressed i t i n
.

so many words al th ough th ey confused the issue by reference

,

to th e ancien t s and by t h e t heory of imi ta t ion th ey may ,

have fel t t ha t t h e rules th ey devised would preserve fo r

t ragedy t ha t s t ernness and tha t statuesque grandeu r wh ich
romantic no t ions only too soon can des t roy T h e la t er .

romantic playwrigh ts all spoil th ei r work by neglecting th is

hardness of t exture F ord s plays are beautiful bu t th ey
.
’

are not h igh tragedies ; C oleridge s R em o r se fails t o t h ri ll

’

us i n spi te of i ts dark caverns li t by one flaring torch and i ts

,

pris o ns oozing forth mouldy damps I n our own age most o f

.

ou r dramatists are in capabl e o f creati n g real tragedy because

they lack th e requisi te grandeur of temper and aim T hey .

may prod uce fine melodramas and brillian t pathetic pieces ,

bu t they will never succeed in wri ting plays wh ich may be

classed wi th those o f lEsc h ylu s S hakespeare and I bsen
, ,
.

74
 I N T RO D U CT I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H EO RY

S hakespeare we shall find that S hakespeare is by no mea ns

alone i n th us presen t ing nobili ty of characterization as a
t ragic relief T h e predominati n g fea t u re of G reek drama
.

is th is h igh nobili ty an d sublime t one O res t es ( Edip u s

.
, ,

Prome th eus— all th e ou t s tanding persons of t he G reek

drama— are maj estic i n t hei r h eroic proportions We .

have seen tha t they can exci te no pi ty i n thei r gran deu r ;

on th e con trary th ei r grandeu r is so exaggerated that
,

th ey seem to sta nd above us as demi -gods wi th a nobili t y ,

grea t er than th e nobili ty of th is earth When we th us con

.

sider t h e persons of th e G reek and O f the S hakespearian

t ragedy i t wi ll at once be apparen t tha t th e h eroic drama of
Res t oration England ri diculous as i t may be in c h ar ac te r iz a
,

t ion simply exaggerates to an extreme degree th e heroic note

,

presen t in th e persons of fEsc h ylu s and S hakespeare We .

have al ready seen that th is heroic tragedy had th us exagger a t ed

th e perfectly natu ral inner con fl ict o f S hakespeare s h eroes
’
,

t u rn i n g i t in to a th i n g of love and honou r ; so here we

fi n d that D ryden s Alm an z o r an d M on tezuma are merely
’

in t ensi fied po r t rai ts pain ted on th e same lines as O th ello

and (E dip u s A l though not one of those h eroi c t ragedies
.

ever rises to th e h eigh t of pu re t ragic expression we may fi nd

that as a class th e h eroic drama will serve to poin t o u t many
, ,

characteristics of true dramatic produc t ivi ty T h e h eroi c .

tragedy is bu t t rue tragedy carried to excess wi th al l i ts ,

elemen ts magni fied and made more obvious .

— H ere h owever arises an

( )
h Th e F e elin
g fo N o hilit
y .
, ,

exceedingly serious and di ffi cul t problem We have men .

tio n e d as heroic figures in th e G reek d rama O restes and

, ,

in the S hakespearian drama Macbeth Both of these in .

,

thei r several ways commi t atrocious crimes ; and we find

,

tha t th is question of nobili ty must be co n sidered in close

connexion wi th th e corollary question of moral i ty Morali ty .

is after all a word of no absolu t e meaning va ryi n g from

, , ,

76
 T RA G E D Y

religion t o reli gion from race to race from nation t o nation

, , ,

from age to age from individual t o indivi dual T h is is

, .

granted perhaps by nearly all bu t t he ex t reme religionists

, ,

of the various sects bu t even wi th such an admission i t

,

canno t be denied tha t t here are certain common instinc t s in

h umani t y par t ly deri ved from social conventions by wh ich
, ,

we agree as t o t he righ t eousness and unrigh teousness of de

fini te actions partic u larly those o f a more violen t charac t er
, .

M u rder for example especially murder of one near to us

, , ,

is commonly regarded wi th abhorrence by all and i f tha t

murder be presented in a t ragedy commi tted by t he hero ,

of th e play then the drama t is t i f he is to preserve th e

, ,

digni ty and nobili t y of h is work mus t fi rst of all provi de ,

ample m o tif for the commi t ting of the crime and display after
or before i t a feel ing of in t ense shame and abhorrence We .

have t o feel t hat is to say t ha t the playwrigh t h i mself is

, ,

imbued wi t h what we may call t he nobles t feelings of th e

h uman hear t I f h e t reats h is theme merely as a fi tt ing
.

oppor t uni ty for t he introduction of sensa t ional inciden t s

th en h is drama as a whole will be nauseous t o us T h e .

C ho ep ho r ce of lEsc h ylu s provides a fi tti n g example of t he

higher trea t men t of such a t heme T here the Greek .

dramatist has presen t ed Ores t es wi th con t inual doub t and

horror in his mind O res t es feels t erro r and detes t ation a t
.

h imself before he mu rders C lytemnestra ; h e feels horror

as he moves t oward h is fell pu r pose after i t has been carried
ou t the F uries half p e r so n ifi c atio n s of h is own t hough ts and
,

emotions goad h im on t o madness T h e m o tif of h is crime

, .

is excellently and fully represented the crime in spi t e of the ,

m o tif is engaged in wi t h absol u t e t error and shame

, .

Wi th a more modern and more sensi tive audience even

such a m o tif migh t not have appeared su ffi cien t and t h is , ,

perhaps was fel t by Alfi e r i when h e came t o t reat of th e

,

same th eme I n h is Or este th e hero dash es wi th in t he

.

77
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H EO RY

scene mad wi th rage no t so much agains t h is mo th er as

,

against E gis t o H e pl unges h is sword in t o th e breas t of

.

E gisto bu t in h is madness h e also unwi tt ingly slays C litc n

,

n e str a Blinded by h is frenzy he does no t see wha t h e has

.
,

done and en t ering upon t he s t age wi th Pilade and Ele tt ra

h e exul t s in t h e slaugh t er of h is father s m urderer 1 ’

p e r c he m e sto O h, ,

Pa r te di m e se tu n o n sai C h e h o sp e n to
,
’

I o q u e l fe ll o n e ved i an c o r di san gu e
E stillan te il m io fe r r o Ah tu di v i so .
,

M e c o i c o lpi n o n hai p asc iti d u n q u e

Di q u e sta v i sta gli o c c h i .

O h v i sta O r e ste , ,

Da m m i qu e l b ra n d o .

A C he
Da m m e l o .

Or . ll p r e n di .

Pil . O dim i— A no i no n li c e in q u e sta te rra

PiiI
‘
r mi an e r : v en i i
Ma q ual
De h, pa r la $
’
C lite n n e str a do v e P

1
A ta r n sl ati o n o f th e I tali a n is giv e n at th e fo o t o f e a c h p ag e .

Ohwh f e r e o r e s ad ,
S a K w t th
,

Th o u h r e r o f m y th o u gh s no es o u no t t
Th at a a
I h v e sl in h im P S e e th e b lo o d is ye t
D ri p p in g fr o m m y s o r d w
Ah th o u h s n o t .
, at
a t
S h r e d in m y r iu m p h l F e s h e n h in e h u n gr y e ye s att t
i i
O n th s r c h sigh t .

Th sigh $ r e ste s, at t O
G iv e m e th y s o r d w .

O r es. Fo r h w at
P yl . v e m e th y s o rd Gi w .

O r es .
'
Ti s h e r e .

P yt . is L t t
I n h is l n d n o lo n ge r c a n w e s y
. a ta .

Co m e
But wh at ?
Oh s p ak
e I P yl d e s a sp e ak 1
Wh e r e
, ,

is Clyt e m n e st a P r

78
 T RA G E D Y

Lasc iala : o r fo r se
Al t r adito r ar ito e lla ar de il r o go
m .

Fi fi c he c o m p iu ta h ai la v e n de tta o r v en i i
N o n c e r c ar o lt r e
di tu
’
O h, c he

La m ad r e
T i r i do m a n do , Pilade O h , q ual
’
. m e n tr a

G e l n e ll e v e n e
Pil . Il c i e l o
Ah , p ta fo r se
s en I
Vo lt e in t a i n fu r iata h a l ar m i ’
se s e ss

Pi lade I Oi m e tu n o n r i sp o n di

Nar r a
C he fu

E da q u al m an o
Pil . Ah i i
v en

El . Tu la u c c id e sti .

Io par r i c i da
Pil . Il fe r r o
V i b r asti in le i, se n za avv e de r te n c i e c o ,

L et h er b e
P e r c h an c e sh e ligh ts th
’
at w
r e t c h s fu n e r a l p yr e .

a a
T h o u h s t m o r e th n t a e n r e v e n g e ; b u t c o m e th is w a y
’

I n q u ir e n o t fu r th e r
Wh t is t th o u s y s
’ ’
a a t
i O n ce m o r e

I a sk , m ym o th er ,P yl d e s a Oh , wh at
A c h ill in v ad es m y h e ar 1 t
P yl . Th e g o d s
E le ct . She
’
s a
de d I
O r es . In m a dd en ed r ag e h as sh e th e n s la in h e r se lf
El e c t. a
P yl d e s 1 Ah m e I hou t a w ns er es n o t t
O r es. T e ll m e
Wh at is t
’

P yl . S ta bb ed
O r es . By wh om
P yl . Co m e ; le t us go
E le c t T h o u h s k ille d h e r
. at .

O r es . I ? Ap a r r ic id e ?
P yl . Th y s w o rd
H as p ie r c e d h e r b r e ast , as th o u , u n c o n sc io u s, bi
l nd
79
I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA MA T I C T H E O RY

D
’
i ra ,
co r ren do a Egi st o i n co n tr o .

Oh , q ual e ,

Orro r m i pr e n de Io par r i c ida P— Il b r a n d o ,

Pilade da m m i ,
’
io l v o
’

Pil . No n fi a .

El . Frate llo
Pil . M i se ro O r st e e

Or
fr ate l m i n o m a , c hi

Em pia tu fo r se c h e se r bato a v ita

, , ,

E al m at r i c i d i o m b ai P— Re n di m i il b r a n do
’
,

Il b r an d o O h r a bb ia l— O ve so n io ,
c h e fe c i

C hi m i tr attie n ? C h i m i p e rse gu e Ahi $ d o ve ,

D o v e m e n fu ggo o v e m i asc o n do — O pad r e

,

T o r vo m i gu a r d i a m e C hi e desti san gu e
E q u e sto e sa n gu e ; e so l e r te il v e r sai
p .

O r e ste O r e ste,
Ahi m i se ro fr ate ll o ,

G ia pi )i n o n c i o de ; é fu o t di se N o i se m pre
Pilade al fi an c o a lu i star e m o
,

O h d u ra ,

D o r r e n do fato in e v itab il l e gge I

’

I n th y r g e , d a a sh ed up o n lE g is th u s .

i Oh ,wh at
a
A fe r e n fo ld s m e a
I h v e k ille d h e r ? s or Th at w d ,

a
P yl d e s , g v e it i m e . I m us t
P yl . I t sh ll n o t b e a .

E le c t . My b r o t h e r
P yl . Wr e t c h e d O r es est
O r es. Wh o c all s m e b th ro er
T h o u im p io u s w a
o m a a
n , p e r h p s , w h o h s t o l fe t i
t a
A n d to t h e m u r d e r o f m y m o h e r s v e d m e
ve m e Gi h t at w
s o rd t at w
h s o rd ; O h F u r ie s ,
— Wh at
Wh o
,

H av e I d o n e ? Wh e r e a m I Wh o is b y m e ?
To r m e n s m e t Oh w w
h er e, h e r e sh ll I fl y a Wh e r e
i i b
,

a
S h ll I h d e m y m s e r a le se lf My f h e r at
Do s tt
h o u g la r e at
m e T h o u a s k e d s t lo o d
’
b
A n d h e r e is lo o d b t a
fo r h e e lo n e I s p i lt it .

E le c t O t O t
r e s e s,
. r es es ab b
O h m ise r le r o h e r I , t
He he rs us no t a h is se n se is g o n e E ver . m us t we ,

a
D e r P yla d e s , s n d b y h is s id e ta .

P yl .

I nev i ta b
le la w o f fe r fu l d e s in y 1 a t
 T RA G E D Y
T h is las t scene is perfect in i ts res t rain t and in i ts power .

I t be t okens no t only the geni us and the nobili ty of Alfi e r i s ’

though t and character bu t shows how th e theatre will

,

always adap t i tself to th e needs and des i res of the di ff eren t

ages T h e treatmen t of lEsc h ylu s was the t reatmen t of a
.

Greek ; putting ourselves back i n th e ancien t world we ,

can apprecia t e i ts nobili ty and i ts grandeu r ; bu t as Alfi e r i ,

fel t i t is a trea t men t no t precisely fi t t ed for t h e world of

,

to -day .

F rom t hese t wo plays of [E sc h ylu s an d Alfi e r i we migh t

t urn t o the cogna t e drama of S ophocles wh ere a t once we ,

se e a decided weakeni n g of t one Whereas O restes in th e

.

other two pla ys had been filled wi th shame and remorse ,

h ere h e displays no horror at the deed h e has commi tt ed .

T h e cons t ruction is skilful th e characteriza t ion is fin e bu t

,

the feeli ng of nobili ty is absent and th e play of S ophocles,

descends dangerously near to tha t fa t al rock in dramatic

ar t sensa t ionalism I n exac t ly similar manner may be
, .

compared th e t wo tragedies of M e dea wri t t en by E uripides

and S eneca respectively B y Euripides Medea is coarsely
.

drawn ; sh e has not t ha t h igh sublimi ty and tha t h eroic

-
grandeur which is so noticeable in the creations of lEsc h ylu s
bu t a t the sam e time t he Greek dramatis t has endeavoured
, ,

by all means in h is command t o exci te for her th e sympath ies

of the audience S h e is a lonely woma n a woman suddenly
.
,

cas t into a ffl iction All her primi tive furies are awakened
.
,

and the deed wh ich she commi t s seems t o flow from a

natural cause We may say tha t the Medea of E uripides
.

is a sl igh tly sentimental creation bu t in her is C xpressed a ,

nobili ty a primi tive nobili ty where crude horror a t her own

, ,

C i im e mingles wi th her hate and wi th h er desi re for revenge .

We turn to the M edea of S eneca an d at once we di scover

that we have t o deal wi th an enti rely di fferent bei n g M edea .

here is noth ing more than a melodramatic villainess We .

F 8 1
 I N T RO D U C T I O N TO D RA M A T I C T H EO R Y

seek in h er i n vain for any t ruly noble elemen t T h rills .

we get horror and dismay are cast upon us bu t noth ing tha t
, ,

woul d Sh ow t ha t t h e Roman au th or fel t th e t error of her

crime S eneca fails i n th e h ighes t tes t
. .

T here is hardly any necessi ty t o refer here t o S hakespeare .

H e t oo has chosen h is villain h eroes bu t in every one of

, , ,
‘

them t here is depic t ed a h igh nobili ty Macbe t h sins doubly .

,

t rebly
H e s h e r e in do u b l e t r u st
’

Fi r st as I am his ki n sm an an d h is su bj e c t
, ,

S t r o n g b o th a gai n st th e d e e d th e n as his ho st , ,

Wh o sh o u l d a gai nst h is m u r de r e r sh u t th e d o o r ,

N o t b e a r th e kn ife m yse lf Be sid e s t h i s Du n c a n

.
,

Hat h b o r n e his fa c u lti e s so m e e k hat h b e e n ,

S O c l ea r in h is gr e at o ffi c e t hat h is v i r tu e s
,

Will pl e ad li ke an ge l s tr u m p e t-to n gu e d a gai nst

T h e de e p da m n atio n o f his ta ki n g-o ff 1

E verywhere h e sees t he horror o f h is deed I t makes h im .

star t wi th t error wh en h e fi rs t conceives i t ; i t gives h im

visions of blood -smeared daggers as he goes abou t h is fa t al
purpose i t sears all t he res t of h is days wi th t h e t hough t
s t ains of conscience .

T h ere is someth ing of h orror perhaps tha t stays t he hand, ,

of the h esi ta t ing H amlet H e accuses h imself of cowardice

.

religion h e says retards h im H e canno t s t ab th is

”
, , .

drunken king i n cold blood O thello t oo sees all t he .

, ,

h ideousness of h is mu rder ; he feels t he pi t y of i t and ,

slays D esdemona wi th heroic t errors gnawing at h is heart .

I t is the cause no t a sel fish j ealousy t hat nerves h i m t o

”
, ,

smoth er h is wi fe I n killing her h e kills h imself

.

Pu t o u t th e li gh t an d th e n p u t o u t th e li gh t
,

N owhere i n S hakespeare s genuine work is there a

’

loss of th is h igh moral i ty t h is feeling for all t hat is bes t

,

1
M a c be th , Ac t I , S c e n e VI I .

82
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D R A M A T I C T H EO RY

wh y all grea t t ragedies presen t a problem bu t never give a ,

sol ution We are faced i n t hem wi th terror awe nobili t y

.
, , ,

su ff ering i dealized th e problem is given to us b u t th e sol u ,

tion remains Al though we feel tha t t h e grea t drama t is t

.
,

such as S hakespeare or lEsc h ylu s as opposed t o S eneca is , ,

on t h e side of th e nobl e on th e side of the good h e n ever

, ,

deserts h is mission of creative artis t ry t o descend th rough h is ,

charac t ers or in p r op r ia p e r so n a t o preach a moral or a lesson

, .

H e leaves t ha t par t t o t h e minor wri t ers or t o those who , ,

misled by false theory find no ar t val uable bu t such as

,

serves a di dac t ic purpose T h e elusiveness of S hakespeare

.

is simply th e elusi veness of h igh ar t i t is no t a characteristic

peculiar t o h imsel f ; h e shares i t wi t h pre -Ch ris t ian Greece
and wi th modern E urope .

n iv e r sa lit — F rom th e nobili t y of th e

()
c T h e S e n se o
f U y
charac t ers and from t he implied though never di rectly s t ated
, ,

moral aim comes t h e greater par t of th e t ragic relief ; bu t

t h is is no t all Par t t oo comes from t ha t very sense of
.
, ,

un iversal i t y wh ich has been sta t ed t o be the fun damen t al

characteris t ic of all h igh t ragedy— some form of con t ac t wi t h
in fini ty I f we are rel igious we shall say i t is a contac t wi th
.

forces di vine i f we are atheis t ic we shall say i t is a con tac t

wi th th e vast i llimi table forces of t he uni verse Everywhere
, .

in h igh t ragedy there is t h is sense of being raised to loftier

h eigh t s I n older drama i t had na t urally a more dis t inc t ly
.

rel igious note ; in modern drama i t will more probably t end

toward t he in t roduc t ion of scien t i fic forces— evolution ,

racial charac t eristics heredi ty even of abstrac t social forces

, ,

and conven t ion J ust as G ho sts is a t ragedy of heredi ty so

.
,

Th e Tr ag e dy of N a n wh ich also as we have seen touches on

, , ,

t h e same theme is largely a drama of social conven tions

, .

Many modern t ragedies depend no t on certain personal ities

pre sen t ed i n isolated su rroundings bu t o n i n divid u als placed ,

in th e mids t o f social powers from wh ich t hey derive th ei r

84
 T RA G E D Y
j oys and thei r sorrows We may have plays where the
.

whole m o tif is drawn from such a so u rce A D o ll s H o u se .

’

is one ; Th e S eco n d M r s Ta n q u er ay is another H ere the .

personalities are set in the pec u liar ci rcumstances which

cause th e tragic developmen t of the plo t because of thei r
co n tac t wi th and thei r reaction to the rules and th e codes
, ,

of thei r society
T h is use of u n iversali ty as a means of tragic relief at once ,

raisi n g and maki n g trivial the actual emotions of the C harac

ters before us is almost indisti n guishable from that sense of
,

waste wh ich as we noted is most marked in th e dramas of

, ,

S hakespeare . We feel that i f nature th us can waste what is

good and precious and beautiful i f wi thou t a tea r i t can cast
,

o ff C ordelia and Hamlet and t he ill - starred lovers the n the ,

misery and the pain has some symbolic value of wh ich we

are u n aware and the beauty of th e u n iverse is richer than
,

we dreamt T h e most powerful tragic dramatists by th ei r

.

strength and by their sternness appear in union wi th t he vast

forces of nature and the very prese n ce of thei r minds abo v e
,

and beyo n d the play and i ts characters gives us comfort and

recompense and relief .

( )
d P o e tica l E e ct — T here are
ff besides other ,
elements ,

in h igh tragedy wh ich serve t o take from the utter darkness

of th e Story unfolded before us T here is the presence of
.

the crea tive artistic power of the dramatist h imself and , ,

particularly in the Greek and E lizabe than plays th e rhyth m ,

of the verse to reave away ou r minds for a momen t from th e

,

gloomy depths of the tragedy A more detailed considera

.

tion of the use and of the value of verse in tragedy we may

leave till later bu t here i t may be observed th at verse in many
,

cases acts as a kind of an m sth e tic on our senses T h e sharp .

edge of the pain is removed in th e plays of lEsc h ylu s and

S hakespeare an d though i t becomes more poig n a n t in some
,

ways ye t i t is reft of i t s crudeness and sordidness by the beau ty

,

85
 I N T RO D U C T I O N TO DRA M A T I C T H E O RY

of the language T h is e ffec t of verse is obviously lacking

.

i n the prose realistic plays wh ich a ppeared in such n u mbers

during the n ine t een t h cen t u ry We may not condemn .

t hese prose dramas many of t hem among t he masterpieces

,

of th e world s art bu t perhaps t he ul timate val ue and even

’
,

necessi ty of verse in h igh t ragedy is indica t ed by t hem 1 N o t .

only do they seem to lack someth ing wh ich is presen t in the

blank -verse dramas and in t h e lyrical tragedies of pas t ages ,

bu t i n themselves t hey appear con tinually t o be s t raining

toward what is for th em a perfectly illegi timate semi -poetic
utterance S ometimes this endeavour t o pass from pure
.

prose levels is successful bu t more oft en i t clash es ra th er ,

pi tifully wi t h t he general a t mosphere of t h e play as in ,

Mase fi e ld s The Tr age dy of N an where th e ol d ga ffer seems

’

disassocia t ed from t he other C harac t ers i n t he t ragedy T h e .

same disharmony is presen t also in t he figure of th e N urse

i n Pr z yb ysz e w ski s S n o w T h is endeavou r unconsciously
’
.
,

practised indica t es and registers a dissa t isfaction on the par t

,

of the drama t is t s wi th the peculiar medi um they have adop t ed .

J us t as i n the novels of D ickens o r in K ingsley s Westw a r d ’

Ho wh en th e theme t akes on a deep colouring of passion ,

th e wri ters have fallen in to a spurious half-rhythmic move

men t so in th ese prose dramas unless in t h e hands o f t he
, ,

a bsol u t e geni us t here are frequen t lapses from wha t is th e

,

t rue spi ri t of th e play .

()e M a licio u s P lea su r e One other reason . for th e

pl easure we receive from wi t nessing o r from reading a
t ragedy mus t be bri e fly glanced a t I t is t he reason .

commonly adduced by t he p syc h o lo gists th e primi tive m

pleasu re we gain from watch ing th e pain of o t hers 2

T h is .
,

na t urally in i ts crudes t form unless in cer t ain peculiarly

, ,

1
I h n a y n T g dy D S a t
i s e ss o ra t th s a e
e r l i n m r co m es o e m c o nc us o
It t f ll w t h t t a g d y i it
se e m s o o o t p f ct f
a r is p o e t ic a l
e n s m o s er e o rm ,

a d t h at th e g at e t t g ic w k
h ap s E i le F ag e t
n re s po ra o r s ar e em s .

1
Th e c h i f e xp e t O f t h i s Vi w is p
e o n n e er m u .
 T RA G E D Y

minded i n dividuals has now been los t ; but possibly there

,

exists in us su ffi cien t of the savage t o make us take a ki n d of

unconscious deligh t i n wi tnessing the sorrows of a H amlet
or of an O t hello T h e very fact t hat we can see how
.

O th ello is being hoodwinked how H amlet is losing h is ,

oppor t uni t ies gives us a strange th rill of pleasure We

, .

realize tha t great and noble and maj estic as these h eroes
,

may be we have the better of t hem in one way a t leas t

, .

We stand for a momen t alongside th e drama t is t-creator and ,

smile at the puppets Possibly there is no t much of th is

.

in our pleasure at wi tnessing a t ragedy bu t unless there were ,

an elemen t of i t we probably could no t bear to see a play

of misery th rough We have long passed the stage when
.

real pain in o thers migh t be a laughable thi n g when a fierce ,

deligh t could come from watch i n g ano t her s distress ; bu t ’

perhaps in the world of the t heatre where we know tha t the ,

figures are unreal we retain enough of t he spi ri t of the boy

,

who loves t o see a but t er fly feebly str u ggling on a pin or of ,

the savage who has no t an atom of pi ty for h is conquered

enemy t o gain a secre t an d an unacknowledged pleasure
,

from wha t are truly our most primi ti v e emotions .

T h is rea son however deeply rooted as i t may be and

, ,

capable of h ighly intricate psychological investigation seems ,

to fade into in sign ifi c an c e when placed alongside t he maj or

and fundamental causes We may explain by i t to some .

exten t the fact tha t we do not sh rink from t he pain and from
the misery of tragedy bu t tragedy wi ll never rise above
,

purely sordid levels u n less i t has fi rmly stressed one or other

of th e aspects and qualities deal t with above ; and th e
h ighest t ragedy t hat of lE sc h ylu s and of S hakespeare will
, ,

di splay all fou r C haracteristics the grandeur of Spi ri t an d of

character t he universality of the emotions th e rich rhy th m
, ,

of the verse and t he sense of noble purpose and lofty

,

morali ty .

87
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA MA T I C T H E O RY

( )
iii S T YL E

T H E L YR I CA L E LEM E N T accoun t of
IN T RAG ED Y .
-O h

i ts impor tance al though i t has come up in connexion wi th

,

the spi ri t of t ragedy we have left th e problem of style t o be

,

treated by i tself I n dealing wi th i t we must always bear

.

in min d t ha t t h is problem of style is in timately related to

th e problems of action of con fl ict and of tragic relief
, , .

A glance a t th e origin and developmen t of t ragedy may

help us here t oward a solu tion T h e drama i n Greece rose .

ou t of a song ; i n Englan d i t was nearly related in origin to a

religious chan t As i t has progressed both in ancien t days
.

and in E lizabethan England t here has clung to i t a cer t ain ,

strain of lyricism wh ich expresses i tself a t t imes th rough t he

,

actual dialogue a t times breaks in to more formal melody

, .

”
T h e Greek tragedy says C oleri dge may be compared
, ,

to our serious opera and opera i n tru t h is bu t t he extreme

”
,

developmen t of wha t is inheren t in nearly all forms of tragic

developmen t I n England when men as yet were ignoran t
.
,

of classical example the serious mysteries t ended to assume

,

lyric measures ; later when t h e drama developed in th e

,

hands of Marlowe S hakespeare and the later Elizabethans

, , ,

blank verse was t aken over as the inevi table medi um for
tragic expression S ong moreover was con tinually in tro
.
, ,

du c e d and th is has appeared as a handmaid t o tragedy in

,

almost all the succeeding cen t uries .

T h e origin of tragedy was a song ; i ts developmen t has

been along lyrical lines I n viewing th is may we no t well
.
,

ask ourselves whether lyricism the Singing strain i n some ,

form o r another is no t t he necessary medi um for al l t rue

,

t ragedy O ur query may t ake t he form of a double

q uestion : is th is lyrical elemen t in Greek an d in early
Engl ish tragedy someth ing tha t th e playwrigh ts have fel t
to be necessary something tha t truly has an in tima t e
,

88
 T RA G E D Y
relatio n sh ip wi th the i n ner core of the tragic spi ri t or is i t
,

the mere tradi tional remnan t co n servatively retai n ed of

, ,

th e source of the species someth i n g that no o n e has had

,

the co u rage to fl ing O ff even after i t had served i ts legitima t e

purpose and had become useless L yricism was preserved
in Greek drama not o n ly in the dialogue bu t even in th e
strophes anti -strophes and epodes of th e chorus ; bu t may
, ,

th is not have bee n an elemen t retained like the C horus i tself

, ,

because O f religious prej udice ? S hakespeare has kept a

lyrical eleme n t in h is blank verse an d in the so n gs wh ich
he occasionally in troduces ; bu t may not th is again be du e
to the conven tio n s i n heri ted from the days of th e mysteries
and strengthened by Renascence en th usiasm for th e example
of the ancients
Before we come to answer these questions directly a ,

further glance at the h is t ory of th is lyri cism in tragedy may

no t be inoppor t une I t is eviden t that the E lizabe than
.

dramatists struck a mean adheri n g to th e new blank verse

,

brough t from I taly by the Earl of S urrey a type of verse

,

rhythmical in utterance yet nearer t o th e lang u age of real

,

life than any species of verse of th e riming typ e Wi th .

occasional lapses into decasyllabic couplets h ere and there an d ,

wi th the infreq u ent introduction into the dialogue of poeti c

forms such as the so n net (as in R o m e o a n d 7 uliet) blank verse
,

dominated the whole of tragic e n dea v our in En gland from

S ackville and N orton s G o r ho duc to S h i rley s The Tr a ito r
’ ’

and The C a r din a l As drama advanced however there

.
, ,

may be observed two reactions to th is employmen t of blank

verse I n the rimed couplets and in the h eightened Style
.

of ou r own late seve n teenth -cen tu ry heroic tragedy an d in ,

the rime of the F rench drama we may trace an attempt to

,

increase the lyrical element although at the same ti me to

,

restrict t he true lyric note by an exaggerated decorum and a

false regu lari ty of expression T his increased lyrical elemen t
.

89
 I N T RO D U C T I O N TO D RA M A T IC T H E O RY

is to be seen s t ill fur t her developed in the plays produced

in S pain under C alderon ; there th e measures are no t so
monotonous as those of D ryden o r Racine and the song ,

quali ty is as a consequence more i n evi dence Opposed to

, , .

th is t h ere is to be discovered a developmen t t oward th e

opposi t e ex t reme I n th e verse of F letcher and h is com
.

pan ions we can t race a sense of dissa t isfac t ion wi t h th e

S hakespearian blank verse an endeavour t o work back t o the
,
”
language of ordinary li fe where th e pi tch of poetry in
, ,

the words of S ymonds has been lost S till more r e vo lu

, .

t io n ar e verse of Ar de n o
y were th e prose dramatists T h .
f
F e v er sha m is con t inually breaking down from th e levels of
poe t ry and th e t endency marked in th is play was caugh t
,

up by the bourgeois dramatis t s of th e eigh t een t h cen t ury .

L illo set the fash ion wi th The Lo n do n M e r cha n t and h is ,

example was followed by Moore and H olcroft in England ,

by D idero t and others in F rance by L essing and K o t zebue

,

in Germany an d by I bsen and S trindberg in the N or th

, ,

unti l prose was established as one of the ch ief media for th e

expression of modern serious drama .

T h e question th en before us t akes a sligh tly al tered

, ,

form : i t is no t merely a decision between verse an d prose

t ha t is demanded bu t a choice of one of t h ree media— rimed
,

or excessively lyric measures blan k verse and pure prose

, , .

B L A N K V E R S E A N D R I ME — As regards the firs t t wo li ttle

.

need be sai d Excep t perhaps for certain particular types of

.

drama rimed verse appears t oo far removed from ac tua llife

,

to be a sui t able medi um for t ragedy T h e developmen t .

of the drama in Greece is h ighly instructive h ere T h e .

chorus wh ich because of t h e origin o f the A thenian stage

, , ,

was retained as an integral par t of th e struc t u re of h is plays

by E sc h ylu s was in th e hands of S ophocles and E u ripides
,

gradually driven ou t of the scheme of tragedy Wi th th e .

las t-men tioned playwrigh t indeed th e chorus became

, ,

0
9
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H EO RY

and prose as th e most sui t able medi um for tragedy remains

to be taken .

B L A N K V E R S E A N D PR O S E -I t may be best to pu t
.

fo rward here a dogmatic statemen t and then to consider

several reasons that may be adduced to prove i ts sound
ness I n general i t may be said i t would appear that th e
.
, ,

Elizabethan drama t is t s were righ t in employing verse in thei r

tragedies and tha t the more modern prose developmen t is
,

uninformed an experimen t dangerous and an tagonistic t o

,

the Spi ri t of h igh tragedy .

T hat wh ich is appealed to most in a tragedy is th e emo t i ons .

T ragedy does no t often direc t i tself to the intellec t as such

i t deals always wi th th e deepest mome n ts of h uman feeling .

T here are few tragedies of pure though t ; even H a m le t ,

wh ich is more ph ilosoph ical th an the maj ori ty of th e

E lizabethan dramas has emotion constantly th reading th e
,

intellectual framework of H amle t s character I t has been ’

.

proved h owever by th e practice of long ages and of diverse

, ,

races that th e emotions invariably find thei r fi ttest li terary

,

expression in rhyth mical form T here is a cer tain natural

.

melody in passion of any kind and t ragedy i n dealing wi th

, ,

the passio n s w illtherefore find i ts true u tt erance in rhythmical

,

words I t is possible h ere perhaps t o make an excep t ion

.
, ,

for some modern plays in wh ich the emotional elemen t seems

to be continually and consisten tly repressed and wh ere ,

consequently prose migh t be considered a more fi t t ing

medium We could not for example very well picture
.
, ,

S tr ife in verse form as i t stands : bu t even here no t very

much can be sai d for non -rhythmical u t t erance in serious
drama Prose undoub t edly drags th e play in wh ich i t
.

appears down overfar in to the levels of ordinary li fe ; and

e v en in deal ing wi th such a theme as S tr ife i t is t o be con
side r e d whether the dramatist would not have been well

advised t o l ift h is whole concep t ion above th ese res t ricting

92
 T R AG E D Y
levels Hardy s The Dyn a sts is an example of a similar
.
’

th eme crea t ed on a broader plan t he actuali ty of the forces ,

being los t in deeper and richer considerations S tr ife is an .

in t eresting drama bu t i t is no t h igh tragedy I t never

, .

thrills us like th e grea t masterpieces of theatrical art ; and

tha t i t would appear is due almos t entirely t o i ts excessive
, ,

ac t uali ty t o i t s refusal t o exp ress those broader t ru t hs t hose

, ,

ul timate ideas wh ich domina t e all grea t t ragedy

, .

T H E U N I VE R S A L I T Y O F R H Y TH M — AS a means of .

raising th e events of a drama above th e levels of real li fe ,

then an d as t h e na t u ral expression for emotion verse claims

, ,

th e close a tt en t ion of every t ragi c dramatist B efore h e .

casts o ff verse possibly because of some hastily conceived

,

cri tical theory h e mus t consider well whether verse be not

,

one of th e necessary and in t egral parts of true drama or at ,

leas t whether in abandoning verse h e wi ll no t have t o gi v e

t o h is drama other seri ous quali ties as a recompe n se for i ts
loss V erse too has o ther forces T h e figmen t of th e
.
, , .

music of th e sph eres has a t leas t a symbol ic truth abou t i t .

T h rough rhythm and melody we seem t o reach some

universal ch ords of h uman feel ing B y mere rhyth m alone .

we certainly t ouch vibrations otherwise impossible of

realiza t ion A foreign prose work may be unin telligible t o
.

us bu t a foreign symphony will be interpreted by us as

,

easily as by a na t ive of t he land t ha t gave i t bi rth and even

a foreign poem well reci ted may awaken feel ings and emo
, ,

tions in ou r hear t s beyond th e un in t elligibil i ty of th e words .

Rhythm after all is a common heri tage ; i t s t ri kes deep at

, ,

primeval an d general ins t inc t s of mankind I t is more .

,

over no t C on fined t o man ; i t is uni versal t o the wh ole of

,

na t ure T h e songs of the birds possess a melody pleasurable

.

no t only t o themselves bu t to h u m ani ty T here are .

symphon ies of sounds and of colou r s appreciated by th e

enti rety of t he natural world S uch a consideratio n of th e .

93
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H EO R Y

force of verse obviously leads us back t o ou r primal c o n

sidera t ion of uni versali t y H erein lies one o t her main
.

means of securing t he broader atmosphere demanded by

t ragedy V erse will aid no t only in removing t ragedy from
.

t h e levels of actual li fe bu t in giving t o i t t ha t un iversali t y

,

demanded by the h igh es t ar t .

V E R S E A S A T RAG I C R EL I EF — F inally verse may be

.
,

considered as a Species of t ragic relief T h is in t he sec t ion .

,

devoted t o the spi ri t of t ragedy has al ready been t en t a t ively

,

h in t ed a t I t may h ere be formally sta t ed tha t verse u h

.

doubtedly t akes away some of t he h orror and t he gloom

and t he despai r of th e tragi c spi ri t Again a re t urn m us t .

be made t o th a t word sordid ’

When we speak of a sordi d
.

t ragedy we do no t refer so much t o t he subj ec t-ma tt er as

to th e t reatmen t of t h e subj ec t-ma tt er t o th e lack of some ,

t h ing wh ich may t ake away par t of th e pain V erse in .

,

tr o du c in g t ha t melody wh ich is bu t symbol ic of a h igher and

more un iversal symphony t h is qual i ty of lyricism is probably

, ,

among th e greates t of t h e reli eving media A ft er all th e .

,

s t ory o f Othello i f i t were t old i n plain prose would be bu t

, ,

a sordid s t ory of a fai th ful wi fe and a decei ved h usband

avenging h is hono ur H a m le t would be bu t a sordi d tale
of a mu rdered king and a semi -inces t uous a tt achmen t T h e .

lyricism h owever wi th wh ich t hese plays are inves t ed

, ,

helps t o raise t hem above th e level of ac t uali ty and t o rel ieve ,

th e horror wh ich o t herwise we should feel in t hem Wh en .

O thello comes t o t h e h eigh t of h is j ealous hate an d en t ers

S t aggering an d blin d wi th passion Iago looks a t h im and h is
, ,

words take on a gorgeousness of colou ring t ha t is su rely

in t en t ional on S hakespeare s par t ’

No t p o ppy n o r m an dra go ra
, ,

N o r all th e d r o wsy syr u ps o f th e wo r l d ,

S ha ll e v e r m e dic i ne t h e e to t hat sw e e t sl e e p
Wh i c h t h o u o w e dst ye ste r day .
 T RA G E D Y
T he poe t ry is no t s t rictly in accord wi th Iago s character ’
,

al though S hakespeare may have had a purpose h ere t oo bu t , ,

i t is in accord wi t h t he genuine t ragic m o tif I t is a rush of .

music t o s t ill the horror and pain the scene migh t otherwise
have aroused i n ou r hearts I f we can bu t imagine in th e
.

place of t hese lines of poe t ry a sneer of Iago s cyn icism we ’

may be able t o appreciate th ei r val ue and force Possibly .

for t h e same rea son may have been in t roduced tha t remark
able speech o f Iach imo in A c t I I S cene I I of C ym helin e
, ,

T is h e r b r e ath i n g t hat
’

Pe r fu m e s the c ham b e r thu s th e flam e o th e tap e r ’

Bo ws to wa r d h e r an d w o u ld u n de r -p e e p h e r li ds
, ,

T o se e th e e n c l o se d li gh ts n o w c a n o pi e d
,

U n de r t h e se w i n do ws w h ite an d azu r e la c e d
,

With b l u e o f h eav e n s o w n ti n c t
’
.

O n h e r l e ft b r e ast
A m o l e c i n qu e -sp o t te d li ke the c r i m so n d ro p s
,

I th e b o tto m o f a c o wsl ip
’
.

S hakespeare probably realized t ha t the si t uation h e had

de v ised— t he innocen t gi rl lying in h er bed th e cunning ,

Iachimo issuing from h is t runk— was bo t h improbable and

horrible I t was horrible because of the meanness and th e
.

duplici ty shown in i t ; i t was improbable because of th e

sudden heavy Sleep of I mogen necessary for t h e develop
,

men t of the plo t bu t distinctly unnatural T o coun t er both

, .
,

to attrac t the a t tention of t h e audience and t o allay thei r

suspicions and thei r disgust he bursts in t o lyrical u t terance
, ,

sacri ficing character for t he sake of dramatic e ffec t T h e .

same phenomenon may of course be discovered in ma n y

, ,

other dramatis t s apart from S hakespeare T h e Greek .

dramatists knew of the device and many of t h ei r mos t

,
”

po ignan t and most t errible scenes are C lad in t he richest of

thei r poetry I n later days O tw ay when deal i n g wi th a
.
,

particularly t errible t heme in The Or p ha n con t rived th us to ,

95
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H E O RY

soften and relieve t h e pain he had aroused T h e las t scene .

of t he fourth ac t when Mo n imia learns t h e truth from

,

Po lydo r e is the mos t poe t ical of h is t ragedy an d th e fi fth

, ,

ac t opens wi th a song .

I n dispensing wi th verse th erefore t h e adheren t s of th e

, ,

prose realis t ic drama appear t o be abandoning a legi tima t e

me th od of securing atmosph ere and of giving pleasure .

V erse is seen t o be no t merely a t radi tional remnan t of choral

song or ca th edral C han t ; i t is some th ing closely connec t ed
wi th the inner spi ri t of t ragedy i tself I f verse and th e .

oppor t uni t y for securing lyricism be neglec t ed then o th er

qual i ties mus t be deeply stressed i n an endeavou r t o a t one fo r
th e loss Occasionally i t is no t possibl e so t o s t ress th ese
.

o th er qual i ties ; often th ei r in t roduc t ion seems unna t u ral

and s t rained T h e ordinary prose t ragedy fails partly b e
.

cause of a lack of m elody par t ly because prose by i t s very

, ,

natu re proh ibi t s th e in t roduc t ion of many of those fea t ures

,

wh ich in t h e poe t ic dra ma seem bu t na t ural an d j us t .

i
( )
v T H E T RAG I C H E R O
T HE I M P O R T A N C E O F TH E H E R O — S o far a tt en t ion has
.
,

been pai d t o t h e final aim t o t h e medi um an d spi ri t of

,

tragedy ; there remains th e ques t ion of tha t wh ich is com

m o nl
y t h e means by wh ich th e drama t is t expresses both
aim an d Spi ri t -t h e t ragic h ero .

I t is to be observed tha t commonly t ragedy di ffers from

comedy in selec t ing some one or t wo figu res who by th ei r
grea t ness and by t hei r inh eren t in teres t dom ina t e t he o th er
dr am a tis p e r so n a . T h ere may be comedies wh ere one
figure so absorbs all or nearly all th e atte n tion of th e audi
, ,

ence bu t such comedies are both rare and i n cl ined to approach

,

toward more serious real ms We have for example some

.
, ,

of th e plays of Mo lié r e L Eto u r di and Le M isa nthr op e

,
’

96
 T RA G E D Y

especially and th e Vo lp o n e of B e n Jonson A close analysis

, .

of th e a tmosph ere of these comedies however would reveal , ,

the fac t th a t t hey are sligh tly abnormal 1

T h ey appeal no t .

only t o t he risible facul ties bu t to th e more serious part of

,

our being as well T hey draw near tha t is t o say the

.
, ,

dominion of th e t ragic Spi ri t N ormally comedy of any .

,

kind depends upon interplay ofcharac t er where no one person ,

is O f so much more importance than ano ther that h e becomes

a soli tary h ero T h is fact will be made more evi den t by
.

comparing t he i n t eres t of th e tragedies and comedies wri tten

by S hakespeare as typical of E lizabethan outpu t and by
, ,

O tway as t ypical of Res t ora t ion productivi ty I n H a m le t

, .

th e hero s t ands well -nigh alone in L ea r i t is the ki n g and

C ordelia wh o absorb nearly all the a tt ention in Oth ello i t
is th e Moor and Iago ; i n M a che th i t is the thane and h is
wi fe I t is no t t ha t th e oth er characters are badly drawn
.
,

bu t they are from the poin t of View of cons t r u c t ion given

, ,

hardly any importan t speeches an d from t he poin t of View , ,

of charac t erization placed on a level far below th e pri ncipal

,

figures A reference to S hakespeare s comedies ma ks th e

.
’
r

comple t ely di fferen t concep t ion T ake M uch Ado a ho u t .

N o thing in wh ich there are C laudio an d H ero B enedick

, ,

and Beatrice L eona t o and An t onio D ogberry a n d V erges

, ,

or A M idsum m er N ight s D r ea m where there are th e two

’
,

pai rs of lovers— L ysander and H ermia D emetri us an d ,

H elena— the fai ries Oberon and T i tania and th e artisans ,

Bo t tom Q uince and thei r company We note h ere not

, , .

only tha t t he characters are more on a level none ass u m i n g ,

importance far above the others bu t tha t t here are various ,

qui t e distinct poin t s of dramatic i n teres t T h e tragedies on . ,

t he other hand are simpler and more concen t rated O tw ays

, .
’

plays presen t much t he same fea t ures I n Ve n ice Pr e se r v d .

’

we have as t he cen t re of in t eres t Pierre Ja ffi e r and Be lvide r a , , ,

1
S e e i nfr a , p p . 1 45 If .

G 97
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H EO RY

all th eo th er charac t ers being subordina t e t o th em i n The

Or p ha n th e a tt en t ion is th rown excl usively on Po lydo r e ,

Castalio and Monimia The S o uldie r s Fo r tun e on th e o t h er

, .
’
,

hand has C aptain Beaugard and C ou r t ine an d S ylvia S ir

, ,

Davy and h is wi fe S ir Jolly J umble and t h e servan t F o u r b in

,

Th e Ath eist has O ld Beaugard h is so n and Porcia C our t ine , ,

an d h is wi fe Daredevi l the a t heis t T h e o do r e t and G ra t ian

, , .

Wh ile in t ragedy t h en t h e in teres t is placed on one or t wo

, ,

main charac t ers i n comedy i t is distribu t ed over a body of

,

di verse figu res I t is because of th is tha t we may discuss

.

i n such detail th e character of t h e h ero o r t h e h eroine i n

t ragedy wh ereas i n comedy such a discussion would lack no t
,

only val ue bu t mean ing T ragedies often are called after

, .

t h e name of th e one ch ief fi gu r e — Q dip us an d M edea of

G reek t imes H am let L ea r Othello M a cbe th of S hakespeare
, , , , ,

Th e Or p ha n an d The C enci of later days— comedies hardly

ever I t is th e h ero who gi ves signi ficance and t one t o a
.

t ragedy .

T H E T RAG I C F L AW — I n considering t h is t ragic hero .

we may begin again wi th A ristotle H ere t h e Greek cri tic .

h as been more explici t than h e was on t h e former subj ects

al ready deal t wi th T h e tragi c h ero for h im is a person
.

nei ther eminen t ly vi rtuous o r ju st nor ye t in volved in crime ,

by del iberate vice o r villainy bu t by some reason of h uman ,

T ha t is to say the t ragic

”
frai l ty [Of dua p r ia v d J .
,

h ero wh ile no t a paragon of goodness m u st i n A ris t otle s

, ,
’

opin ion have noble quali ties in h im bu t h e mus t have a t th e ,

same time some flaw in h is being deri ved ei ther from ign o r ,

ance of a ffai rs beyon d h is knowledge o r from h uman passion .

A ristotle in t h e Po e tics has proceeded t o indicate a couple

, ,

of l ines of developmen t 1 in t h e presen t ation of th is h ero ,

bu t h is di vision is rath er logical than Strictly cri t ical and ,

we may fi n d th e charac t eris t ics of t he h ero in t ragic d rama

1
Th e e is a t h i d b t t h is s e m s h a d ly to l a d t o wa d t a ge d y
r r , u e r e r r .

9 8
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T IC T H E O RY

th is play The Or p han i t may be no t ed in passing tha t th is

, ,

th eme generally th us modi fied was dis t inctly popular a t

, ,

th e time of th e Restora t ion a n d has appeared spo radically

,

i n later drama of the eigh teen th and nine t een th cen t uri es .

I t is responsible for all th e F a t al Marriages and F a t al

I nnocencies of t h e period 1 6 6 0 1 7 0 0 j ust as i t is r e spo n
—
,

sible for the tragic mo tive of L illo s The Fa talC ur io sity in

’

th e mid -eigh teen th cen tury One may expec t t o see i t s

.

recurrence in an age tha t has los t some of th e religious

feeling tha t swayed t h e E lizabethans al though possibly th e
,

th eme is t oo bi tter and t oo poignan t t o permi t of gen uine

t ragic passion unless t reated by t h e han d of a geni us .

C O N S C I O U S E RR O R — T here is besides th is t yp e th e h ero

, ,

w h o ac t s wrongly wi th conscious in t en t A risto t le has .

noted th is also instancing th e example o f t h e M edea

, .

Ph aedra in th e H ipp o lytus of E uripides and the same cha r ac t er

i n the eponymous play of S eneca migh t also be adduced as
sim i lar figures from th e Greek and Roman drama T h is .

concep t ion was adop t ed by S hakespeare and by many o ther

El izabethan dramatis t s M a cheth has i t s villai n h ero ;
.

Othello has a si m ilar central figu re al though h ere th e t ragedy

,

has charac t eristics of th e fi rs t type as well T h e crime of .

th e M oor springs ou t of a conscious act wh il e on t he other

, ,

hand h e was misled concerning the true facts o f th e case

, .

I n th e presen ting of a charac t er of th is s t amp as has al ready ,

been poin t ed ou t th e playwrigh t mus t i n some way o r

,

another display clearly th e h orror and th e detestation aroused

by th e crime commi tted Wi th th e roman ti c drama t ists
.

th is may be done by sh owing a change of cha r acte r after

th e execu tion of th e deed o f violence as i n M ac he th , .

Perhaps S h elley had th e same i dea in m ind wh e n he

presen te d th e pec u liar figu re of Beatrice C enci Wi th the .

classical playwrigh ts on th e o ther hand the abhorrence can

, ,

be shown o n ly immediately before or i mmedia t ely after t h e

to o
 T RA G E D Y

crime as in the lEsc h ylean presenta t ion of O res t es B u t

,
.

where th ere is no expression of horror and de t estation as i n ,

the H ipp o lytu s of S eneca th e tragedy inevitably falls to a plane

,

of lower and purely melodramatic creation for tragedy as , ,

we have seen must not only th rill wi t h the sense of awe bu t

, ,

mus t also uplift wi th the sense of maj esty I t is possibly .

the absence of this essen tial wh ich t akes from ou r pleasure

in readi n g or in seeing Th e C enci I n spi te of th e loud
.

praises of t h e S helley-worsh ippers i t woul d appear tha t i n

,

th is d r ama there is no t t ha t high feeling and nobili ty of soul

wh ich is presen t in t h e works of S ophocles and S hakespeare .

S helley fails as F ord fails no t for t he same reasons certainly

, ,

bu t in a precisely Similar manner .

T H O U G H T LEss F O LL Y — Besides these the t ypes no t ed by

.
,

A ristotl e there are several other sub -varieties of th e t ragic

,

hero presented in the works of th e great dramatists ancien t ,

as well as mode m T h e S h a kespearian type of hero wh o

.

brings disaster on h is own h ead th rough some though tless

ac t wh ich springs from h is own character is scarcely provi ded
for by A ristotle and perhaps in i ts pures t form does no t
,

make i ts appearance i n th e Greek drama a t all L ear .

hardly commi ts a crime ei ther consciously or unconsciously

, ,

but h is rej ection of C ordel ia is an ac t ion t ha t takes i ts rise

di rectly from h is own charac t er and temper and i t is th e ,

immedia t e cause of his fu t ure su fferings C oriolan us i n a .

,

similar way passes t o h is ruin th rough h is pri de and h is

,

aris tocratic co n temp t— failings tha t make h im lose sigh t of

all other h uman considerations S o too An t ony is lost
.
, ,
‘

in h is lo v e and goes to destruction wi th a kiss on C leopatra s ’

l ips Perhaps th e O reste of Racine s An dr o m a q u e m igh t be

.
’

regarded fro m a cog n ate poin t of View .

I M P O TE N C E A N D A M B I T I O N O F TH E H ER o — Again th ere .
,

is the hero who is faced by a t ask grea t er than h is powers .

H ere we have cer tainly a h uman frail ty bu t i t is one

, ,
‘
,
’

101
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H EORY

t ha t is expressed in wrongful action of no kind wha t soever .

H aml e t is of th e kin nei ther of ( E dip u s nor of Medea .

We can real ize tha t t h e web of t ragedy wh ich envelops h i m

has been spun from h is own personali t y t ha t h is h esi tat ion ,

and delay have brough t abou t an almos t general ca t as t rophe

bu t h e is no t a villain in any sense of th e word and h e ,

does not ac t ively precipi tate t he tragic ac t ion .

As a species of subdivisi on of wha t may be called th e

Hamle t t yp e we find t h e heroes of Marlowe I n Marlowe s .
’

plays cer tainly th e ambi tion of the pro tagonists brings

, ,

abou t t h ei r ruin bu t t h e basis of t he t ragic ac t ion appears

,

t o h e more de fini t ely in the opposi tion of a h uman force of

ex t raordinary di mensions t o a force beyond i t and more
powerful than i t T h e doom of th e hero is th us again
.

brough t abou t by a h uman frail ty th e desi re for knowledge

,

or for dominion in fini t e bu t the t ragedy of t h e play l i es

”
,

in t he defea t of th a t desi re by supernatural powers By a .

Sl igh t change of Stress from t h e t ypical Greek t rea t men t of

t h e theme the Prometheus of S helley s play approxima t es
,
’

closely t o th is Marlowe type and th e Cain of L ord Byron

,

has t h e same charac t eristics .

T H E F L AW LESS H E R O -AS a s t ill fur t her subdivision of

.

th e H amle t t ype we ge t t h e h ero wh o is presen t ed i n R o m e o

and
7 ulie t .H ere th ere is no t an a t om of dross T h e lo v e of .

Romeo is pure and passiona t e H e is loftier and nobler t han

.

h is companions H e is in al l ways an essen t ially good and

.

h ones t charac t er yet he comes to ruin T h e reasons fo r h is .

destruction li e i n ou t ward ci rcums t ance T here have been .

cri tics w h o have deci ded tha t t here was h ere a fa t al flaw t ha t ,

Romeo and J ul ie t married wi t hou t t hei r paren t s consen t ; 1 ’

1 V w b w
T h is ie h as e e n p u t fo r ar d b y G e r v in u s Dr S m r
. a ta
ss e r s t
t t t i ai
h a a n in n o c e n h e r o is n o t n e c e ssar ly l e n t o r ge d y ta A m o n g th e
.

x t
e a m p le s h e q u o e s a r e t h e G o s p e ls a n dCla r iss a H a r lo we A r . pa t
t tb t
f r o m t h e fa c t h a t a
o h o f h e s e h a v e m o r l o r r e l g io u s i sso c i a
o n s,at i
it se e m s haz a r d o u s t o a r g u e fr o m o n e t p it t
y e o f l e r a u r e to n o h e r a t .

102
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H E O RY

form i n th e h eroic t ragedy of t h e Res t o ra t ion H owever .

dull D ryden s d ramas may appear we realize t ha t t h ere are

’
,

i n h is h eroes th e elemen t s of t ragic grea t ness Examples are .

t o be discovered l ikewise i n t he rimed t ragedi es of neo

classic F rance T h e t ype domina t es nearly all t h e dr am a tis
.

p er so n a of Racine sways th e t ragedies of Vol tai re and

, , ,

carried t h ence appears in almos t every classical t ragedy

,

produced i n England in th e eigh t een th cen t u ry I n S hake .

speare i t is apparen t i n t h e conception of A n t ony al t hough ,

a comparison of S hakespeare s drama wi t h the cogna t e play ’

of D ryden Allfo r Lo v e o r The Wo r ld Well Lo st will Show

, , ,

h ow S hakespeare has h umanized and soft ened t h e t oo sharp

stress of t h e con fl ic t so heavily marked in th e Res t ora t ion
,

tragedy T h is t ype of h ero obviously fi t ted t o convey t he

.
,

h ighes t t ragic emo t ions has been carried over t o modern

,

t imes and adap t ed t o newer condi t ions appears as no t iceably

, , ,

now as i t did i n th e seven t een th and eigh teen th cen t uries .

T H E FLAW AR I S I N G F R O M C I RCU MSTA N C ES F inally .

,

there is perhaps one other Species of hero t ha t migh t be con

side r e d again a subdivision of th e wrongly acting charac t er
, .

I n th is type th e h ero accepts a li fe of crime no t because of

some flaw in h is being bu t because of ci rcums t ances wh ich
,

opera t e harshly against h im an d in h is crime he remains ,

hones t and pu re-souled A t ypical example is t o be dis

.

covered i n D ie R au her of S ch iller H ere C harles de Moor

'

is dri ven t o become an ou tlaw because of th e action of h is

father who in h is t urn has been cheated by th e younger son
, ,

F rancis de M oor I t is F rancis who is t h e villain wh o

.
,

pursues A mel ia and i mmu res h is old father in a d ungeon .

C harles becomes t he instrumen t of vengeance liberating h is ,

fath er and deciding a t th e close t o give h imself over t o j us t ice .

AS is obvious t h is t ype owes some t h ing to t h e sen t imen t al

,

villain -heroes o r good -bad men of t he eigh t een th cen tury ,

bu t in i t th e sen t imen t al n o t e is raised and puri fied I t is .

1 04
 T RA G E D Y

distinctly a modern conception and ta ken over by th e , ,

ro mantic dramatis t s also m akes i ts appearance in a n umber

,

of nineteen th and twen tie th -cen t ury plays .

. T H E PO S I TI O N O F T H E H E R O I N TH E PL AY — Before .

passing from t hese defini te types of h eroes i t may be noted ,

that beyond thei r several varie t ies there are t wo very di ff ering
posi tions wh ich any of these may hold i n th e plays in
which they appear Any of these h eroes may be placed in a
.

tragedy ei ther in an active or an inactive capaci ty T h ere is .

,

on th e one hand the h ero wh o sways the whole cou rse of

,

t he drama O restes thus domina t es both the t ragedies of

.

lE sc h ylu s and of Alfi e r i ; M acbe t h is t he mo t ive force in

S hakespeare s play H ere almos t every t h ing tha t happens
’
.

on the stage arises o u t of t he though ts an d th e emotions of

t he hero h imself H ardly any other charac t er may be sai d
.

t o in fl uence t he developmen t of th e plo t T h ere is on th e .

,

other hand th e h ero who l i ke L ear is more sinned against

, , ,

than sinning ”
. L ear gives the ini tial mo t ive -power t th e
p
play i n wh ich h e appears bu t that fi rs t scene when h e ,

appor t ions h is kingdom is almost a prologue and i n a non ,

roman t ic drama would assu redly ha v e been t old to th e

audience by narra t ion A fter i t is over L ear is wholly
.

acted against T h e conduc t of th e piece passes en tirely

.

ou t of h is hands in t o th e hands of h is daugh ters T h is .

lat t er posi tion of th e hero has been bu t spari n gly u t ilized

by t he grea t er drama t is t s because of t he sense i t gi ves of
,

the powerlessness of t h e hero h imself I t was onl y a .

S hakespeare who could presen t a L ear maj es t ic an d exalted

i n th e mids t of h is a ffl iction and misery .

T H E T W I N H E R 0 — On e other considera t ion mus t also

.

be touched upon I n some dramas par t icularly of the

.
,

Elizabethan period there is no t merely one h ero bu t two

, , ,

and t he t ragic emotion arises ou t of th e clash or con fli ct

of t hei r personali ties Who shall we say is t h e h ero of
.

105
 I N T RO D U CT I O N T O D R A M A T I C T HEORY

Othello ? O thello h imsel f un t il th e very las t ac t does

, ,

absol utely noth ing ; i t is Iago wh o dri ves t he plo t fo rward

and a t tracts nearly all t h e at t en tion of th e play I n th is .

t ragedy we seem to see i ndeed t wo ch i ef figures : Iago by

a t erri ble dua p r fa engaged i n a grim game of decei t and ,

O thello by a di fferen t species of h uman frail t y moving

slowly onward t o h is destruction ; th is is no t a mono -hero
play such as is H a m le t or Le a r T h e same si t ua t ion arises
.

’
i n Ven ice Pr eser v d an d i n The Or p ha n Ja ffi e r and Pi erre
.

are both h eroes and th e misery and th e awe i n th e play

,

arise ou t of both the weakness of the former and t h e ru t h

lessness of t he lat t er I n The Or p ha n a t ragic si tua t ion
.

coul d no t have been developed ou t of ei t her Po lydo r e o r

C astalio alone . I t is wh en they are pu t in j ux t aposi t ion
t ha t th ey are brough t to destruction and m isery .

T H E H ER O L ES S T RAG ED Y — T h is tragedy from th e clash

.

and con fl i c t of t wo heroi c personali ties has seen a marked

developmen t wi th many variations i n ou r modern period
, , .

Wi th th e passing away of t h e E lizabe than s t ress on character ,

noted above th ere has been a t endency t oward dramas

,

lacking any apparen t h ero or h eroes where th e t ragi c action

,

an d th e t ragic a t mosph ere spring rather from th e con flic t

of di verse characters none of wh ich is a cen t ral figure o r
, ,

from t he social forces su rrounding t hose charac t ers A .

h ero (or h eroes) is t ruly presen t bu t i t is a h ero unseen

,
.

Wh o precisely is the h ero of ffu stice I t is no t the pi ti ful ,

weak -willed clerk ; h e in h imself would no t be tolerable

, ,

for a momen t in a tragedy Who is th e h ero of S tr ife ?

.

I t is nei ther th e l eader of t h e men nor t he leader of th e

masters T here is no t in ei ther play one single figu re not
.
,

one single pai r of figu res wh ich looms up su ffi cien tly large
,

to take predominating importance in o u r m i n ds and we ,

have therefore no hero o r heroes in t he olde r sense of the

, ,

word T h e place of th e hero is taken by an unseen force

.

106
 I N T RO D U CT I O N T O DR A MA T IC T H EO RY

fraugh t wi th pecul iar di ffi cul ties for t hey may refer no t only
,

t o th e sexes bu t to th e qual i ti es wh ich in pas t cen t uri es

, , ,

have been associa t ed wi th the sexes T h us we may say .

tha t Ta m hu r la in e is a purely mascul ine play because i t

i n troduces hardly any woman character ; bu t a t th e sa me

t ime we may say tha t M acheth is masculine because al th ough ,

Lady Macbeth is one of t he main forces in t h e drama sh e ,

is no t of tha t t ype of min d wh ich we usually call femini ne .

T h e connota t ions of t h ese words obviously have changed, ,

considerably during t h e las t few generations bu t reser va t ions , ,

being made th ey may be u t il ized th us t o sign ify spi ri ts and

,

t emperamen t s of di ffering val ues .

T ragedy i t was said di ffered from comedy in tha t i t

, ,

migh t o ften be wholly masculine ; t h is s t a t emen t migh t be

carried still farth er and take th e form of a pronouncemen t
t ha t t ragedy almos t invariably stresses th e mascul ine a t the
expense of th e feminine elemen t s T h e reason for t h is is .

qui te eviden tly t h e hardness an d s t ern ness wh ich we have

al ready noted in t h e h ighes t t ragi c ar t T h e cen t ral fi gu re
.
,

t h en of all grea t tragedies will be a man o r else a woman

, ,

who li ke L ady Macbe th or I ph igenia or M edea has i n h er

, ,

t emper some adaman t qual i ties and severi t y of pu rpose no t

o rdinari ly associa t ed wi th th e t ypically feminine T h e .

femin in e elemen t on the other hand is rarely lacking i n

, ,

any grea t t ragedy ; i ts absence mars t h e dramas of Marlowe .

T h is feminine elemen t however does no t O ften have any

, ,

grea t i n fl uence on th e developmen t of th e play d i rectly ,

al though indi rectly by i n fl uence on t h e min d o f the h ero i t

,

may have m uch O ph el ia is t hus a weak wholly inac t i ve

.
,

charac t er yet i t is evidently h er death wh ich changes

,

Hamle t from a man of deep ph ilosoph y and of profound ,

i f un real ized pu rpose in t o a careless crea t ure for whom

, , ,

noth ing is of any consequence or in t eres t I n t h e same .

way Desdemona plays no di rec t part i n Othello ; sh e is

108
 T RA G E D Y

essen tially feminine weak decep t i ve pu rposeless and th us

, , ,
1
,

does no t ac t ively forward the plot Only i n di rectly by .

,

h er i n fl uence upon O thello does she carry on th e t ragic ,

movemen t C ordelia in Lea r is of more impor tance bu t

. ,

she shares wi th L ady Macbe t h certain q u ali ties wh ich we

C ommonly call masculine ; sh e is i n many ways simply , ,

a replica (more hastily sketched in i t is t r u e) of h er fa th er , .

T h e corollary t o t his t ruth is seen in those dramas begun

by Banks in the middle of the Restoration period an d con
tin u e d by Rowe an d others in the eigh t eenth cen t u ry T h ese .

sh e-t ragedies as sometimes th ey have been called have

,
’
,

rarely an a t om of tragic grea t ness although some of them are ,

a ffecting Ver tu e B etr ay d o r An n a B ut/en of Banks The

.
’
, , ,

Tr ag e dy of 7 a m S ho r e of Rowe and M a r y Q u een of S co ts , ,

of S t John are all pathetic and t ouch ing bu t they are no t

, ,

tragedies T hey never reach tha t stern ness of maj esty wh ich
.

is an inevi table concomi tan t O f th is highes t t ype of li terature .

I t is t h is insis t ence on t he femi n ine and along wi th th e , ,

feminine t he pathetic wh ich has marred the plays of

, ,

F letcher Webster an d F ord ; i t is partly t h is wh ich takes

, ,

away from t h e grandeur of Ven ice Pr eser v d an d Th e Or p han ’

i t is t h is wh ich has led several modern dramatis t s misled ,

by sen t imental notions hopelessly astray T h e feminine in

, .

h igh t ragedy we may repea t mus t ei th er be made hard

, , ,

approaching the masculine in quali ty or else he relega t ed to ,

a po si t ion of minor i mportance in the developmen t of th e

plo t T h e only exception t o th is l ies possibly in those
.
, ,

h e r o le ss plays al ready referred to where th e t ragedy arises ,

not so much ou t of indivi dual characters as ou t of the clash

1
Th e w d d p ti
or ece is d e l b e r
ve i at
e ly e m p lo ye d h e r e Fo r m e .

th e r t ag d y f O th ll i
e o e o r s e s o u t o f t h e d e c e p t o n a n d s e lf -d e c e p io n i t
o f the chi f ha
e c r ac e r s , an d D e sd e m o n a
t b y h e r d e c e p io n o f h e r
, t
t b
fath e r , b y h e r d e c e p io n o f h e r h u s an d , a n d b y h e r la s p i ifu l t t
t
d e c e p io n o f th o se w h o W n e sse d t h e it fi
n a l t r ag e d y, s a n d s r e la e d t t
t o th e ge n e r l a atm o sp h e r e a n d p u r p o se o f th e p la y .

1 09
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D R A M A T I C T H EO RY

of varying t empe raments and th e opera t ion of social o r

ex t ernal ci rcumstances ; and even here t he a t mosph ere of
loftiness and hardness must be preserved .

(v) T Y P ES O F T RAG EDY

F E A T UR ES G R E E K T R A G ED Y -I n th us analysing t h e
OF .

characteristics of drama from lEsc h ylu s to modern days all ,

the main types of t ragedy have been touched upon T here .

would remain here therefore li ttle more to do t han t o sum

, ,

up some of the resul ts wh ich have been ob t ained as th ese ,

particularly apply t o th e t ragic endeavou r of th e various ages .

As practically none of the main types of t ragi c endeavou r

is un represented i n E nglish i t may be well t o con fine all
,

remarks h ere t o the developmen t of t ragedy i n th is country ,

wi th but occasional reference to t h e practice of o t her lands .

—O f the Greek drama much has been

( )
a T h e C ho r u s .

said and wri tten and th e de t ails of i ts t ech nique and develop
,

men t need not h ere be en tered in to T here is much t ha t .

is permanen t i n th e t ragedies of lEsc h ylu s S ophocles and , ,

E u ri pi des bu t t here is also much that has a pu rely temporary

,

value T h e chorus for example is essentially an incidental

.
, ,

fea t ure I t is part of the tradi tional origin of th e G reek

.

s t age and in th e hands of E uri pides i t was as we have al rea dy

, ,

seen relegated t o a subordinate posi t ion T ha t i t was no t

, .

necessary for th e expression of true tragic emotion has been

proved no t only by the romantic gen i us of S hakespeare bu t ,

by th e classical geni us of Racine On th e o t her hand .

,

th e chorus marked tha t lyrical qual i ty in t ragedy wh ich

later iconoclas t s were inclined too recklessly t o neglec t T h e .

spi ri t o f th e cho rus that of wh ich i t was the expression is a

, ,

permanen t th ing well -n igh necessary in all h igh t ragedy

, ,

bu t the fo rm of the chorus is pu rely temporary and topical .

( )
h Th e Un it
y f o A ctio n — T h e uni t ies
. also presen t , ,

1 10
 I N T RO D U CT I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H E O RY

fin d a t leas t an endeavour t o chea t us in t o believing tha t t h e

action is swi ft and tempes t uous t o accord wi th th e violen t
,

na t ure of th e t ragi c emo t ion I n H am let after th e even t s

.
,

of th e two days embraced in A c t I S cenes 1 t o v t h ere is , ,

ac t ually an in t erval of a couple of mon ths as again there is ,

a space of a week be t ween A c t I V S cene I V and A c t I V , , ,

S cene v bu t no Spec t a t or o r reader feels th is ex t ension of

t ime H am let seems t o move rapidly on from th e fi rs t
.

visi t a t ion of t h e ghost t o t h e final ca t as t rophe I f th e .

i n t ervals are real ized th ey merely make t he play appea r li ke

a tale t old i n a prologue ( Ac t I ) a se t of th ree acts ( I I — I V)
, ,

and an epi logue ( Ac t V) Othello has a s t ruc t ure similar t o

.

t ha t of H am let A c t I is con fined t o a day T hen comes

. .

t h e voyage A c t s I I and I ll t ake up a couple of days and

.
,

th en aft er t h e in t erval of a week t here are Ac t s I V and V

, , .

H ere again however i n spi t e of th e division in t o prologue

, , ,

two ac t s an d epilogue th ere is a swi ftness sugges t ed wh ich

, ,

makes us forge t th e ac t ual time analysis M a che th and Lea r .

are more ex t ended and in th em precisely because of t his

, , ,

we fin d a cer t ain weakness not apparen t in t h e o ther t wo

t ragedies I n M a cheth the in t eres t is sus tained a t wh i te
.

h ea t up t o t he murder of D uncan is carried on i n a way till ,

after th e death of Banquo and th en rapidly declines al though

, ,

S hakespeare by h is poe t ry makes s t ren uous e fforts t o revi ve

ou r flagging a t ten t ion T h e murder of D uncan occurs in
.

Ac t I I S cene I I ; A c t I I S cene I I I is t h e scene of th e dis

, , ,

c o ve r
y . Banquo is murdered i n Ac t I I I S cene 1 1 1 an d h is , ,

ghost appears in A c t I I I S cene I v On studying such

, .

indi ca t ions as S hakespeare has left t o us of th e time dura t ion

of t h is play we find tha t a long in t erval occu rs j us t after t he
,

dea th of D uncan and t ha t t hereafter there is a con tin ual

series of i ntervals t h roughou t A cts I V and V T hese .

i n t ervals canno t be concealed by S hakespeare as h e concealed

th ose of H am let and o f Othello and o ur wan ing in t eres t m us t
,

1 12
 T RA G E D Y

in par t be a t tribu t ed t o t hem T h e s t ruc t ure of Lea r as .

,

we have seen is inclined to be epic and as such although

, , , ,

when read i t may have an added grandeu r yet when seen in ,

the theatre i t has no t th e e ffec t of t h e oth er th ree I t is .

only wh en we come t o t he To m an tic t ragi -comedies however , ,

tha t we ge t t h e really violen t brea king of th is uni ty T h e .

lo n g six t een years leap between th e acts of The Win ter s Ta le

’ ’

would have been impossible in a h igh t ragedy ; i t would

have comple t ely dispelled that closely concen t rated emotion
wh ich i t is t he business of t ragedy t o presen t t o us .

e Un it Pl a ce — T h e uni ty of place has qui te

( )
d Th y f
o .

obviously more in common wi th the G reek than wi th th e

modern roman t ic stages ye t again for the preservation of , ,

th e peculiar a tmosphere of t ragedy t here must be but li ttle ,

sh ifting of scenery i f we are t o keep the true tragic spi ri t .

T o S hakespeare on h is bare and unadorned stage change

, ,

of place mean t noth ing ; bu t for us t o -day wi th our scene

sh ifters and ou r mach inis t s th e un i t y of place has a peculiar
value As long as our minds and ou r eyes are distracted
.

from th e genuine developmen t of th e play so long will we ,

fail t o apprecia t e t o th e full t h e meaning and th e emotion

of the drama t is t S wift change of place suggests longer
.

dura t ion of time and dura t ion of t ime ac t s di rectly coun t er

,

to the t rue t ragic spi ri t 1 .

a e — T h e G reek drama and i ts conventions

()e T h e S t g ,

therefore may have much t o tell us Even from th e con

, .

e c tu r e s of the mos t absurd of the neo -classic cri tics th ere

j
may be gained genuine elements of dramatic t ruth T h e .

main di ff erence however between th e Greek th eatrical world

, ,

and t ha t o f t o -day does no t l ie in th e chorus or in mere

1
Th e r e is a cert ai t
in v e r y m o d e r n
n m e s t o in c r e a se
e n d e n cy ti
ta
th e s g e se n gs tt i
T h is m ay p ar t ly b e a r i u e d to th e in fl u e n c e
. tt b t
o f th e c in e m a , a n d h a s b e e n r m ly wa
d v o c a e d b y t h e fu u r s a t t i t
Mar in e i I t m ay b e n o e d t h a o n ly t h e u n i e s o f ac o n a n d
tt . t t ti ti
t t
im e ar e m e n io n e d b y Ar s o le it t .

H 1 1 3
 I N T RO D U CT I O N T O D RA MA T IC T H EO RY

d r amatic t ech nique bu t i n t h e s t age ; and a consi dera tion

,

of th e G reek theatre capable of h olding , spectators ,

raises a t once th e problem as t o th e mos t sui t able medi um for

the presenta t ion of t ragedy On th e one hand there is th is .

vas t amph i t hea t re wi th t h e actors far removed from t h e

,

audience wi t h no oppor t uni t y for scenic e ff ec t s and on th e

, ,

oth er th ere is th e thedtr e in tim e wh ere a small body of

’

spec t a t ors is brough t into close con t ac t wi th th e actors and ,

where scen ic e ffec t s can be employed an d illusions of all kinds

crea t ed T h e t rue answer t o t h is problem woul d seem t o be
.

t h at bo th th e thedtr e in tim e and th e Greek amph i t hea t re c an

’

produce fi ne plays each of separa t e and q ui te dis t inc t beau t y ;

,

bu t a t t he same t ime there is some t h ing of vas t ness and

, ,

of maj es t y i n t h e plays produced on t h e Greek s t age wh ich

is impossible in t h e plays wri tt en for a thé a tr e in tim e T h ere ‘
.

may be del icacy in t he la tt er ; t here may be more poignan t

a nd subtle si t ua t ions ; t h ere will certainly be more in t ri ca t e
character-drawing ; bu t there will usually be lacking the
s t a t uesque e ffec t the grandeu r and t h e exal ted tone of th e
, ,

other H is t ory has shown t o us t ha t t h e fines t dramas have

.

been produced for he t erogeneous audiences— the aris tocra t s

and th e ar t isans of A th ens t he appren tices an d the peers of
,

Eli zabe t han England Where t h e audiences tend to break

.

in t o separa t e groups wh ere the thea t re is patron ized n o t by

,

all bu t by a class t hen t h e drama produced for t hat thea t re

, ,

becomes weak and e ff emina t e D rama i t would appear .

, ,

is no t wholly a th ing of pleasure in i t s h ighes t forms ; in

t h e ages wh en th e th eatre is merely a place of amusemen t ,

to -day and i n Res tora t ion E ngla n d then th e average play ,

wri ting is po or an d uninformed Only in th e periods when .

th e t h eatre mingl ed pleasu re wi th some species of re flection ,

some h umani tarian n a tional or religious i deal was fine

, , ,

drama produced lEsc h ylu s S ophocles and E uri pides re flec t

.
, ,

th e age of Periclean A thens S hakespeare re flects th e age

1 14
 I N T RO D U CT I O N T O D R A M A T I C T HE O RY

g r ada t ions i t moved forward t o t h e vas t cycles of t he

mystery and mi racle plays Moral i t ies th en t ook thei r
.

rise probably wi th the developmen t of more professional

,

companies of actors T h ese moral i ties again by in n u m e r

.
,

able gradations passed in to fo rms tha t approach ed t oward

,

truer d ramatic sha pe and t hen grafted on t o th e n ew

, ,

grow th of h umanisti c sen t imen t developed ul tima t ely in t o

,

th e marvellou s fl ourish and frui t of th e E lizabe than s tage .

Wi th th is developmen t wen t a corresponding progress i n

th e conception of th e tragic spi ri t F o r th e Mi ddle Ages
.

t ragedy was essen tially a falling from happin ess or grea t

esta t e in t o unhappiness o r misery C haucer s lines from .
’

th e Monk s prologue al ready quo t ed express summarily

’
, ,

th e t ypical medieval vi ew Dan t e s grea t poem was a

.
’

divine comedy because i t passed from th e t ormen t s of

”
,

H ell t o th e happiness of H eaven T h us for th e Mi ddle

.
,

A ges t ragedy as dealing wi th persons of h igh degree wi th

, , ,
”
h i m that stood in greet p r o sp e r ite e harmonized exactly ,

wi th the A ristotelian i dea tha t tragedy should deal wi t h t he

$
hero of h igh fame an d fl ourish ing prosperi ty ”
A t the .

same time there arose almost unconsciously th e feeling tha t

tragedy shoul d deal wi th these exal ted deeds and persons in
an exal t ed manner ; h ence verse in some form came to be
th e natu ral concomi tan t of all t rue t ragedy and t h is li kewise , , ,

j oined forces wi th th e verse plays of S eneca and wi th th e th en

less well -known verse plays of ancien t G reece S o far th e .

A thenian and th e medieval ideals coalesced Medieval .

cri ticism however had one pecul iarly characteristic feature

, ,

i t expressed in th e most extreme form th e moral a t titude

toward li terature S wayed by s t rictures agai n st th e drama
.

and indeed agai n st all poetry wh ich foun d e x pression from

th e ti me of the F athers of the C h u rch to tha t of G i rolamo
S avonarola i t attempted everywh ere t o discover some
,

util i tarian end for every t ype of art and every piece of
1 1 6
 T RA G E D Y

artistic workmansh ip Moral considerations th erefore

.
, ,

me t wi th th e new h umanistic i deals and developed a type ,

of li terary cri ticism confused an d h e t erogeneous bu t none ,

th e less i n fl uential u pon the develop m en t of dramatic li tera

t ure T his clash is to be seen mo st clearly in the pronounce
.

men t s of some of the la t e six t eenth -ce n t ury theorizers .

T ragedy ,
”
says Pu tt enham who may be t aken as a r e p r e
,

se n ta tiv e of many o t hers deals wi th the do le fu ll falls of

$
,

unfort u nate and a fflic t ed Princes for the pu rpose of reminding

,

men of t h e mu t abili ty of fortune an d of God s j us t p u nish ’

men t of a vicious life . H ere in t h is one sentence we fin d

, ,

ideas c u lled from ancien t Greece and from medieval E u rope

mingled toge ther and confused wi th no se n se of thei r inheren t
incongrui ty T h ere is th e A ristotel ian i dea of magni t ude
.

there is th e medieval idea of fall from happi n ess in to unhappi

ness ; th ere is th e pagan idea of for t une ; and th ere is th e
C h ristian i dea of moral punishmen t T h e co n fusion i s .

in t eresting and val u able because from j us t such a confusion

,

grew t he drama of t he E lizabethans .

AS regards th e general i dea of tragedy at th is time we ,

may sum up brie fl y by saying th at in th e belief of all tragedy , ,

consisted in the fall of the great ; that all were agreed as to

th e advisabili ty of having fi ve -act dramas ( H orace here is
responsible and S eneca) tha t all were co n vinced of the
,

val ue of a poetic form for t ragedy ; t ha t consciously or ,

unconsciou sly no one would have denied th e necessi ty for

,

a moral in all tragedies an d t hat perfec t ly unconsciously , ,

th e con fl ic t of th e old morali ties was operating on th e m inds

of th e cri tics and t he dramatists toward the stressi n g of an
elemen t neglected to a large exten t in th e Greek d rama .

A part from th ese general supposi tions and beliefs the ,

classicists par t ed compa n y from th e popular so -called ,

romantic playwrigh ts Whereas the classicists held for the

, .

th ree unities t he popular playwrigh t s looking t o native

, ,

1 1 7
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H E O RY

example disdained or viola t ed th em whereas t h e classicis t s

, ,

wi th S idney regarded t ragi -comedy as a mongrel creation

, ,

th e popular dramatists looking back t o the crude admixture

,

of sadness an d mi rth i n th e mysteries pa t ronized t his form ,

above all others ; wh ereas th e classic drama t is t s and cri t ics ,

following H orace cried for declamation an d for decorum th e

, ,

popular wri ters strove t o s t ress action t o make th ei r t ragedies

,

vigorous t o deny no th ing t o the eyes of th e spec t a t ors

, .

T h e S enecan in fl uence had been working i n E u rope years

before i t passed to England As early as 1 3 1 5 was penned
.

t h e Eccer in is of Alberti n o a La t in drama modelled on t h e

,

s t ric t Roman form I n 1 5 1 5 came th e I t al ian S ofo nisha

.

of T rissino By 1 5 5 9 however t here had appeared in

.
, ,

England t h e fi rst t ranslation o f a S enecan drama and i t is ,

from abou t t h is year tha t we can t race th e grow th of t h e

classical species here S ackville and N or t on s G o r ho duc
.
’

was ac t ed only two years la t er i n January 1 5 6 2 , T h is .

G o r ho duc t he fi rs t regular E nglish t ragedy is th e in i t ia to r of

, ,

a long l ine of S enecan dramas ch ill and unin teres t ing bu t

, ,

val uable t o us because O f th ei r varia t ions from t he s t ric t norm .

G o r ho du c has a na t ive m
yth O -h is t orical t h eme no t a classical ,

subj ec t an d the s truc t ure is closer t o t he old ch ron icle

,

h istory manner than t o t he Roman t ype L ove passion .

was in t roduced in t o t h e composi te G ism o n d of S aler n e and ,

a na t ive note in t o T h omas H ughes The M isfo r tun es of ’

Ar thu r . I n t hese plays t h e uni t ies are commonly broken ,

and Engl ish h is t orical or quasi -h is t orical themes are t rea t ed

as wel l as stories borrowed from I tal ian n o v el/e bu t t he whole ,

is set i n a framework of rigid and i mpossibl e declama t ion ,

and every t u rn of th e plo t is colou red by th e medieval ide a

of a moral aim T here is the con fusion h ere in creative ar t
.
,

such as i t is W h ich was visible in t he c r itic al pronouncemen t

,

of Pu t tenham quo t ed above .

Meanwhile playwrigh t s who had been t u t ored in th e

,

1 1 8
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H EO RY

was h ere deeply s t rengthened Wi th th e rise of pa t rio t ic

.

sen t imen t in th e latter half of t he six t een th cen t ury t hese ,

h istory plays became exceedingly popular and even al th ough ,

th ey do no t belong t o the s t ric t t ragic t ype t hey mus t be

duly taken in to consideration when we are deal ing wi t h t h e

elemen ts wh ich wen t t o make up t h e Elizabethan d rama .

I n all of these various primi tive t ypes we se e a s t ruggle ,

sometimes conscious b u t more commonly unconscious

, ,

toward th e attainmen t of a t ruly na t ional and t ruly uni fied

d rama N o one h owever had apparen t ly considered care
.
, ,

fully wha t would sui t th e t as t es O f th e age T h e classicis t s

.

were severe and unwilling t o depar t overfar from th ei r

ancien t laws and precep t s even i f h ere and th ere th ey h ad
,

to make concessions to popular predilec t ions ; th e o t her

dramatis t s al though th ey occasionally borrowed hin t s from
,

S eneca were rough an d unformed in t hei r concep t ions and

,

in t hei r manner I t is now perfec t ly obvious t ha t th e only

.

hope for the rise of a na t ional dram a lay in a conscious un ion

of th e two forces t he na t ive elemen t s provi ding varie t y and
,

Vi tali ty t h e classical elemen t s providing uni t y and har

,

m o n io u s cons t ruction ; bu t t h is fac t may no t have been so

apparen t to t h e cri t ics and th e playwrigh t s of th e age .

D ramas li ke th e anonymous Lo cr in e and S elim us seemed

to be tending i n th e righ t di rec t ion bu t th ey t oo were
, , ,

unformed and i t was left t o t h e Universi t y Wi ts t o make

,

t h e classical t ragedy popular and the popular t ragedy uni fied

i n cons t ruc t ion and conscious of i ts aim .

Many of t hese Universi t y Wi t s con fined t hei r work t o

comedy and h ence may barely be men t ioned h ere ; al though
,

t o them all comedy wri ters and t ragedy wri ters alike is d ue
, ,

t he developmen t of a freer and a swee t er blank verse wh ile

to L yly wh o wro t e only fan t astic comedies we o we t he
, ,

in t roduc t ion of a finer i f concei t ed prose s t yle and t o

, , ,

Greene and L yly ali ke t hose delica t e roman t i c -real is t i c

12 0
 T RA G E D Y

por t rai ts of women which were t aken over by S hakespeare

in h is early years and were later modi fied by h im By .

the time tha t these Un iversi ty Wi ts appeared th e L ondon

world was ripe for the origination of th e new drama T h e .

private shows at th e I nns of C our t and elsewhere still

con t inued and were t o con t inue t ill th e C losing of th e
,

thea t res in 1 6 42 bu t t h e cen t re of thea trical interes t was

,

now t he professional actors playing in regular thea t res

,

modelled partly on the ol d inn -yards where formerly they

had performed partly on the old mys t ery pla t form -s t age
, ,

and par t ly on the Roman amphi th ea t res .

T h e audience was now a mixed body of spec t a t ors ,

embracing all classes from th e courtiers t o t he rudes t ground

lings all passiona t e and all accustomed t o sigh t s of blood
, ,

all demanding a rich full —blooded drama and all prepared

, , ,

wi th the fiery en t h usiasm born of th e Renascence t o lis t en ,

t o the finest outburs t s of poetical frenzy bu t no t prepared

, ,

under any considera t ion t o wi tness any thing ar t i ficial or

,

stil ted T h e actors were men of the one h istrionic profession

.
,

ben t on making a livelihood and determined to sacri fice no

oppor t uni t y of gain by adhering t o th eoretical prej udices ,

classical or o therwise T h e s t age condi tions were medieval

.
,

admi t ting ample change of scenery allowing for the episodic

,

t rea t men t of themes i f t ha t shoul d be deemed necessary

, .

Already even in the I nns of C our t performances i t had been

, ,

amply proved tha t t h e uni t ies in thei r s t ricter forms were

no t in E nglish tas t e and t hat Renascence enth usiasm and
,

passion had burs t aside th e fet t ers of the more precise

h umanis t ic movemen t T h e stage condi tions likewise
.
, ,

wh ich permi tted th is mul t i t ude of sh ifting scenes demanded ,

a long descrip t ion wh ich the audience woul d willingly listen

,

to only when i t was couched in th e fullest of poetical forms .

F rom the presence among th e actors of famous clowns ,

added t o t he vi tal t radi t ion of the medieval V ice in fl uenced

,

12 1
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T IC T H EO RY

t oo by th e general a t mosphere of th e primi t ive English

li t urgical dra ma came t h e demand for t ragi -comedy
, .

T ragedy pu re tragedy could be produced only wh en i t was

, ,

of a bombastic exaggera t ed kind so t h rilling and so gri pping

, ,

t he imaginations of the spec t a tors tha t t hey woul d be willing

t o sacri fice fo r a time that mi rth wh ich for th em seasonably
Spiced th e mos t serious of plays .

MAR L O W E — T h e man who as is well known finally

.
, ,

es t abl ished th e t ragic t ype in E ngland was C h ris t oph er

Marlowe I n h is works crude i n cons t ruc t ion as t hey
.
,

appear when se t i n comparison wi th S hakespeare s la t er ’

t ri umphs we find for th e fi rs t t ime a conscious s t riving t o

,

reach a form of t ragedy tha t should be no t so amorpho us and

so pu rposeless as t h e previous a tt emp t s in classical popular , ,

or ch ronicle h istory s t yles Marlowe s dramas fall na t u rally

.
’

in t o t wo groups : th e fi rst consis t ing of Tam bur la in e D r

, ,

F ustus and perhaps The ye w of M alta s t ands apar t from

a , ,

th e later E dw a r d II a h is tory play wh ich shows a qui t e

,

separa t e t ragic aim I t is t he fi rs t grOu p t ha t is of paramoun t

.

importance as forming a t ype of t ragedy by i t sel f hardly ,

t ouched in i t s pu re form by any oth er wri ter .

T h e fi rs t poin t we note abou t t hese early dramas is tha t

their authors have all drunk deeply of a sou rce unknown t o
t h e preceding drama t ists ll Pr incip e of Macch iavell i had
.

appeared a t F lorence in t h e year 1 5 1 3 and from t h e da t e of ,

i ts publication i n an ever-increasing wave of admi ra t ion and

,

of abuse i t s fame and notoriety spread t h rough Eu rope I n

, .

England Marlowe because of h is independen t and almos t

,

rebellious a t ti t ude toward li fe was one of th e fi rs t t o embrace

,

i ts doc t rines and t h e doc t rines wh ich had sprung from i t .

Macch iavelli had made a god of v ir tz} expressing in imperish ,

able prose tha t desi re and tha t ambi tion wh ich had opera t ed
i n almos t every I t al ian Sta t e raising h umble co n do ttie r i t o
,

principal i ties and dukedoms and retaining t hem there by

,

12 2
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D R A M A T I C T H E O RY

t o misery was being supplan t ed by t he Renascence ideal of

indivi dual wor th T h e more ancien t t radi tion con t inued t o
.

endure for centuries bu t as i n th e dramas of S hakespeare

, , ,

i t was being modi fied gradually by t h e Marlovian i deal .

I n t he same way we fin d in Marlowe s t ragedies a change

,
’

in t h e t ragic aim T h e kernel of h is dramas l ies no t so

.

much i n t h e falling of a grea t person from happiness as in

th e s t ruggle of some brave ambi t ious soul agains t forces t oo

grea t for i t T h e moral conception of t ragedy for Marlowe

.

was gone T h e whole i nteres t cen tres on t he one person

.

al i t y ; t h e a tt ention of spec t a t ors and of readers is fixed on

t ha t personali t y an d on th e grea tn ess and nobili t y wh ich i s
connec t ed wi th i t T amburlaine is obviously t he master of
.

th ose abou t h im F austus is one in whose hands in fini t e

.

knowledge has been pu t T h e J ew moves as a kind of

.

super-mind among a mass of puppe t s whose lives h e sways

con tinually T h ere is th e same sense of in t ellec t ual maj es t y
.

in all Marlowe s heroes wh ich is t o be fel t in H amle t

’
.

T here are several other S t ri ki ng departu res on Marlowe s

’

par t from con temporary procedu re one of t he mos t impor ,

tan t being h is more poe t ical use of blank verse ; bu t wi th

t h ese we need not deal One oth er poin t however may be
.
, ,

noted ; and that is th e tremendous advance wh ich h e made in

D r Fa u stu s in h is concep t ion of an inner S t ruggle as bearing
a grea t par t of the tragic in t eres t T h ere is no s t ruggle in
.

t h e soul of T ambu rlaine nor in t h e soul of Barabas bu t ,

wha t makes D r Fa ustus really grea t is th e h in t a t c o n flic t

ing desi res wi th in th e mi n d of t h e h ero H ere i t may no t.

be unin t eresting t o observe tha t of all Marlowe s dramas ’

D r Fa u stu s comes neares t in conception character and , ,

plan t o th e older moral i ties I n i t we can t race the union

.

of th e moral i ty wi th th e new Renascence ideals all modi fied ,

a tri fl e by reminiscences of S eneca F rom th is union later .

t ragedy was t o spring .

1 2 4
 T RA G E D Y

Marlowe of course has many weaknesses some due t o

, , ,

h is own you th some due t o th e fac t tha t h e was a pioneer

,

who had t o hew out a way for h imself wi th ou t any master

to gui de or s tay h im I n structure h e is deci dedly of the
.

older age inheriting the native ch ronicle tradi tion of separa t e

,

episodes loosely strung t ogether Ta m hu r la in e aft er all .

, ,

is no t really a drama i n the ordinary sense of th e wo rd ;

it is merely a dramatized semi —epic of one man s fate ’
.

D r Fa ustus is marred as a t ragedy by i t s detach ed nature

i t is simply a stri n g of odd scenes connected inorganically
toge t her . Th e f
f ew o
f M a lta lacks balance en t i rely ,

al though how far t his may have been due t o la t er improve

men t s is no t now de t erminable A more serious defect in .

all Marlowe s early dramas is th e absence of subordina t e

’

characters All Marlowe s persons by thei r very grea tness

.
’
, ,

s t and alone T hey have no one to figh t agains t T h ey are

. .

lonely figures se t in a worl d of L illiputians wi th th e gods ,

alone as thei r masters T h e only drama of S hakespeare s

.
’

wh ich t o an y exten t presen t s this ph enomenon is H a m le t ,

bu t even here although no charac t er bu t H amle t rises t o

,

t ragic proportions th ere are dr am a tis p er so n a of in t erest

,

and of indivi duali ty E ven more noticeable is th e lack i n

.

Marlowe of women characters I n the typical Renascence .

a t titude exp ressed by the dukes and th e princes of I taly in

social life by Macch iavelli in ph ilosophy and by Marlowe in
, ,

drama there was bu t li ttle place for women Women were

, .

winning thei r way to an independen t life in the time of th e

Renascence actively th rough th e work of persons as diverse
,

as V i ttoria C olonna and V eronica F ranco th eoretically ,

th rough the women characters of drama but th e ph ilosophy ,

and th e atti tude toward life expressed by a Macch iavell i

an d by a Marlowe were distinctly masculi n e in character .

Marlowe shared not a t all the spi ri t of Greene and of L yly .

Z e n o c ra te in Tam hu r la in e is bu t a fi gu r e h e ad ; no wom e n
1 2 5
 I N T RO D U CT I O N T O D RA M A T I C T HEO RY

bu t th e D uch ess and Helen en t er in t o D r Fa ustus Abigail

in The ye w of M alta is li t tle more t han a shadow I t has .

already been seen th a t t ragedy is more masculine than comedy ,

and th at moreover t here can be grea t t ragedies wi th an

, ,

almos t en t i rely masculine cas t O n th e o t her hand th e

.
,

s t udy of grea t drama will prove t o us that wh ile the general

t emper of a t ragedy is masculine women figu res t en d t o
make th e a tmosphere of a play more na t u ral and general ,

and that th e consis t en t el imina t ion of women in t h e works of

Marlowe proves in h im a lack of sympa t hy wi th t he whol e
of li fe C ombined with th is lack of in teres t i n women
.

charac t ers is Marlowe s comple t e lack of a comic spi ri t

’
.

T h e comi c por t ions of D r Fa ustus are inexpressibly dull and ,

those of The ffew of M alta rise li t tle above bu ffoonery .

Tam hur la in e t h e very t ype of h is ar t serious th roughou t and

, ,

masculine in concep t ion lacks a t once tha t contras t and

,

relief wh ich is presen t ed in the t ragedies of S hakespeare .

T h e general spi ri t of the Marlovian dramas th en i s of , ,

t remendous h is torical importance T ha t concep t ion of Re .

nascence v ir tt) ba tt ling onward t o success and th en falling

unconquered before fate gave to Engl ish tragedy a th eme
of greatness an d strength wh ich before was wan t ing in i t .

Marlowe s drama is an inh uman drama bu t before S hake

’
, ,

spea re could arise men had to be taugh t t o look fo r th is

,

strength and pu rpose i n t ragedy On th e other hand al l of

.
,

th ese early dramas of Marlowe can be regarded as li t tle more

than experiments T h ey are no t t ruly grea t ; t hey merely
.

poin t th e way toward th e greatness of th e futu re B y reason .

of thei r l imi tations by reason of thei r lack of s t ructu ral

,

power above all by reason of thei r wan t of more subtle

,

characterization th ey fall below th e level of true t ragedy

, .

S H A K ES P E A R E — Wi th S hakespeare we move upon another

plane T h e S hakespearian t ype of tragedy has no t been t aken
.

over in i ts enti rety by many dramatists largely because o f ,

12 6
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H E O RY

consci ence . T he
same phenomenon is visi ble li kewise in
An to ny a n d C le op a tr a and i n C o r io la n u s .

A part from th is th e t wo most noticeable charac t eristics

,

of the S hakespearian t ype are th e h in t a t superna t ural forces

operating unseen bu t surely and the peculiar relationsh ip ,

which th e hero bears t o h is surroundi ngs T h e super .

na t ural elemen t wh ich is displayed in i t s crudes t form in

,

H a m let and M a cbe th is weakes t in Othello wh ich approaches

, ,

t oward t h e domes t ic type bu t even t h ere i t is del icately

,

marked I n all th e t ragedies i t is h in ted a t ye t as we

.
, ,

have seen rarely enuncia t ed i n a delibera t e manner T h e

, .

rela t ionsh ip of t he hero t o h is surroundings h owever is th e , ,

defin i tely charac t eris t ic mark of the S hakespearian species .

All S hakespeare s h eroes are se t in posi t ions wh ere t hey and

’

t hey alone canno t battle wi th fate Hamle t th e religious .

,

and th e lover doomed t o se t th e worl d arigh t ; O th ello

, ,

s t upid an d unin t ellectual fiery in h is passions se t opposi te to

, ,

Iago ; Iago unscrupulous an d clever li terally t emp t ed by

, ,

O th ello s imbecili ty L ear concei t ed and proud unobservan t

’
, ,

and credulous faced by h is evi l daugh ters and by C ordel ia ;

,

Macbe th emotional and weak yet ambi tious met by th e

, , ,

wi tch es and goaded on by h is wi fe ; Lady Macbeth hard ,

and self-seeking confron ted by t e mptation C oriolan us

, ,

overweening in h is pride condemned to stoop to plebeians ;

,

A ntony amorous and doting me t by C leopa t ra ; all of these

, ,

are placed i n th e exact si tuation wh ich th ey are incapable

of mas t ering Pu t Hamlet in O thello s place or O thello i n
.
’

H amlet s and t here woul d have been no t ragedy ei ther of th e

’
,

S hakespearian type or any o th er I t is th is almost fa t al .

confron ting of the h ero wi th fo rces beyond h is streng th tha t

marks t h e tragedy of S hakespeare .

H E R O I c T R A G ED Y -As is eviden t the h eroic tragedy of

.
,

t h e Restoration is but an exaggeration of many of th e elements

we have no t ed above as charac t eris t ic of th e S hakespearian
12 8
 T R A GEDY

species wi th th e omission of th is fa t al rela t ionsh ip be tween

,

th e hero and h is surroundings H ere also th ere is clearly

.

marked th e ou t er drama and th e inner the inner being again

,

a s t ruggle be t ween emo t ion ( restricted to th e one emotion

of love) and intellect (narrowed down t o duty) as well as t h e ,

lofty na t ure of t h e h ero of the t ragedy wh ile supernatural

,

aids to th e d r ama are by no means lack ing T h e h eroi c .

t ragedy needs li ttle commen t in a work tha t professedly deals

most largely only wi th th e finer species of dramatic produc
tiv ity but the fact tha t i t is th us a normal developmen t of
,

earl ier English t ragic t yp es gives i t a peculiar h istorical and

even cri tical val ue of i t s own .

H O RR O R T RAG ED Y —More impor tan t in t rinsically is th e

.

horror t ragedy pa t ron ized by Webs t er and F ord T his .

horror t ragedy will be found on examination to approxima t e

, ,

very closely t o the comedy of in t rigue for in both th e appeal

,

to th e audience is made not by means of the dr a m a tis p e r so n a ,

bu t by means of inci den t on the stage T h is horror drama

.

is no t of course a s t rictly separate species for elemen t s of

, , ,

horror may en ter in t o tragedies of qui t e a di fferen t t ype as ,

i n H a m let and i n Lear ; bu t i t s t ands apar t in having all or

mos t of th e stress on the ou tward elemen t s wi th whatsoever
t here may be of inner t ragedy closely in t e rwoven wi th and
depending upon the s t age sensational ism H orro r from .

si tuation an d in c ide n t th us dominates The D uchess of M a lfi

‘

Vitto r ia C o r o m ho n a and The B r o hen H ea r t th ree plays wh ich

, ,

may be t aken as characteristic of the species H ere t here .

may be some th ing of an inner s t ruggle ending disas t rously

, ,

bu t tha t is no t t he prime poin t of in t eres t in any of th ese

dramas O u r a t tention is cap t ured enti rely by the develop
.
$

men t of t he plo t i t self T h e th rill of awe and of maj esty

.

hardly comes from any di rec t words o r ph r ases bu t from the ,

inciden t s and from t he si t ua t ions in wh ich the cha rac t ers

are involved .

12 9
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T IC T H E O RY

D O M EST I C T RAG ED Y — T h e . domes t ic t ragedy s t ands

apar t from al l t hese t ypes n o t because of s t ress on one elemen t
,

or ano th e r bu t because of i t s subj ec t -ma t ter and i t s special

,

tone I n dealing wi th t h is species i t mus t be no t ed t ha t t he

.
,

domesti c t ragedy can t ake one of two l ines of developmen t ,

th e fi rst leading toward t rue t ragedy and the second descend ,

ing to a posi tion similar t o t ha t of t he sen t imen t al drama .

T ragedy as we have seen requi res some a t mosphere of

, ,

wha t may be called maj es t ic grandeur and th is i n many , ,

domestic plays is en t i rely lacking The Lo n do n M er cha n t for

, .
,

example coul d never for a momen t be associa t ed wi th th e

,

h igh t rag e dies of any age of l i t erary h is t ory because of i t s ,

lowered and uninspi ring t one On th e o t her hand many.

,

of the nine t een t h -cen t ury dramas of a domes t ic t ype have

abou t th em a no t e wh ich raises th em above t h e level of the
workmansh ip of L illo s play We may admi t as we shall
’
.
,

se e ,
th e sen timental dramas th e dr a m es t o an honou rable
, ,

place i n the h istory of t heatrical produc t ivi t y bu t t hese ,

domestic dramas of a lowered t one have a tt emp t ed t o

ach ieve someth ing wh ich i t is ou t side t h e power of tragedy
t o trea t We may incl ude t h erefore in t h e t ypes of h igh
.
, ,

drama ( 1 ) plays of t h e t rue t ragic Spi ri t maj estic and ,

awe -inspi ring ( 2 ) plays of the true comic spi ri t fanciful and
, ,

wi t ty and ( 3 ) serious happy-en ding plays of a lowered t one

,

bu t we mus t regard as fail u res t hose domestic dramas wh ich ,

a tt empting t o gain t he heigh t of t ragedy lack al t oge ther th e ,

s t ernness and grandeu r of tragedy One of t h e poin t s wh ich

.

have been shown up mos t clearly in th is analysis in to dramatic

produc t ivi ty is t ha t th ere are cer t ain laws and chara c t eristics
i n al l great drama wh ich no d ramatis t may t ransgress wi th
i mpuni ty T h ere is an aim proper t o t ra gedy an aim prope r
.
,

t o comedy an aim proper to th e serious dr a m e a confusion

,

of th ese aims or th e attempting of one aim in t h e medi um

of anoth er leads only t o failu re or t o mediocri ty .

1 30
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T IC T H E O RY

me t hods similar t o t h ose al ready analysed in serious plays ,

bu t t he fac t t ha t comedy di ffers from t ragedy in being oft en

h e r o le ss realis t ic and consequen t ly un poetic rende r s several
, , ,

of t hese me t hods comple t ely useless T h e superna t u ral i n .

,

any of i ts cruder forms could t h us never have any en t ry

,

i n t o a comedy T h e ai r of comedy is t oo cynical t oo

.
,

reasonable too unemo t ional t o allow of any heavenl y o r

, ,

spi ri tual visi t an t s I f th e gods descen d t o t he ear t h i n

.

comedy as i n D ryden s Am p hitr yo n th ey do so i n a fran k

,
’
,

Spi ri t of farce M ercury becomes a common serving -man

.

an d Jove t akes on t h e a tt ribu t es of mankind T h e wei rd .

sisters of S h adw e ll s Th e La nca shir e Witches are no t as thei r

’

compan ions in M ac beth I n t he t ragedy al though t h e.

,

ac t ions and t h e words of t h e wi t ches migh t be rela t ed t o

Macbe th s own though t s th ere is a sense of superna t ural
’
,

awe in t hei r appearance ; in t h e comedy no t only does t he ,

au thor express h is scepticism in h is preface bu t he is careful ,

t o make many of h is charac t ers as scep t ical as h imself .

Ghos t s coul d never en ter into a comedy of any kind ,

unless indeed t hose ghosts wh ich are in t h e end resolved , ,

i n t o mor t al essence T h e spi ri t of Angel ica appears in

.

Fa r q u h ar s S ir H a r r y Wilda ir bu t in t h e las t ac t reveals

’
,

i t self as t h e bodily form of S ir H arry Wildair s wi fe ; a ’

ghos t is brough t i n to A ddison s Th e D r um m er bu t once more

’
,

is discovered t o be noth ing bu t an ear t hly shape i n disguise .

T h e h igh emo t ion th e maj es t y the awe of t ragedy are all

, ,

absen t here ; sacred th ings are laughed a t ; an ai r of reason

and of d isbel ief permea t es th e whole .

T ha t t he finer sugges t ion of superna t u ral forces however , ,

is no t wan ting in comedy may readily be proved by a glance

a t t h e t ypical si tuations of many plays s t retch ing from
classical t imes t o t h e presen t day T h ere are scores of .

comedies tha t depend for t hei r main merrimen t on si t ua t ions

tha t are t hemselves founded on chance and on th e sugges t ion
1 32
 C O ME D Y
of forces playfu lly ba ffl ing mankind T here canno t be .
,

of cou rse the sligh tes t enunciation here of an active fate

, .

T h e fa t e sense in i ts di rec t form is ut terly alien t o comedy

, , ,

bu t th ere may be t he subtle h in t of mocking gods beh in d

th e ac t ions of the h uman figures on the s t age M Bergson . .
,

of wh ose en ter t ain ing and profound S t udy of Le R ir e fr e

quen t men tion will be made i n the succeeding pages has ,

diagnosed as one of the C h ief sources of t he risible wha t

h e styles inversion wh ich h e connec ts wi th simple puppets
,

on a s t ring and wi t h wha t he deci des is of the essence of

th e laughable — au t oma t ism Me n are made i nto puppe t s ;
.

even t s take place i n a series of extraordinary repe t i tions ,

where coi ncidence is no t ou t of th e question bu t where ,

a t t he same time there is more than a sugges t ion tha t th e

chance is no t uninformed by some h igher power F o r .

instance twins are born so ali ke tha t they canno t be dis

, ,

tin gu ish e d even by thei r parents S o far only nature has .

had a par t ; such twins may be foun d in any large town .

B u t a t th is poin t the gods step in T hey crea t e a couple .

of tw in serv ing-men i den t ical in appearance and no t con

, , ,

ten t wi th that they separa t e the pai rs of bro t hers for long
,

years t o make th em mee t again in a series of extraordinary

,

embarrassments i n the town of Eph esus S uch is the .

s t u ff of The C o m e dy of Er r o r s T h is C o m e dy of Er r o r s has
.

bu t th e spiri t of R o m eo a n d ffulie t inverted F a t e is spor t ing .

wi th t he An tiph o li and wi th th e D r o m io s as a more solemn ,

fa t e sported tragically wi th the unfortuna t e lovers Repeti .

tion inversion in terfér en ce de ser ies the th ree main theses

, ,
’

of M Be r gso n s chapter on the co m iq ue de situa tio n all

.
’
,

depend in some way or another on the automatism of man

in the hands of a h igher power .

H ere t hen is one of th e fi rs t suggestions of u n i versali ty

, ,

in comedy T h e gods are laughed at an d sacred th ings are

.

turned in to causes of merrimen t an d ye t a h i n t remains ,

1 33
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T IC T H EO RY

tha t th ere is more in heaven and earth than is dream t of i n

any ph i losophy T h e elemen t of universal i t y derived from
.

sugges t ion of t he superna t ural h owever is by no means one

, ,

of the ch ief in comedy as i t was one of th e ch ief in t r agedy ,

and fo r the average drama t is t i t is an exceedingl y danger

ous medi um Unless i n a pu rely fantastical play such as
.

A M idsum m e r N ight s D r eam where t here is a momen t ary

’
,

s uspension of disbel ief or i n The Tem p e st wh ere t h e super

, ,

natu ral is rela t ed to h uman knowledge and h uman skill a ,

touch too crude will des t roy all ill usion T h e superna t u ral .

may be i n t roduced mos t freely in the comedies of romance ,

an d h in t ed a t i n t he comedies of manners bu t only wi t h t h e ,

mos t del ica t e an d mos t hesi ta t ing of o utlines .

C LA SS S Y M B O L I S M — More po t en t and more common is

.

th e equivalen t t o t h e tragi c hero of royal t y and empi re .

C omedy as we have seen is ordinarily h e r o less t h e mi rth

, , ,

usually arising from th e j ux t aposi tion of a n umber of

characters A n analysis of t hese charac t ers will disclose t o
.

us tha t th e playw righ t habi t ually endeavou rs to secure one

of tw o e ffects bo th dependen t on t he one i dea : h e will
,

try to in t roduce several of a particular species o r class ,

o r he will t ry t o suggest tha t a certain figure is i tsel f

represen t a t ive of a class T h e fundamen tal assump t ion of
.

comedy is tha t i t does no t deal wi t h isola t ed individual i t ies .

T hese classes t h us presented i n the body of comedy wi ll

obviously have broader rami fications beyond th e walls of
the thea t re ; an d a t once t here will be raised i n th e mi n ds
of t h e audience a connexion between th e par t icular work of
a rt and t he wi der reaches of h umani t y as a whole Very .

frequen tly as we have already seen h umorous or laughable

, ,

charac t ers are presen ted in pairs o r i n groups T h e artisans .

in A M idsum m e r N ight s D r ea m i ncl ude Bot t om Q uince

’
, ,

S nug and S tarvel ing

, D ogberry an d Verges Launce
.
,

and S peed the t wo D r o m io s— all of these al though foils

, ,

1 34
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H EO RY

t ha t makes the comedies of S hadwell wel l wri tt en and well ,

constructed so dull besi de the comedies of E t herege S had

,

well strove t o reproduce h is age and accordingly al though , , ,

he has h is t orical val ue he has less in t rinsic worth than many

,

of t he oth er wri t ers wh o were h is con t empora ries Comedy .

may se t ou t t o be a mi rro r of t h e times ; bu t far m ore i n ,

i t s h ighest form m us t i t be a mi rror of T i me

, .

C omedy t h erefore from one poin t of view is an abs t rac

, , ,
t

of society o r a t leas t of cer t ain aspects of society I f laugh ter

, .

is essen tially t he pun ish men t of socie t y i n fl ic t ed on cer t ain

eccen t ri c t ypes and classes of mankin d we ca n see how i t
operates t o secure a broader signi ficance than is incl uded
i n th e l i teral words an d in t he ac t ual persons on th e s t age .

I t is t rue tha t the risible has someth ing in i t peculiarly

racial and national bu t th ere are general l ineamen t s of
,
”

h umani ty wh i ch seem t o pass beyon d the borders of th e

various lands T h e vi rtuoso t he hypocri t e t he miser the
.
, , ,

simpleton wh o preens h i mself upon h is wi t— these a re

figures wh ich are no t pecul iar t o any one coun t ry an d th ey ,

appear i ndiscriminately in th e plays of S hakespeare Jonson , ,

Mo lié r e and C ongreve T here are then in h igh comedy

, .
, ,

tw o main suggestions : fi rs t t ha t th e charac t ers are no t th e

,

charac t ers pecul iar t o one age o r to one place and second , ,

that th e comedy as a whole is bu t a pa r t of o r a mere s ymbol ,

of th e larger world of society beyon d i t F rom th is springs

, .

t h e feeling of generali ty the feeling t ha t is presen ted in

,

h igh tragedy a s well tha t these facts an d si tuations and

,

persons are no t isola t ed and separa t e bu t are simply abstracts

,

of some t h ing greater an d of weigh t ier signi ficance than

themselves .

T H E S U B -P L O T — T h is e ffec t of un iversal i ty may of

.
,

cou rse be secu red i n many o th er ways than th ese T h e

, .

use of t h e sub plot wh ich we have al ready no t ed as a fea t u re

of roman t ic tragedy i s t o be found h ere t oo T h e lover .

1 36
 C O ME D Y
pursues a wi t ty mis t ress an d th e servan t h un t s the no less
,

wi t t y maid T here en ters in once more M B e r gso n s r e

. .
’

peti tion inversion in te rfer en ce de ser ies in a sl igh tly di ffering

, ,
'

form S ir Martin Mar -all is a fool and betrays h is own

.

plots ; so does S ir Joh n S wallow h is rival Warner i s clever

,
.

and co n t rives wondro u s de v ices ; he is chea t ed in th e end by

Mr s M illisen t T h e lovers in A M idsum m er N ight s D r eam
.
’

h a ve thei r quarrels ; so have Oberon an d T i tania Olivi a .

in Tw elfth N ight is deceived by a girl dressed as a boy ;

M alvolio is chea t ed by a fool who pre t ends t o be a clergyman .

T h is t endency toward repeti tion of th e main th eme or ,

even t oward parallel plots each working to much the same

,

end is t o be found in nearly all th e roman tic comedies ; i t

,

has become almost a staple part of th e comi c stock -ih -trade .

T hat unconsciously its value was apprecia t ed by th e drama

tists is proved by the fac t that j us t as the h eroi c t ragedy
,

of th e Restoration exaggera t ed and made mechan ical th e

t rue elements of tragic greatness th e Restora t ion comedy ,

wri ters frequently elaborated to a ri diculous degree th e

quali ties h in ted at in S hakespeare an d i n h is compan ions .

What di d D ryden and D Ave n an t do wi th The Tem p est ?

’

T hey made F erdinand love M i randa as in S hakespeare bu t ,

they also created a sister for M i randa and provided a lover

for her a boy who had never seen a Woman T hey gave
, .

A riel a spi ri t bride in Milcha and presented C aliban wi th

,

a sister in S ycorax N o t conten t wi th th is th ey exaggerated

.
,

those scenes of th e sailors wh ich in S hakespeare h i n t

,

delica t ely a t th e connexion between t he rule of M ilan and

the boorish republi c of th e mariners and between both of ,

these and the rule of Prospero T h ey made the T rinculo

.

and S tephano scenes i n to a sati re against democracy and ,

deliberately made explici t the comparison only h inted at

before T h is qual i ty of repeti tion by means of a sub —plo t
.

is t o be t raced too in an exaggerated fo rm in t he plays of

, ,

1 37
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D R A MA T IC T H EO RY

th e S panish in trigue t ype D ryden s The S p a n ish Fr ya r is

.
’

as good an example as any T h e Q ueen loves th e general.

T o r r ism o n d bu t is more or less engaged t o B er t ran ; by

,

sub t erfuge She gains h er ends E lvira married t o Old .

,

Gomez loves the colonel L orenzo an d employs subterfuge

, ,

to see h er lover A scene between T o r r ism o n d and th e

.

Q ueen is followed by a scen e be t ween t he more comical

lovers ; an d a t once th ere is raised in ou r m in ds sub ,

consciously perhaps a comparison be t ween t h e t wo si tua t ions

, ,

an d no t on ly is t h e poignancy of th e h umou r i n the S panish

fryar scenes increased by th ei r opposi tion t o th e more
’

serious cour t passages bu t an a t mosph ere of i nevi t abili t y

,

an d of general i ty is crea t ed by th e repe t i t ion of t he same

theme S till more no t iceable i n t h is play is t h e dén o uem en t
. .

T o r r ism o n d t u rns ou t a t th e end t o be t h e son O f the

i mprisoned monarch of t h e land and t herefore t h e real ,

hei r t o t h e t h rone S uch a discovery alone migh t have

.
, ,

appeared improbable— an isolated fac t un rela t ed t o th e

res t of t h e world because of rare occu rrence D ryden t o
, .
,

coun t er th is has in t roduced an exactly simila r discovery

,

of i den t i t y T h e lady wh om Colonel L orenzo has been

.

pursuing t urns ou t t o be h is sis t er T h e tw o discoveries .

are made prac t ically a t t h e same momen t an d t he shock

of the t wo comi n g togeth er is such t ha t i t crea t es an a tm o
sphere wh ich forms a fi tt ing background for th e even ts o f
th e play S hakespeare u til ized so m eth ing o f the same de
.

vice in The Win ter s Tale T h e qu een H ermion e has been

’
.

kept in secl usion fo r six t een years— a si tuation perilous

indeed fo r th e dramatis t S h e is revealed i n th e last act
. ,

bu t a t th e same momen t i t is discovered tha t her daugh t er

is also al ive and Perdi ta becomes a princess A gai n the
, .

C lose c o n c u fr e n c e of the two even ts creates a Spi ri t a

'

roman tic glow wh ich ai ds the playwri gh t in arousing in t he

,

minds of the spec t ators a b e lie f in t he even ts of the play and , ,

1 38
 I N T RO D U CT I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H E O RY

Z e n o c ia bu t brings her t o life again Ru tilio meanwh ile

,
.
, ,

has apparently killed D uar t e son of G uiomar a rich widow

, ,

th e last th rough a promise sh ields t he supposed mu rderer

, , .

Ru tilio later makes o ffers t o G uiomar is refused and is , ,

cas t by her in to j ail A t t h is momen t D uar t e who has

.
,

su ffered no serious inj u ry reveals h i msel f N o w here i n

, .

these roman tic even t s t here are several si t ua t ions wh ich

migh t have appeared improbable on the s t age and i t is q ui te ,

clearly t o be seen tha t i t is precisely t hese si t u at ions wh ich

have been duplica t ed and paralleled T ake the suppo sed .

dea th of D uarte no t impossible cer t ainly bu t unli kely

, , .

A t once th ere is t o be t raced th e si milari t y be t ween tha t and

the supposed poisoning of Z e n o c ia T h e t wo are brough t .

t o li fe j us t as suddenly and j us t as mi raculously Z e n o c ia s .

’

pu ri ty is pa r a lleled by A rnoldo s ; C lo dio s lus t by H ippo

’ ’

lyta s H ippoly t a makes o ffers t o A rnoldo as Ru t ilio t o

’
.

Gu iomar A rnoldo is t aken up by H ippoly t a as Ru t ilio

.

is by the bawd T h ere is here t herefore no t merely one

.
, ,

parallel bu t a whole series of parallels each one s t reng t hen

, ,

ing t he a t mosphere of the piece and suggesting t o th e a udience

the universal i ty of t hese diverse roman t ic th emes One .

further no t e migh t be m ade in regard t o these su b

plots and th ei r various connexions I t has been evident .

from the examples given abo ve t ha t i t is no t always necessary

that the separate parts in the developmen t of a com ic t heme
should be exac t parallels ; the rela t ion may be one of c o n
trast rather t han of similari t y T h is migh t s t ill fur ther.

be ill ustra t ed from B eaumon t s comedy o f The Wo m a n ’

H a te r T h e main plo t here deals wi th the love of the D uke

.

for O riana sis t er of C oun t Valo r e t T h e lover sees h is

, .

mistress a t t h e h o use of Gon darino who slanders her and ,

leads h er to a house of ill -fame One of the two sub —plo t s .

deals wi th th e rascal Palmer s forcing of t h e pros t i tute

’

F r an c issin a upon Mercer a foolish bu t ino ff ensive t r adesman

,
.

1 40
 C O ME D Y
Q u i te obviously in th is play there is no parallel ; but th e
p u ri ty of Oriana apparen t after the length y series of in trigues
,

an d duplici ties stands in close con trast t o the i mp u ri ty o f

,

F r an c issin a also immersed in a series of in trigues an d

,

duplici ties T h e contrast i n stead of weakening the spi r i t

.
,

of th e play gives i t a peculiar un i ty wh i ch possibly migh t

, ,

have been lost had the mai n plot stood i n isolation .

EX TE R N A L S Y M B O L I S M — T h is play Th e Wo m a n H a te r
.
, ,

also presen t s an example of t he use of a certain kin d of

symbolism closely rela t ed t o the symbolism u tilized wi th such
,

e ffec t in t ragic t hemes T h e secon d sub -plo t has for i ts

.

subj ec t th e cou rtier L azarillo one who adores s t range

,

viands an d i t t reats of h is following th e rare fi sh -head in

,

i t s wanderings from house to house T h is fi sh -head is th e

.

link between the various othe rwise disconnected por t ions

of the play I t carries us from palace t o hovel and in i t s
.
,

way succeeds i n raising a connexion be t ween t he D uke ,

F r an c issin a an d M ercer
, I t is an external obj ec t wh ich
.

has a force beyond i t self a generalizing force wh ich a t

, ,

one and the same time uni fies t he play and gives i t a sense
of un i v ersali ty T h is employmen t of an external obj ec t is
.

na t urally no t of such wi de occurrence in comedy as i t is i n

t r agedy bu t i t makes i ts appea rance sporadically th roughou t
,

th e h istory of t his t yp e of drama and mus t be included in

any analysis of th e characteristics of the species Possibly .

along wi th i t migh t be men tioned the u tiliza t ion of some

scene or locali ty wh ich bears a symbol ic relation t o th e
events of the play T h us in Th e E nglish Tr a v elle r th e
.
,

house wh ich is repu t ed t o be haun t ed serves as a means of

linking togeth er th e t wo plo t s of the play and of suggesting
someth ing besides in As Yo u Lihe I t t h e forest of A rden ,

unseen by sensual eyes on th e El i zabethan stage bu t presen t

t o imaginative vision serves as a symbol of th e emotions
,

raised in t ha t comedy .

1 41
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T IC T H E O RY

STY L E AN D PA TH ET I C F A LL ACYinally t here are two.

-F
,

other methods wh ich must be t aken in t o ou r accoun t T h e .

fi rs t of these is s t yle and th e second is tha t device wh ich

,

may be named pa t hetic fallacy O f th e la tt er examples .

have al ready been given from M uch Ado a ho u t N o thing

and from The M e r cha n t of Ve n ic e N a t u re certainl y is .
, ,

no t made to sympa t h ize wi th man s emo t ions so frequently ’

in comedy as in tragedy and t he marked instances given

,

above are bo t h i t will be no t iced from comedies of a serious

, , ,

almos t t ragic cas t ; ye t t he device is no t unknown even

,

in plays of t he mos t ar t i ficial and mos t sati rical kin d I t .

can be t raced all t h rough the ligh t er productions of S hake

speare and even makes i ts appearance in t he mids t o f th e
,

t own laugh ter of th e drama of t he Restora t ion I n s t yle .

,

t oo t here are marked di fferences be t ween the t ragic an d the

,

comic species Whereas verse has un t il recen t days been

.

acknowledged as the prime medi um for serious plays prose ,

has ever t ended t o be th e medi um for comedy A t th e .

same time blan k verse has been freely used no t only i n

,

E lizabethan comedies bu t i n comedies of the Res t ora t ion

,

and la t er periods S ong too appears in th ese as in t ragedies

.
, , .

T h is sporadic u tilization of verse and frequen t in t roduction

o f song probably marks a desi re on t he par t of t h e playwrigh t s

t o rise beyon d t h e level of mere prose Prose cer tainly .

, ,

is t he fi tting medi um for comic dialogue and th e fact t ha t ,

i t was not always re t ained t ends t o prove t he existence of

th is subconscious desi re .

C omedy then li ke t ragedy must have some universal i ty

, , ,

i t mus t have some rami fications an d connexions beyond

the thea tre T ha t universali ty is a t tained generally by t h e
.

classes of the dr a m a tis p e r so n a by the types and by th e

,

pecul iar nature of th e sub -plots bu t the drama t ists t h rough

,

ou t t he cen t uries have made constan t i f no t always organized ,

and deliberate use of o t her devices lying ready t o thei r hands

,
.

1 42
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H EORY

O ddcomic scenes no t developing in t o an ordered sub -plo t

,

by th emselves are i nterposed at infrequen t in t ervals des t roy

, ,

ing according t o t he neo -classic cri t ics in t ensifying accord

, , ,

ing t o t h e romantic cri tics th e t error and th e awe of th e

,

more serious portions A mong these t hen wi th i n fin i te

.
, ,

gradations t here are t o be found no t any clearly marked

,

divisions bu t a whole series of classes t he one merging

, ,

almost impercep t ibly in t o the other I f we accep t for t he .

momen t th e usual concomi tan t t o a t ragedy t he un happy ,

ending and t h e usual concomi tan t to a comedy t h e happy

, ,

endi n g and i f a t t h e same time we adop t t he use of t h e term

,

dr am e for a play no t sparklingl y amusing bu t ye t no t ragedy ,

and i f we con fine t ragi -comedy t o those plays where t rue

t ragic elemen t s run parallel to t rue comic elemen t s we may ,

be able t o frame a very rough classi fica t ion of the maj ori t y
of plays always remembering t h e fac t noted above t ha t t he
, ,

one class can al mos t imperceptibly fade into th e other .

T h is rough classi fica t ion impe rfec t as i t may be and of no

,

practical u t il i ty for cri tical pu rposes may serve a t leas t as ,

a guide in t he following inves t igation .

T he t ragedies unrel ieved by comic elemen t s

Othello G dip u s Tyr a n n us G ho sts
, ,
.

T he t ragedies wi th a sligh t in t roduc t ion of mi r th ,

never formed in t o a regular under-plo t and ,

presented mostly for t he sake of rel ief or of

con t ras t M ac be th H am le t ,
.

T h e t ragi -comedies where t ragic and comic elemen t s

have an almos t equal balance : The C hangeling .
‘

T h e t ragi -comedies where a comic under-plo t h olds

a subordina t e posi tion : The E glish Tr a v eller n

T h e tragi -comedies W h ere t he comic is t he mai n

theme and the t ragic forms an under-plo t
,

The Wi t ’
n er s Ta le , M uch Ado a ho u t N o thing .

1 44
 C O ME D Y
( )
6 T h e poe t ic j ustice plays where good charac t ers are
,

preserved an d evil characters are des t royed The

,

C o n q u est of G r a n a da .

e dr a m es wh ich end happily : Th e R o a d to R u in

(7 ) T h .

8 T h e dr am es wh ich have no t a comple t el y happy

( )
sol u t ion Th e M er cha nt of Ven ice .

(9 ) T h e d r am e - comedies wh ere a serious

,
plo t mingles
with comic elemen t s : S e cr e t Lo v e The Sp a n ish ,

Fr ya r .

( )
10 sati
T he ric comedies where th e ending
,
may be and ,

usually is o f the poe t ic j ustice order Vo lp o n e

,
.

e comedies where the ending is happy and

( )
1 1 T h ,

where th e dialogue and th e theme are wholly

laughable The Wayof the Wo r ld The M er r y ,

Wiv es of Win dso r .

I t is primarily th is las t ca t egory wi t h wh ich we have

now t o deal al though elemen t s from t he o th ers will n e c e s
,

sa r il en t er in to ou r inves t igation
y .

F rom th is C lassi fication i t is seen t ha t j us t as t ragedy

,

does no t depen d wholly on an unhappy concl usion comedy ,

does no t depend primarily on th e ending of t he play ; that

is t o say a play ending happily even brigh t ly is no t n e c e s
, , ,

sar il a comedy T h e comic spi ri t is embodied in t he mids t

y .

of t he dialogue and t he si t ua t ions A happy ending may be

.

necessary bu t i t is no t t he distinguish ing chara c t eris t ic

, .

DI ST I N C T I O N B ET W EE N D RA M E A N D C O MED Y —M . .

Bergson has undoubtedly seized upon t he fundamental poin t

of di fference when h e in dica t es tha t t h e dr am e i nvariably
deals wi th personali ties wh ile t rue comedy deals wi th t yp es
,

and wi th classes T h e plays of K o tzebue so popular i n

.
,

E ngland a t the close of the eigh t eenth century are dr a m es ,

because however weak t he charac t eriza t ion may be at

,

t imes there is a t leas t an a ttemp t t o secure individuali ty of

,

K 1 45
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA MA T I C T H E O RY

expression M ea sur e fo r M ea sur e is a dr am e largely because

.

th e main figu res are not types bu t persons Vo lp o n e al though .

,

th ere is li ttle tha t is laughable in i t is no t a dr a m e because

, ,

V olpone h i mself C orbaccio Lady Pol i tick Woul d -b e an d

, , ,

th e res t are pure t yp es no t in any way individualized .

Vo lp o n e we may call a serious or sa t i rical comedy A t the .

same time t here are o t her charac t eris t ics of th e dr a m e

,

beyond the mere presen tation of t he dr am a tis p e r so n a .

Again M Bergson has h in ted a t ano t her dis t i n ction when

, .

he lays down th e rule t ha t comedy depends upon in se n si

b ility on the part of the audience As soon as we begin t o
.

sympath ize t hen we en tirel y lose th e spi ri t of laugh t er ,

and we begin t o sym path ize when we see before us no t

t ypes bu t personali ties I f we fel t pi ty for M ercer in Th e
.

Wo m a n H a ter t hen th e whol e play in wh ich Mercer

appeared would cease t o have any comic pleasure for us .

T h is partly explains t he loss for us t o -da y of an app r e c ia

t ion for wha t was risible a couple of cen t uries ago U n .

doubtedly as m an passes from th e pri mi tive savage s t age

,

of h is h istory to a more developed plane h is emotions and

h is feel ings are increased and t ha t for wh ich he woul d never
,

have fel t pi ty before becomes an obj ect of tears and of com

miseration B ear-baiting and cock -fi gh tin g were spor t s of
.

th e sixteen th an d seve n teen th centu ries bu t they would no t

,

be spo rts t o the maj ori t y of people i n t he t wentieth centu ry .

Un doubtedly later ages will look back wi th su rprise on ou r

,

own popular spor t of chasing a wretched fox wi th full

panoply of houn d and ho rn T h is increase of sensibili ty
.
,

th e product o f emo t ion and of feel ing rapidly kills th e ,

available sou rces of t he comic and may explain no t only the

,

lack of appreciation we feel in many E lizabethan comedies ,

bu t also the fact that so few t rue comedies are prod u ced in
modern t i mes S ensibili ty has always been connected wi th
.

a moral note wh ich is expressed usually by means ofa problem

,
.

1 46
 I N T RO D U CT I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H EO RY

h im a personali ty an d has trea t ed h im as i f h e had been

a pu rely comi c t ype we feel the incongrui t y of t he si t ua t ion ,

and for once are hardly inclined t o accep t wi t hou t a mu rmu r

th e words and th e actions of th e d rama t is t-crea tor T h e .

clash of t h e t wo moods o r me t hods produces an apparen t

disharmony F o r th e Fals t a ff of The M er r y Wiv e s on t he
.
,

o ther hand we feel no pi t y because in The M er r y Wiv es

, ,

h e is merely a type T h e drama t is t h ere could have done

.

anyth ing t o h im and we should no t have cared .

S A T I R E A N D C O M ED Y — D r a m e t h us as well as t ragedy
.
, , ,

has been separa t ed from comedy proper t ragedy as being

distinguished by an unhappy en ding and a plo t arousing the
feelings o f awe an d of maj es t y ; dr am e as deal ing wi t h
emotion and wi t h personal i t y T here remains fo r us s t ill
.

t he analysis of t he C harac t eris t ics of comedy i t self Al ready .

there has been raised a problem in Vo lp o n e Vo lp o n e is a .

comedy ye t we do no t laugh a t i t Is laugh t er t hen no t

, .
, ,

necessary for comedy I s t he risible no t th e sine q ua n o n

in t h is t ype o f d rama ? T h e problem ra ised by such a
ques t ion as t h is is undou b t edly a vi t al one and h i t s deep a t ,

the essen t ial quali ties of the comic species Here obviously .

there must be made some dis t inc t ion between sa t ire and
pu re laugh t er 1
.S a t i re may cer t ainly be laughable as for , ,

example in the opening lines of Dryden s M a c Flechn o e

,
’

All h u m a n e t hi n gs ar e su bj e c t to d e c ay,
An d, w h e n Fate su m m o n s Mo na r c hs m u st o b e y
,

T h i s Flec hno fo u n d , w h o , li ke Augustu s, yo u n g

Was c all d to Em pire an d had go v er n d l o n g
’ ’

I n Pr o se an d Ve r se w as o w n d , wit h o u t d i sp u te
’

T h r o u gh all the r e al m s o f N o n -se n se , a b so l u te .

T h i s a ge d P r i nc e n o w fl o u ri sh i n g in P e a c e ,
An d b l t with i
es ssu e o fa la r ge i n c r ease ,

t t
Th e r e is an in e r e s in g t
s udy o at
f s ir e in J Y T G r e ig s r e c e n t
’
1
. . .

v o lu m e o n T h e P syc h o lo gy of L a u gh te r a n d C o m edy .

1 48
 C O ME D Y
Wo r n o u t w ith b u si n e ss did at l e n gth de bate
,

T o se ttle th e S u c c e ssi o n o f th e S tate

An d p o u d r i n g whic h o f all his S o ns w as fi t
’

T o Re i gn an d wa ge i m m o r tal War w ith Wit

, ,

C r yd tis r e so lv d fo r N atu re pl e ads that H e

’ ’ ’
,

S h o u l d o n e l y r u l e w h o m o st r e se m b l e s m e
,

S hadwell al o n e m y p e r fe c t i m a ge b ea r s ,

Matu r e in du lln e ss fro m his te n de r yea r s

S hadwell al o n e o f all m y S o n s is h e
Wh o stan ds c o n fi r m d in fu ll stu pi di ty
’
.

T h e r e st to so m e fai n t m e an i n g m a ke p r e te n c e ,

Bu t S hadwell n e v e r de v iate s i n to se nse .

T hese words assuredly may call more than a smile to

, ,

our lips and if reci t ed in a thea t re migh t give rise t o a

, , ,

roar of merrimen t ; bu t fundamen t ally thei r obj ect save in ,

cer t ain wit t y t urns of ph rase is no t primarily t o arouse a

,

laugh or even a smile T hei r obj ec t is to cas t d erision u pon

.

some person or upo n some t h ing T h e sa t i rist however .

, ,

is no t a mora lis t in the sense t ha t S t eele is a moralis t T h e .

t rue moralis t appeals nearly always t o t h e feelings and no t

t o t he i n t ellec t and the sa t i ris t rarely plays upon t he emo
,

t ions T h e satires of J uvenal are hard presen t ing t o the

.
,

reader a series of pictures addressed t o t he reason We are .

no t called u pon to sympath ize wi th anyth ing or t o feel

emo t ions of any kind i n Vo lp o n e S wi ft s satires appeal .
’

en t i rely t o t he in t ellec t T hackeray is a sa t irist because of

.

h is ex t raordinary piercing eye and brain N o r does t h e .

satiris t a tt ack pure vice from t he moral poin t of view S teele .

will inveigh agains t duelling ; Moore will attack gambling

Holcroft will attack horse -racing— all th rough th e medi um
of the emo t ions and because the sentiments of t he wri ters
have been aroused by pi ty for one ruined or by religious ,

feelings T h e sa t iris t lashes vice largely because of i ts

.

folly ; and he lashes besides vice obj ec t s wh ich are no t

, ,

necessarily in the leas t immo ral T h us S wi ft may include .

I 49
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T IC T H E ORY

vice i n h is sati rical pic t ures i n G ulliv er s Tr a v els ; bu t he ’

passes far beyond vice as such H is real obj ect as i t is .

,

the real O bj ec t of every sa t iris t is t o ri dicule follies I t , .

is only because follies when exaggerated oft en become

vicious and immoral t ha t th e writer of sa t i re becomes i n
many cases apparen tly a mo ralis t Wycherley is no moral is t .

in The Pla in D eale r al th ough he has frequen t ly been made

,

ou t t o be such Wha t h e a tt acks is no t th e i mmora l i t i es

.

of h is t ime bu t th e follies— t h e fops and t h e simpletons and

,

th e woul d-b e wi t s .

T h e division be tween sa t i re a nd pu re comedy is as is ,

eviden t excessively sl igh t S at i re may be so mild t ha t i t

, .

can barely be detec t ed under i ts mask of laugh t er for sati re ,

fades i n some of i ts forms impercep t ibly in to bo th wi t an d

h umou r S till th e fac t remains t ha t we really do no t laugh
.
,

a t th e sa t irical as such we laugh a t t he pu rely comic qual i

ties wi t h wh ich i t is accompan ied o r in wh ich i t is enclosed .

T h e pu res t of comedy however usually rules sa t i re i n any

, ,

form ou t of i t s province T h e appeal of t h is pure comedy

.

is solel y t o t h e laugh ing fo rce wi th in us When comedy is .

th us separated from t he moral sense and even from sa t ire

wh ich lashes follies incl uding vices among these foll ies
, ,

i t is evi den t t hat there is l i ttle t ru th i n th e old clai m t ha t

C omedy is an i mi tation of th e common errors of ou r l ife ,

wh ich h e r e p r e se n te th in t h e mos t ridiculous and sc o r n e fu ll

,

sor t t hat may be [so tha t ] th ere is no man liu in

g bu t ,

by t h e force tr u e th hath in na t ure no sooner seeth th ese ,

men play th ei r parts bu t w ish e th th em in Pistr in um

,
” 1
.

T h is is pu rely th e argumen t of a po etry—lover who has

had to mee t th e a tt acks of a m iso p o e tic moralist T o u S .

to -da y i t is plain tha t there is no t the sligh tes t h in t of th is

in the pu rest comedy I f we regard types as t ypes i f we
.
,

do no t sympa th ize wi th th ei r good q u al i ties then we have ,

1
S id n e y A p o lo gie
, fo r P o e tr ie , ed . Ar b er, p .
45 .
 I N T RO DU C T I O N T O DRA M A T IC T H EO RY

than th e ordinary T h e laugh ter of socie t y goes ou t only

.

t oward tha t wh ich falls lower than th e average men ta li ty o r

th e avera ge cus tom J us t as grea t ness in the dr am atis p er
.

so n a of a t ragedy presupposes a lack of pi t y in t h e audience ,

so grea t ness of t ype in a comedy rules ou t t h e possibili t y of

laugh t er arising a t tha t t yp e except indeed i n th e few cases

, , ,

where tha t t ype is a wi t when th e laugh t er is no t a t bu t

, ,

wi th h im When th e men t ali t y or t h e habi ts of the t ype

, .

va ry from t h e ordinary levels of social conven t ional i t y and ,

when tha t t ype is fel t t o be no t grea t er t han t he average ,

then laugh ter is really aroused and is i n fac t the u n ac kn o w

, , ,

ledged reproof of socie t y A miser is an t i -social bu t

.
,

because of h is meanness he becomes lower t han th e usual

level a n d is i f presen t ed as a t yp e a laughable figu re I f
, , , .

h e is presen t ed as a person on t he o t her hand t he laugh t er

, ,

canno t possibly be raised ; we coul d never dream of laugh ing ,

or of having t he opportuni t y for laugh ing a t S imon Eyre , .

S O concei ted folly is an t i -social and society will laugh wi t h

, ,

in di ff eren t merrimen t a t t he clownish ai rs of a Pompey

Dood le and a t th e self-assu ra nce of a S ir Mar t in Mar -all .

F fo rm th is poin t of view comedy as th e artis t ic medi um

,

for th e expression of laugh t er having th ese distinctly social

,

quali ties may be regarded from a qui t e de fin i tely u t ili tarian

,

s t andpoin t ; bu t for th e mos t par t th is social qual i t y i n

, ,

laugh t er has no t only been largely los t in more fully developed

communi t ies bu t is never consciously i n t he min d of any
,

particula r drama t is t at th e momen t of crea t ion C omedy .

exists no t fo r an y pu rpose i t may have bu t in an d for i t self ; ,

i t does no t even requ ire t o have any of t ha t sense of h igh

morali ty which we foun d t o be necessary in t ragedy I t may .

be tha t t he morally pu rer comic dramatists are th ose who

will most be remembered because of ou r sensibili ty and ou r
,

feel ing of moral fi tness bu t laugh t er exists independently of

,

any ou t ward considera t ions religious moral o r o th er I t is

, , , .

1 52
 C O ME D Y
t he laugh t er we look for in comedy not the sense of mora l ,

righ t or of moral wrong no t t he pu rpose or th e signi ficance

,

of th e play .

T H E S O URC ES TH E C o MI c — T h e sou rce of the risible

OF .

is a subj ec t on wh ich have been wri tt en no t a few th eses ,

brillian t as well as dull F undamentally di fferen t these .

t heses are bu t in each of them is some indication of t he t ru th

, .

In probably not a single one of th em are all t h e reasons

of our laugh t er fully analysed A ris totle evi den t ly believed .

t he risible to lie in degrada t ion men h e says are in comedy , ,

made worse than t hey are and consequen tly become obj ects
of merrimen t 1 K an t and after h i m a whole series of
.

cri tics and of ph ilosophers from S chopenhauer t o Hazli tt , ,

have discovered th e secre t of laugh ter t o l ie in the in c o n

g iyu t of t wo fac t s two i deas two words or two assoc i a t i ons
, , , .

T h e essence of the laughable declares the las t-men tioned

”
,

wri t er is t he incongru ous t he disconnec t ing of one i dea

,
$
,

from ano t her or t he j os t ling of one feeling agains t another

,
”
.

M Bergson going far ther and t aking th is view i n h is

.
,

ph ilosophical sweep of th e subj ec t has devised another theory ,

based i n reali ty on bo th those referred t o ; namely th a t the ,

condi tions of comedy are insociabili t y on th e par t of the obj ec t

of laugh t er i nsensibili ty on t he par t of th e laugher and a
, ,

cer t ain au t omatism in th e si t ua t ion in t he words or in the , ,

charac t er tha t appears ludicrous 2

T h is t heory M Bergson . .

h as tr ac e d ou t along t he t h ree lines of repe t i tion inversion

_
, ,

and in te rfé r e nce de se r ies seeing in each a certain reduc t ion

'

, _

of th e living t h ing t o a mach ine-like r a ideu r or inelastici ty .

T here is much t h at c a n be sai d for th e brillian t F rench

1
This ie V w
h e p u ts fo r wa
r d n o t o n ly in th e P o e tic s b u t ls o in a
i
th e N c o m a c h e a n E th cs i t t
P la o s h e o r y, e n u n c i t e d in th e P h i le b u s
.
’
a
an d s in c e el o r ed a b at at
b y l e r c r t c s, th a th e c o m ic is fu n d a ii t
t i
m e n a lly m alic o u s sh o u ld b e t k e n in o cc o u n a
h er e t a t .

2
Th e c o m ic fo r B e r g so n l y s d e r iv e s fr o m a wa
so m e h in g t
a a t
m e c h n ic l e n c r u s e d o n th e liv in
g
”
.

1 53
 I N T RO D U CT I O N T O D RA M A T IC T H E O RY

ph ilosoph er s th eory ; ye t i t seems no t qui t e comprehensive

’
.

T h e t ru th lies in a h igher harmony wi th t h e in t roduc t ion ,

of perhaps one o r t wo o t her explanations for special species

of merrimen t Degrada t ion inco n grui t y au t oma t ism of
.
, , ,

course may mean much or li tt le may include much o r li t t le

, , ,

according to th e i n t e r pre t ation we pu t upon th e words bu t

i f these words are t aken a t th ei r ordinary value the theories
to wh ich they give t he t i tles wo u ld even when t aken t ogeth er
, ,

hardly seem t o explain all th e mani fes t ations of the laughable .

T here is fo r example th e laugh t er tha t arises a t t imes ou t

, ,

of an exceedingly solemn and serious si tua t ion no t because of ,

some inciden t or word o r person tha t may appear incongru

ous b u t because of some mood working w ith in us T here
, .

are no t I presume many people who on some such occasion

, ,

when t ey themselves fel t ser i ous an d even sad have no t

h
broken i nto a smile i f no t in to open laugh ter I t may be .
,

tha t th ere i s subconsciously an incongru i ty presen t ed ei th er

be tween th e normal mood of man and th is exceptional
solemni ty or between t he solemni t y and some u n ac kn o w
,

ledged i dea o r reminiscence wh ich comes dimly to the con

sc io u sn ess and arouses t h e laugh ter ; bu t i t would appear
more probable that th e merrimen t comes straigh t from th e
sacred o r solemn occasion i tself tha t th e smile or the laugh is
,

an unconscious a t tempt of ou r only hal f-conscious selves t o

escape from the bonds of t h e solemn and the sacred T h is .

merrimen t a t sacred t h ings or on solemn occasions is a

spon t an eous merrimen t i t is aro used apparen tly by none of
t hose springs of the risible wh ich have been indica t ed above .

T h is spon taneous laugh ter must natu rally be carefully , ,

distinguished from th e laugh ter that may arise as a secondary

resul t of i t T h e contrast of th e spon taneous laugh and th e
.

solemni ty of th e occasion may cause others th rough the sense ,

of incongrui ty themselves to burst in to merrimen t merri

, ,

men t that is clearly explainable under th e theory of Hazli tt .

1 54
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T IC T HEO R Y

I n ano ther chap t er i t was s t a t ed tha t mere eccen t rici ty

is no t comic unless i t be opposed t o o r con t r a s t ed wi th some
th ing tha t is normal N O comedy can be a t rue comedy
.

unless t here is presen t ed alongside of th e h umorous si t ua t ion ,

words or C haracter some t hing tha t is more or less ordinary

, .

A comedy full of eccen t ric t yp es ceases largely t o be a ca use

of merrimen t T h is explains t he fac t t ha t in all o u r fi nes t
.

comedies we find as a cen t ral pivo t a pai r or a quar t e tt e of

dr am a tis p er so n a who al t hough no t closely individualized
, ,

are by no means absu rd and aroun d th em a body of mere

,

eccen t rics— $ ha m m ers who take th ei r colou ring from thei r

con t ras t wi t h t h e cen t ral figu res I n Tw elfth N ight th e .

D uke S ebas t ian V iola and Olivia form t h e cen t re of th e

, , ,

pic t u re ; S ir T oby Belch a nd S ir A ndrew Aguecheek are

ri diculous because seen i n thei r ligh t I n A Midsum m e r .

N ig ht s D r eam T heseus a nd H ippoly t a are th e cen t re

’
th e
ar t isans are absu rd in comparison wi th t hem I t is no t ice .

able in t h is connexion t ha t in nearly every comedy of any

ou t s t anding meri t we fin d two sharply di fferen t ia t ed series of
names given t o t h e dr a m a tis p er so n a I n t he plays ci t ed .

above Aguecheek Belch S nou t Bo tt om S tarveling have

, , , ,
‘
h umours names ; V iola Olivia T heseus and th e res t
’
, ,

have ordinary names of mankind The Way of the Wo r ld .

has M i rabel and M illam an t beside Witw o u d Pe t ulan t , , ,

Waitw e ll F oible an d M incing The Pr o v o h d H ushand

, , .
’

has Manly an d Lady G race and around t hem S ir F rancis ,

Wronghead C oun t Basse t John Moody Mrs Mo therl y

, , , ,

and M r s T rus t y .

T h is t endency t o insti t u t e a comparison be t ween tw o sets

of cha racters is of the essence of th e comic con fl ic t ; i t is a
fea t ure of modern drama j us t as i t was a feature of th e drama
of ancien t Rome T h e E un uchu s of T erence has C h r e m e s
.

and Ph ee dr ia An tiph o an d C h a rc a wi th the opposed

, ,

charac t ers of Gna t ho a n d T h raso a nd Par m e n o H ea uto n .

1 56
 C O ME D Y
Tim o r um en o s presen t s C litiph o and C linia as opposed t o
C h r e m e s and Me n e de m u s D romo an d S o str ata S o in
, .

modern t imes we find t he average in t elligence placed in s t ric t

j ux t aposi t ion t o t he equivalen ts of t he old fa thers and the
chea t ing serva n t s and th e vaun t ing soldiers of t he ancien t
s t age
.

Beyon d th e mere enumera t ion of t he causes of merrimen t

we mus t no t e t ha t laugh t er can be caused bo t h consciously
and unconsciously and tha t i t may t ake on varying shapes and
,

forms in accordance as i t is mingled wi th non -h umorous

ma tt er Wit is th us as we have al ready seen purely c o n
. , ,

scious the wi t se t s h ims elf to raise a laugh He plays wi th .

words ; h is fancy works swi ftly and ou t of t h e movemen t of

,

h is fancy h e orders ph rases and i deas in such a manner tha t

O thers laugh along wi th h im T h e absurd on t he o t her hand
.

is purely unconscious We laugh a t. bu t h e

h imsel f is qui t e innocen t of t he cause of ou r merrimen t .

T his dis t inc t ion be t ween wi t and t he absu rd is na t u rally , ,

an impor t an t one fo r i t comple t ely separa t es the spi ri t of

,

Tw elfth N ight from the spiri t of Th e Way of the Wo r ld

t he two t o all in t en t s and purposes belong t o separa t e and
, ,

almos t unrela t ed t ypes of li terary composi tion I n many .

ways Tw elfth N ight is far more nearly allied t o some species

of early t ragedy than t o t he la t er Res t oration comedy .

H U M O U R — A dis t inc t ion mus t also be made be t ween wi t

.

o r t he absurd and wha t is usually known as h umour T h e .

word h umou r has of course had an exceedingly varied

, ,

h is t ory from i t s incep t ion as of t he kin of h umid t h rough i t s ,

Jonsonian sense in th e seven t eenth cen t ury t o i t s modern , ,

rather indefini t e signi fica t ion H umou r is no t t he same as

.
'

the ludicrous h umou r in some of i ts forms barely makes us

smile We can readily in concrete examples separa t e i t bo th
.

from wi t and from the absu rd ye t i t is difli c u lt to place ou r

,

finger on t he precise poin t s wherein i t di ffers from these .

1 57
 I N T R O DU CT I O N T O D RA M A T IC T H E O RY

H umou r , ”
decides Hazli tt is t h e describing t he l udicrous
,
$

as i t is in i tsel f ; wi t is th e exposing i t by comparing or con ,

tr astin g i t wi th someth ing else T h is from th e poin t of

”
.
,

View of comic creation is cer t ainly t rue ; bu t i t does no t

,

explain wh y one character or one ph rase is s t yl ed h umorous

and ano t her wi tt y ; nor does i t explain wherein l ies th e
di fference be tw een t h e l udicrous and h umou r M Bergson . .
,

proceeding far t her discovered in h umou r th e in verse of

,

i rony I n i rony we pre t en d t o believe wha t we do no t

.

bel ieve ; in h umou r we pre t end t o disbel ieve wha t we

actually bel ieve T h is carries us considerably nearer t h e
.

goal of defin i tion ; bu t even th is theory is no t of un iversal

appl ica t ion . I t may explain some nay many forms of , ,

h umou r bu t i t leaves qu i te a number t o t ally unaccoun ted for

, .

T h e mos t thorough and t he mos t far-reach ing analysis ye t

presen ted t o us is undoub t edly tha t given by Mr S ully in h is
Essay o n La ughte r . H is words may be quoted in full .

T h e se c o n t r asts [b e tw e e n o r d i na r y lau gh te r an d th e lau gh t e r

t hat ari se s fr o m h u m o u r ] p o i n t c l e ar ly e n o u gh to c e r tai n p o sitiv e
c ha r a c t e r i sti c s o f th e m o o ds o f h u m o u r . A q u i e t su r v e y o f t h i n gs ,

at o n c e playfu l an d r e fl e c ti v e ; a m o de o f gr e e ti n g am u si n g sho ws
w hi c h se e m s in its m o de r ati o n to b e b o th an i n du lge n c e in the se n se
o f fu n an d an e x piati o n fo r th e r u d e n e ss o f su c h i n d u l ge n c e ; an

o u twa r d e x pa n si v e m o v e m e n t o f th e spi r it s m e t an d r e ta r de d b y a
,

c r o ss-c u r r e n t o f so m e t h i n g li ke ki n d l y t h o u gh tfu l n e ss t he se c l ear l y

re v eal th e m se l v e s as so m e o f its do m i n an t t r aits .

H umou r is says Mr S ully dis t inctly a sen timen t ye t a t th e

, , ,

same t ime i t is markedly in tellectual .

T hese quali t ies of res t rain t of re flec t ion o f p ity o f k in dli

, , ,

ness are assu redly the distingu ish ing marks of the h umorous
temperamen t T h e presen tation of the ludicrous can be
.

cruel an d coarse as in the comedies of S hadwell wi t can be

,

bi ting an d cyn ical as in t h e comedies of E therege an d of

,

C ongreve h umou r is always mellow and generally refined .

1 58
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O DR A M AT I C T H E O RY

th e laughable we have found fi rs t tha t t here are th ree , ,

cardinal reasons for an obj ec t s being l udicrous— degradation ’

incongrui t y au t omatism ; and alongside of th ese a numbe r

,

of subsidiary causes such as the se n se of liberation second

, ,

t ha t th e obj ec t s of laugh t er are unconscious of th ei r

ridiculousness ; and th i rd t ha t there are tw o species of th e
, ,

risi bl e wi t and h u mou r wh ich l ie apar t from th e res t

, ,

i n being conscious and in t he case of h umou r sympa t he t ic

, , .

I n th e world of th e theatre th ese various species of th e laugh

able are presen t ed in five main ways— th rough th e ph ysica l
attributes of th e dr a m a tis p e r so n a th rough th e men tal i ti es O f
,

th ese dr a m a tis p er so n a t h rough t he si t ua t ion th rough th e

, ,

manners and th rough t h e words A rapi d survey of concre t e

, .

i nstances may C lose th is sec t ion .

L AUG H TE R AR I S I N G F R O M PH Y S I CA L A TT R I BU TES — T h e .

laugh t er tha t arises from merely physical a tt ribu t es of th e

dr am a tis p e r so n a i n a comedy is obviously of th e lowes t
possible kind T h e music-hall comedian and th e clown in
.

th e ci rcus know how t o raise coarse laugh t er by t h is means

bu t no grea t comedy will depend upon i t for more than
an in finitesimal par t of i t s merri men t T h e principle of .

degradation provi des for physical deformi ties of a laughable

t ype Bardolph s nose is a deformi ty tha t is mean t t o cause
.
’

laugh t er in Th e M er r y Wiv e s of Win dso r and i t succeeds t o ,

a cer t ain ex t en t T h is sou rce of the comic however is

.
, ,

seriously res t ric t ed no t only by th e fact t ha t even th e mos t

unin t elligen t will recognize i ts low charac t er bu t by th e fac t ,

th a t pi ty forbi ds us t o laugh a t genuine deformi ties We .

could no t laugh a t a bl in d man o r a t a man on cr u t ches ,

unless in such a case as for example th a t O f an elderly man

, ,

su ffering from gou t hopping in rage over t he boards of th e

th ea tre H ere however th e merrimen t a rises no t merely
.
, ,

from the deformi t y as such bu t from t he fac t th a t th e man

,

for a momen t has been made in t o a mere obj ec t wi thou t t he

1 60
 C O ME D Y
con t rol of h is own l imbs Deformi t y O f ano th er t ype appears
.

in le t us say the a ffectedly ridiculous dress of Mal v olio or

, ,

of the Gallicized fops of the Restoration period T hese .

,

t aken along wi th Bardolph s nose may lead toward a certain

’

generalizing in regard to th is type of th e laughable We .

laugh not so much at the mere physical deformi ties as a t th e

deformi ties brough t abou t by men t al ac t ion or by foolish
habi t Bardolph s nose arises from h is propensi ty for drink
.
’
,

j us t as does th e gou t y foo t of the old gentleman Malvol io

was no t ridiculously garbed by nature bu t by h imself , .

T h e principle of degradation also is to be seen partly in , ,

cer ta in characters par t ly in certain si tuations of a type such

, ,

as is presen ted in Th e Sp a n ish Frya r T here the j ealous .

l i t t le conceited money-lender is beaten an d ill -treated ; he

has su ffered a loss of digni ty and the degrada t ion arouses ou r
,

merrimen t O f t he same t yp e is th e degradation of th e

.

sh rew or of the tamer tamed a degradation however tha t , ,

is not wholly physical bu t ra ther arises ou t of th e si tuation

, .

Physical incongrui ty is also a rich source of rather coarse

merrimen t T h e laughter or the smile that may come from
.

t he sigh t of a very tall woman alongside of her very dim in u

t ive h usband is due t o th is T h e sigh t of T i tania frail and
.
,

ethereal beside the ass -eared Bo t tom is equally risible and

, ,

for the same cause I t is because of this that in the music

.

halls of t o -day we frequen tly find the co medians going i n

pai rs ; one excessively t all man going wi th an abnormally
tiny one Fals t a ff sails forward in h is bulk wi th h is li ttle
.

page following h im the contrast arousing our mi rth because

,

of the incongrui ty of th e pai r .

An exa mple of physical automatism migh t be taken from

S ir M a r tin M a r -a ll T here S ir John S wallow and Moody
.

are placed on the top of several stools one set on the other ,
.

T hey who h ave had mos t say in the moving forward of

t he plo t have suddenly been made no be tt er than mach ines ,

L 1 61
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H E OR Y

obj ects incapable of movemen t unless the other cha rac t e r s

come to thei r assistance T h e si tua t ion in i tself is laugh
.

able bu t th e greater part of th e merrimen t arises ou t of

,

the physical posi tions of the two C haracters O f a similar .

natu re is the powerlessness of K atharina in The Ta m ing

o
f th e S hr e w : by her h usband she has been reduced from
a th inking being independen t and capable of action in t o
, ,

an automatic mach ine .

I n su rveying t hese sca t tered examples of laugh ter arising

from physical causes i t is evi den t tha t we canno t always
,

diagnose exactly the i mmedia t e sou rce of ou r laugh t er or , ,

rather t ha t tha t laugh ter may t ake i t s rise from a varie t y of

,

causes operating all a t the one t ime T h us physical appear

.

ance charac t er si tuation and words may all in fluence us

, , , ,

and au tomatism j oin wi th th e sense of deg r adation T h is is .

particularly true of ph ysical a tt ribu tes an d of charac t er .

L A U G H TE R A R I S I N G F R O M C H ARAC TE R — I n charac t er
.

we may find one of th e riches t and h ighest media for th e

aro using of laugh ter possible t o the dramatis t A lth ough .

comedy does no t deal wi th personal i ties and wi th individu

alitie s as does tragedy yet types of character form i t s basis
, .

I t is th e presence of charac t er t ha t largely di fferen t ia t es

true comedy from farce .

Mental defor mity is obviously one of t he handies t themes

’

for t he comic playwrigh t T h is deformi ty may or may no t

.

be a vice bu t i t mus t be a folly T h e s t upid concei t of

, .

S ir Martin Mar -all or of Malvolio the porcine s t upi di ty of

,

D ogberry and V erges t he i rri t a t ing and i rri tated vani ty of

,

Petulan t all in a varie t y of ways give t he drama t is t s o pp o r

,

tu n ity for the in troduction of th e risible M Bergson has

. .

related all of these t o h is t heory of the au tomatic averring ,

that ou r laugh ter comes not from t he sense of the mental

,

deformi ty bu t from the sense t ha t th e particular figu re is

, ,

as i t were in the hands of h is deformi ty t hat none of those

, ,

162
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H E O RY

t rue mental deformi ty bu t h is mere repe t ition of cer tain

,

ph rases In fi n e being th e mos t famous— is no t exactly

a deformi t y but a piece of sh eer mechanical u t terance I t is
, .

possible of course t ha t no s t ric t division can be made be tween

, ,

the two bu t there is apparently a sligh t varia t ion be t ween th e

,

confusion of words s uch as we find in M r s Malaprop due

, ,

to t rue mental deformi t y and t his au t oma t ic repeti tion of

,

fami liar i f often meaningless ph r ases

, , .

LAUG H TE R AR I S I N G F R O M S I T UA T I O N — T h e si t uation
.
,

however as fo rming th e basis of th e plo t of any comedy

, ,

presen t s t o the d ramatist possibly th e very fulles t oppor t uni ty

for th e in t roduction of t he laughable T h e ph ysical pe rson
.

and the character are nearly always shown no t isola t ed bu t ,

i n the mids t of some o t her persons in a si t uation i tsel f of an

,

amusing character On th e other hand i t mus t be remem

.
,

bered tha t mere comedy of si t uation will lead t o no t h ing bu t

farce ; t hat al th ough an audience looks t o si t uation far more
,

than to charac t er o r t o words si tuation o ffers an oppor t uni t y

,

only for the in troduction of a very l imi ted kind of laugh ter .

C ountless are t he si t u a t ions based upon th e principle of

degradation S everal examples of t hese h ave al ready been
.

ci t ed above S tripping t h e digni t y from a se t of circu m

.

s t ances d ragging down t he seriousness of a si t ua t ion t o

,

t rivial realms will always awaken ou r merri men t I t is

,
.

amusing t o wa t ch t he si t u ations i n wh ich Fals t a ff finds h i m

self wi t h t he merry wives i t is amusing to see t he per t
Malvolio di ves t ed of h is digni t y and immu red i n a mad -cell .

We could pass th rough t he whole r ange of Engl ish comic

d r ama and discover bu t a small percentage of comedies wh ich
have no t in some way o r another made use of th is device .

T h e si t uation of incongruous ci rcumstances is no less

common Wh en T heseus is faced wi th the play of Pyramus
.

and T h isbe the si tuation is incongruous T here is a certain .

i ncongrui ty i n t he second ac t of The Way of the Wo r ld

1 64
 C O ME D Y
when we discover M i rabel walking o ff wi th M r s Fain all ,

and Fa in all wi th Mr s Marwood bo th for th e purpose of ,

upbraiding thei r mis t resses T his incongrui ty evi den tly may
.

arise out of the events themselves or ou t of the c o n fliC t ,

between the C haracter and the events or ou t of the co n trast ,

of t wo persons who may be both eccen tric o r one eccen tric

, ,

and t he other normal or both normal T h e example given

,
.

from The Way of the Wo r ld may be taken as represen ting

the last mentioned I ncongrui ty arising out of the normal
.

and the eccentri c occurs in the famo u s serenade scene of

S ir M a r tin M a r -a ll and a scene of t wo eccen tric characters
in con fl ict is tha t duel episode already men tioned from Th e
M er r y Wiv es of Win dso r T h e v ariatio n s in wh ich any of
.

these may actually appear are qui te ob v iously in fi n i te

, , .

A si t uation involving M B e r gso n s theory of a u tomatism

.
’

depends on the con trary almos t e n tirely on the events

, , .

T h e characters are in the gri p of the mach ine powerles s ,

t o alter or to shape thei r desti n y I n th is way th e repeti tion

.

of th e same or of a similar scene leads toward a sense of the

mechanical T here is th is e ff ect in the secon d act of Th e
.

Way of the Wo r ld j ust as there is in several scenes of

,

The C o m e dy of E r r o r s H ere too enters what M Bergson

.
, .

has styled the in terfé r en ce de ser ies the placing of one theme
,

upon another T h is method of securi n g laugh ter has not

.
,

probably been so fully u tilized in comedy as i t has been in

,

th e novel possibly because of th e di ffi culty of presenti n g in

,

comedy the two series in an equally elaborated form Mark .

T wain can ob t ain a finely ludicrous e ffect in Th e In n o ce n ts

Ahr o a d from the superimpo si tion o n the rel ics of ancien t
Rome of the modern A merican vitali ty and t emperamen t .

N ational h umou r and the genuinely absu rd in si tuation and

in character are in th is book too bu t the main sou rce of ,

the laugh ter in i t comes from i ts general scheme T h is .

in te rfe r e nce de ser ie s has certainly been used by a n umber

’ '

1 65
 I N T RO D U C T I O N TO D R A MA T IC T H E O RY

of comic d ramatists bu t always in a somewhat modi fied

,

man n er I t appea rs in the second part of H e n r y I V where

.
,

th e F alsta ff scenes are as i t were superimposed upon the

, ,

scenes of gen uine heroism I t appears similarly in the

.

con tras t between the artisans an d the noble T heseus in

A M idsum m e r N ig ht s D r e am and i t appears in M uch Ado
’

a ho u t N o th in
g
,
where the D ogberry and V erges episodes are
run in to th e episodes of L eonato and h is company .

T h e sense of liberation occu rs in comic si tuation also bu t , ,

because of i ts often cynical and blasphemous e ff ec t tends to ,

appea r only i n restricted periods of d ramatic outpu t T h e .

indecent si tuations in the Res t oration comedy are laughable

when regarded from th is poin t of View ; th ey are nauseous
i f regarded from the standpoin t of stric t morali ty D ryden s .
’

sati rical references to t he C h u rch and to dei ty in The S p a n ish

Fr ya r are amusing i f we do no t look upon them from th e
de fini tely rel igious aspect Both the one and the other are
.

escapes— escapes from the trammels of civilization and of the

C h urch . T h e natural man attempts in them to free h imself
for a momen t from th e fetters that have cha n ged h im from a
savage to a clothed being in the midst of a series of laws and
customs an d conven tions S i tuations of th is kind however
.
, ,

are dangerous and nearly all dramatists except the n a if

, ,

playw righ ts of th e Mi ddle Ages an d the cyn ical playwrigh ts

of the age of the Restoration have neglected them T hey
, .

may occu r i n modern drama bu t only in an exceedingly ,

restricted and ci rcumscribed form As civilization advances .

i t is probably more and more carefu l to preven t these sudden

moments of l iberation th rough reference to th ings wh ich i t
habi tually co n ceals .

L A U G H TE R A R I S I N G F R O M M A N N E R S -Along wi th the
.

physical appearance wi th the character and wi th th e

, ,

si tuation goes what we may style ma r i ners T here is a .

co m i u e de m oe u r s as well as a co m i u e de situ a tio n and a

q q
1 66
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T HEO RY

S ir Martin Mar -all is comic because he has a t tempted to

adop t the ai rs and t he ac t ions of th e F rench ; S ir Harry
Wildair in a similar way al though he is no fool as th e
, ,

o t her is has someth ing l udicrous abou t h i m because of h is

,

i mi ta t ed customs T h e manners of a charac t er however

.
, ,

may deri ve wholly no t from h is own character o r from any

,

conscious i mi t a t ion bu t from the society in wh ich h e has

,

been brough t up A lawyer who canno t escape from the

.

a t mosphere of the law ; a doc t or who canno t escape from

th e spi ri t of medi cine a professor who cannot escape from
t he un iversi ty envi ronmen t ; t he old man who canno t see
any th ing good in t he newer age— all these are amusing
because in each case th e man has become a mach ine a t t he
mercy of those feel ings and manners wh ich have been placed
‘
upon h i m by h is su rrou ndi n gs .

L AUG H TE R A R I S I N G F R O M Wo R D s — F inally among t h e

.
,

species of the unconsciously h u morous in t he t heatre there ,

is the laughable tha t arises from the dialogu e — [e co m iq u e

de m o ts
. T h is comic spi ri t deri ved from the words in a
play shares in poin t of i mpor t ance a posi tion equal t o tha t
held by character an d by si tuation T h e word reveals .

the character ; i t explains and i ntensi fies t he ridiculousness

of a si t uation C omedy of a t ype may exist wi thou t words
.
,

l i ke t h e mi metic pan tomi me where physical appearance

,

and ges t u re made up for the silence of th e piece ; bu t such

comedy mus t by i ts very na t u re be no t only temporary ,

bu t pu rely farcical T h e ges t ure can express bu t an in

.

fi n ite sim al par t of th e though t s an d of t he desi res of t h e

fig u res upon th e s t age .

T h e deformed word i f we may speak of such finds

, ,

i ts t ypical example i n th e speeches of M r s Malaprop bu t ,

-
Mr s Malaprop is only one of a n umber Of Ch aracters who
f

before her spoke i n a similar s t rain T h is deformi ty of

, .

language na t urally combines wi th incongrui ty and o t her

, ,

168
 CO ME DY
forms of the laughable for i ts full e ff ect T h e most amusi n g .

of Mr s Malaprop s ph rases are those where there is not

’

merely a simple deformation of the word but w here the ,

deformed word has i tself a signi ficance wholly incongruous ,

where there is raised a con trast between the idea ( the word
tha t was meant) and the obj ect ( the word as i t was u ttered) .

T h e merely deformed is not always even amusing ei ther ,

in words or in persons an d th e finer dramatists have always

,

endeavoured to add to the e ff ec t by blending together th is

and some other forms of the comic .

Incongrui ty of words is as mus t be eviden t still more

, ,

ridiculous t han mere mal treating of t hem Unconscious .

incongrui ty mus t here of cou rse be carefully distinguished

, ,

from consci ous incongrui ty wh ich is wi t T h e in tro , .

duction of let us say a hearty swear -word in a company

, ,

of re fined and del icate mai den ladies will have an in c o n

gr u o u s e ff ect but i t may be perfectly unconscious in th e
,

sense tha t i t springs naturally from the lips of some character

innocen t of the dissonance h e creates S O there is in c o n .

u it of words and of situation in F r u h a r s Th e C o n sta n t

’

g r
y a
q
C o up le where th e words of one sphere of li fe are u ttered to
,

a person of another sphere the one character no t under ,

standing the meaning o f the o ther Wit an d unconscious .

word -h umour may of course mee t together as in that scene

, , ,

of The D o u hle D ealer between C areless and S ir Paul Plyan t

C a r e less Alas-a—day $ th i sa lam e n ta b le sto r y; m y Lady
is
m u st b e t o ld o n t ; sh e m u st i fait h S ir Pa u l ;
’ ’ ’
, tis ,

an i n j u r
y to th e w o r l d .

S ir P au l : Ah $ w o u l d to H e av e n yo u w o u l d M r C a r e l e ss ; ,

yo u ar e m igh til y in h e r fav o u r .

C ar eless I wa r r a n t yo u w hat w e m u st have a so n so m e w ay

,

o r o the r .

S ir P au l I n de e d I sho u l d b e m igh tily b o u n d to yo u if yo u

,

c o u ld b r in
g it a b o u t M r C ar e le ss .

1 69
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O DR A M A T I C T HE O RY

T here are here qu i te a n umber of reasons for ou r laugh ter

at such a passage T here is the innuendo in the si tuation
.

i tsel f ; there is the wi t of C areless conscious an d assu red ; ,

and there is the incongrui ty in the words of S ir Paul be t ween ,

wha t he says and what h e actually th inks .

I ncongrui ty of words in a manner somewha t similar t o

,

th e above is also u tilized largely by comic dramatis t s in a

,

very s pecial form C ountless are the si tuations in comedies

.

ancien t and modern where t wo h umorous characters have

failed to understand one another T here is no t here the .

con trast between wi t an d the ridiculous bu t be t ween two ,

ridiculous elements the real fun arising ou t of the incongrui ty

,

of the words u tilized by each Examples of th is are common

.

from the days of S hakespeare t o the days of S heridan .

A u tomatism in the use of words is closely bound up wi th

wha t is generally known as le m o t de car a cter e the word ,

that expresses t h e men tali ty o f a particular person bu t i t ,

may at t i mes be di fferen tiated from that As we have seen .

above the In fi n e of S ir Martin Ma r -all is in a way such

,

a mechanical ph rase an d h is insistence on the plo t is

,
”

another Occasionally in a comedy one wo rd or one ph rase

.

occu rs again an d again in varying senses and forms as i f i t

were a mach ine wi th a motion of i ts own d riving over the
characters themselves M ere au tomatism of th is sor t how
.
,

ever is rare and usually as in th e example of character and

, , ,

of si tuation noted above i t is boun d up wi th incongrui ty and

,

wi th kindred sources of the risible .

W1 T — T h is consideration of the unconscious h umou r of

.

words leads us to a glance at the conscious variety of the same

species T h e ho n m o t as we have seen depends upon in c o n
.
, ,

r u it bu t i t is sharply di f
f erentiated from the unconscious
g y ,

inco n grui ty of words B o n m o t esp r it wi t— these are the

.
, ,

moods and expressi ons of a h ighly in telligen t man playin g

wi th h is fan cies an d wi th the discrepancy and incongrui ty
,

1 70
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O DRA M A T I C T H E O RY

the core of th e d rama Wha t is the plo t of The Way of the

.

Wo r ld T here is none Wha t are the charac t ers Mere

.

puppets the mechanical mou th pieces for the ut t erance of

,

the concei ts of th e au tho r What are t he si t uations .

Wea k an d un interes t ing relieved only by t he brilliance of

,

th e dialogue .

Wit therefore we may say al though i t is one of the

, , ,

h ighes t t ypes o f comi c expression when presen t ed in an ,

exaggerated form kills the play in wh ich i t appears I t .

carries the ar tifi c iality wh ich is presen t in all h igh comedy

t o a poin t of absurdi ty so tha t we can feel in no way the
,

connexion between the figu res on the s t age and real li fe .

C omedy in t h is presen t s the same phenomenon as was

presented by t ragedy J ust as in t ragedy there was a union
.

of h igh i deali ty and a profound real ism so in comedy do we ,

find an in t ense ar tifi c iality in the presentation of t ypes and

of si tua t ions bu t a t t he same time an ever-presen t relation
,

ship establ ished be tw een t ha t seemi n g ar tifi c iality an d t he

world outside t h e theatre The Way of the Wo r ld th ere
.
,

fore al though it is probably t he mos t brill ian t comedy of

,

wi t we possess fails wh en placed alongside of t he t ruly

,

richer and more profound drama Lo v e fo r Lo v e , .

H U M O UR I N C O MED Y — H umo u r li kewise has been

.
, ,

found t o di ffer from th e unconsciously ludicrous an d from ,

the conscio us play of fancy as expressed in wi t Wit is .

brillian t ; h umou r never so Wit is clear and re fined and

.

cul tu red ; h umou r is W h imsical Wit is modern in i t s .

expression and aris t ocratic in i t s tone ; humou r has always

some hal f-wistful glance a t the past and is generally h umble
in i ts u tterance .

H umou r gives always to comedy a mellowed note tha t

stands in strange con t ras t to the hardness and insensibil i ty
of the play of wi t I n i t as we have seen sen timen t and
.
, ,

intellec t are uni ted a spi ri t of kindliness mee t s wi th a spi ri t

1 72
 C O ME D Y
of satire T h e fa u l t of S hakespeare s comic M u se says
’
.
,

H azli tt , is that i t is too g o od -natured and magn animous

$

I do not in short consider comedy as exactly an a ffai r

, ,

of the heart or the imagination and i t is for th is reason ,

only tha t I th in k S hakespeare s comedies deficien t ’ ”

T h is .

cri ticism is penetrating b u t i t tends to lose sigh t of the fact

,

that there are in comedy many totally di vergen t species ,

dependen t in thei r turn upon th e diverse types of th e

l udicrous Th e Tam ing of the S hr ew depends on the ridi
.

c u lo u s si tuation and is a farce ; Vo lp o n e depends on the

satire ; The Way of the Wo r ld depends on the ho n m o t ;
L v e fo r L o v e depends on manners and on character ;
Tw el f th N ight depends on h umour T h is comedy of
.

h umou r is as importan t a species as any of the others and , ,

moreover i t has t o be j udged on i ts own standards not by

, ,

reference t o o ther di fferen t types of comi c productivi ty .

T h e fac t tha t kindliness and a certain broader aspec t of man

kind ( Haz litt s good -natured and magnanimous elements)
’

appear in i t should not bl in d us to i ts real excel lences .

T h e fact that i ts serious under t one often reaves away from

i t t he spi ri t of pure laugh ter must no t make us rule i t ou t of
t he realms of comedy proper .

H umou r naturally may appea r in comedy i n many

, ,

di ff eren t ways T h e h umour of C haracter is to be dis

.

covered ih i ts fullest form in th e person o f F alsta ff F alsta ff .

is h ighly in tellec t ual ; at the same time there is in h i m j us t

su fli c ie n t of emo t ion and of wh imsicali ty t o turn h im from

a wi t into a h umorist H e is fat and he laughs at h is

.

fatness . T here is more than a h in t that he runs away a t

Gadshill solely for the pleasure of indulging in t he exquisi te
j oke of the lie He poses con tinually for the sake of
.

arousing laugh ter He does no t make fun excl usively of

.

others ; he h imsel f is the butt of h is own wi t I t is qui te .

su ffi cien t t o compa r e Falsta ff wi th any of the heroes of

1 73
 I N T RO D U C T I O N TO D RA M A T I C T H E OR Y

Congreve to see the vast gulf tha t l ies between the t wo .

M i r abel would never dream of laugh ing at h imself ; he is

too self-assu red t oo unemo t ional ever t o dream of such a
, ,

th ing I t is F alsta ff s main pleasu re and j oy in l ife so to

.
’

i ndulge in pleasan try at h is own appea rance and a t h is

o w n habi ts .

H umou r may be displayed also th rough the media of t he

si tuations of th e words and of the manners T h e si t uation
, , .

in wh ich Bottom finds h i mself is no t amusing because of the

charac t er of Bot t om for he is no t F alsta ff ; i t is amusing
,

because of th e wh imsicali ty wi th wh ich i t is presen ted th e ,

m i rth arising ou t of the manners an d ou t of the si tuation .

Tw elfth N ig ht presents examples of the same or a si milar

type S hakespeare i ndeed has so pl umbed the depths of
.
, ,

th is species of comedy tha t no more de t ailed analysis of i t

need h ere be given .

S A T I R E — F i nally we come t o t ha t even less amusing

,

species of th e comic spi ri t— s a t ire S a t i re as has been .

,

poin t ed ou t can be so bi t t er that i t ceases t o be laughable

,

in the very least T here is noth ing t o laugh a t or even

.

to smile a t in t he severi t y of J uvenal T here is hardly a .

laugh in the wh ole of Vo lp o n e save in tha t scene where ,

th e E nglish L ady Poli tick Would -b e en ters wi th her

a ffected ai rs and her vani ty S a t i re falls heavily ; i t has n o
o

moral sense ; i t has no pi ty o r kindliness or magnan imi ty .

I t lashes t he ph ysical appea rance of persons sometimes wi th ,

unmi tiga t ed cruel ty I t attacks t h e charac t ers of men as

.
,

in The Alchem ist I t strikes a t t he manners of t h e age

.

wi th a hand tha t spares no t Wi tness th e foll ies and the .

vices lai d bare in the las t -men tioned play of Jonson s ; or ’

glance a t the terrible pages of S w ift s las t voyage t o the ’

country of the H o u h yh n m n s I t con tinually presen ts .

dupl ici ty and vice and deligh ts to wi tness tha t dupl i

,

ci ty and that vice overturned in the end Mosca and .

1 74
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T IC T H E O RY

( iii ) T Y P E S O F C O MEDY
T hese considera t ions may serve us t oward t he making
of a rapi d analysis of th e separa t e t ypes of comedy T h ese .

varying types because of the diverse and sha r ply di ffer

,

e n tia te d species of the laughable are much more clearly ,

marked than t he corresponding t yp es of t ragedy ; bu t i t

must never be forgotten tha t they may and generally do
fade almost i mpercep t ibly in t o one another I n general .
,

th ere are fi ve main t ypes of comic produc t ivi ty wh ich we

may broadly classify F arce stands by i tself as marked
.

ou t by certain de fin i t e characteristics T h e comedy of .

h umours is th e second of decided quali t ies S hakespeare s .

’

comedy of romance is the thi rd wi th possibly th e roman tic ,

t ragi -comedy of h is later years as a sepa r ate subdivision .

T h e comedy of in t rigue is the fo u rth T h e comedy of .

manners is t he fifth again wi th perhaps a subdi vision in the

,

gen teel comedy F inally ou tsi de these and to be c o n

.
, ,

side r e d separately t here is t he so -

,
called sentimental comedy
of the eigh teen th cen t ury .

F A RC E — F arce we have al ready considered in general ;

.

and we have found tha t i ts main charac t eristics are th e

dependence in i t of charac t er an d of dialogue upon mere
si tuation T his si t uation moreover is of the mos t e xag
.
, ,

gerated and impossible kind depending no t on clever plo t ,

cons t ruc t ion bu t upon t he coarses t and rudes t of i mprobable

,

i ncongrui ties Excep t in the very fl im sie st of such pieces

.
,

of cou rse i t is rare t o find a play tha t depends upon noth ing
,

bu t farcical elemen t s ; bu t we can roughly mark the pre

ponderance of those charac t eristics in th e d ramas presen t ed
before us under th is title I t is qui te evi den t tha t Farquhar
.

and Vanbrugh are more farcical t han C ongreve ; that The

Ta m ing of the S hr e w and The M er r y Wiv es of Win dso r
are more farcical t han Tw elfth N ight I n t h ese plays .

1 76
 C O ME D Y
character is del iberately sacri ficed to si tuation nearly al w ays ,

of a rough -and -tumble type H orseplay rouses ou r laugh ter .

in them more than the co m iq u e de ca r a cté r e or the co m iq u e

de m o ts . T h e si tuations in the m are not s u btle T here is .
,

for example noth ing farcical in th e famous screen —scene of

,

Th e S cho o lfo r S ca n da l T hat si tuation because i t has been

.
,

cleverly arranged an d because i t is interrelated wi th the

,

charact ers of the dr am a tis p e r so n a is eminently and p u rely ,

comic in the h igh est sense of the word T h e coarse dis .

c o ve r ie s and confusions on the o ther hand of any of the

, ,

lower and minor Restoration comedies are as genuinely

farcical T h e si t uations here have usually noth ing of
.

poignancy in them ; the amusemen t tha t is extracted from

them depends no t upon what we migh t call th e idea of
the si tuation on i ts con n exion wi th the characters and wi th
,

the general atmosphere of the play bu t upon the physical ,

characteristics of the si tuation i tself .

T H E C O M ED Y O F R O M A N C E ( C O MED Y O F H U M O UR ) .

F arce i t is to be noted may approximate in tone to any

, ,

of the maj or types of comedy or rath er i t may appear as , , ,

a debased form of any of those types I t is th us distinct .

from each in t h is one quali ty of exaggerated si tuation wh ile ,

all di ffer from i t in an insistence u pon someth ing larger

and broader than mere i nciden t T h e romantic comedy of .

S hakespeare among the h igher t ypes may here be con

, ,

side r e d first I n th is term romantic comedy are i n cl uded

.

all the ch ief comedies of S hakespeare from A M idsu m m er

N ight s D r ea m to Tw elfth N ight 1 th e last th ree tragi

’
,

comedies being of a sligh tly di fferen t tone an d a tmosphere .

Wha t do we find as the characteristics of these earlier

dramas of S hakespeare ? F i rs t of all they are markedly ,

separated from later comedies of other dramatists in th ei r

1
Wi t h th e e x c ep ti
f
on o
o ve s L
abo u r s
’
L '
Lo s t, H e n r y I V, T h e
Tam ing o f th e S h r e w, an d T h e M e r r y Wi ve s .

M 1 77
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA MA T IC T H E O RY

scene N early all are set in na t u ral su rroundings— a wood

.

near A thens for A M idsum m er N ig ht s D r ea m a sea -coas t ’

,

t own wi th flowering gardens for Tw elfth N ight orchards ,

and th ei r su rroundings for M uch Ado a ho ut N o thing th e ,

F orest of A rden for As Yo u Lihe I t T h ere is no t a h in t

.

in th em of those local i ties so dear to t he la t er comic drama t ists

Pall Mall o r S t James s Park
’ ’
T h is scene then is
’
.
, ,

peculiar i n that i t is of na t ure as opposed to the ci ty and in ,

t ha t i t is se t not in the su rroundings of Engl ish country li fe

, ,

bu t in t he surroundings o f a coun try l i fe in some land remo t e

i n distance or in time A th ens I llyria Messina and F rance
.
, , ,

— these carry th e mi n d beyond even the ordinary ci ty atmo

sph ere o f th e theatre t o a di fferen t age and to a di fferen t

local i ty T his choice of distric t an d of coun try was on
.
,

S hakespeare s par t evi den t ly in t en t ional h e was following

’
, ,

i t is true th e example of the romancers Greene and L yly

, , ,

but a theory that would explain those scenes by mere i mi t a

t ion canno t be pressed t oo far I n following t hem he was
.

perfectly conscious of what h e was doing H e was e v i .

de n tly s t ri v ing del iberately to conj u re up an atmosphere

sui table t o t he charac t ers and to the emotions of h is plays .

I t is in t hese characters tha t t here appears the second notice

able elemen t in th is comedy of romance Wh ereas some .

of the pe rsons have a sligh tly more roman t ic colou ring t han
t h e others the maj ori t y are more or less real istically drawn
, ,

in the sense that they re flec t th e manners and the types of

E l izabethan England S ir T oby Belch is no more an
.

I llyrian than Bottom is a C i tizen of A thens Abstractly .

considered such a sharp divergence between scene an d char

,

acter migh t be though t fatal to the productio n of any homo

e n e o u s work of art bu t i t is t he t ri umph of the comedy of
g ,

romance tha t i t has overcome the many di ffi cul ties in i ts

path T h e main methods by wh ich a uni fied e ffect has
.

been secu red are the general subduing of h igh ton es the ,

1 78
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H E O RY

t heir na t ures and th is emotion preven t s t hei r wi t developing

,

along alien l ines T h e h umou r however is the su rest

.
, ,

medi um for secu ring a sp ii it wh ich migh t harmonize scene

and character ; i t is of a pecul iarly medi tati v e fanciful and , ,

kindly sort romantic in i ts essence i f we connote by romantic

, ,

th e richer glow of a sen ti men t t ha t is hal f poetical and hal f

wh imsical All of t hese comedies of romance are full o f
.

appeals to ou r medi tative facul ties and to ou r emotions .

T h e laugh ter is subdued in to a kind of feel ing of conten t

men t a happiness of spi ri t rather than an eb ulli tion of ou t
,

ward merrimen t Wherever th e laugh t er is called forth i t

.

is i mmediately s t illed o r crushed ou t of exis t ence by some

o th er appeal .

I n those plays moreover t he laugh t er is softened and

, ,

chastened by an elemen t usually carefully subordinated to

,

the main plo t of evil or of misfortune All along we know

, .

tha t th is evi l wil l be vanquished and tha t the misfor t une will
be pu t aside ; bu t i t is ever presen t before u s th roughou t
th e greater part of t he plo t I n As Yo u Lihe I t i t is th e
.

banishmen t of a duke and h is daugh ter ; in A M idsum m er

N ight s D r e a m i t is the hopeless entangling of the lovers
’ ’

passions an d the th reat of execu tion t ha t hangs over one of

them ; i n Tw elfth N ight i t is th e al most fatal neglec t of
V iola ; in M u ch Ado a ho u t N o thing i t is the casting o ff of
H ero . I n two of these plays the evil and th e misfortune
are softened by t he gaiety of spiri t on the par t of those
ill -fated— Rosalind s happiness and V iola s cheerfulness
’ ’
.

I n the other t wo i t is softened by the mi rth of cer t ain

charac t ers connected wi th bu t standi n g apart from t h e
, ,

characters who appear t o be i n painful ci rcu mstances— b y

th e mi rth o f Puck and of Bo tt om of Benedick and Beatrice ,

and D ogberry I t is h ere that there arises a distinction

.

between the two types wi th in th is romantic species We .

should not dream of calling As Yo u Lihe I t a t ragi -comedy ,

1 80
 C O MED Y
but there has been considerable doubt in th e nomencla t ure
of C ym belin e The Win te r s Ta le and The Tem p est I n these
,
’

, .

plays of S hakespeare s last years closely connected in thei r

’
,

Spi ri t wi th th e cognate dramas of B eaumon t and F letcher ,

the romantic elemen t is still more deeply stressed T h e .

scene is carried even farther tha n F rance and A thens and

I llyria. I t is ancien t B ri tain or Bohemia or an islan d i n
, ,
”
the Be r m o o th e s .A t the same time the i n cidents are ,

made still more improbable and roman t ic t o accord wi th

the h ighly improbable nature of the setting I n Cym helin e .

there is the almost impossible chamber scene and the later

wanderings of th e heroine ; in Th e Win te r s Ta le there is the ’

sixteen years concealmen t of H ermione ; in The Tem p est

’

there is the atmosphere of magic T his endeavou r th us .

to intensi fy the improbable and romantic notes is again

evidently deliberate I t represen ts partly the exaggeration
.

’
of the perfectly natural comedy of romance of S hakespeare s
earlier years partly an adaptation of th at comedy of romance
,

to the newer spi ri t of the early seventeenth century T h e .

comedy of roma n ce was an approximation o r a balance

between idealism and reali ty in the la t er roman tic comedy
th ere is a loss of the reali ty altogether in scene and in si tua
tion and partly i n charac t er T o harmonize wi th this
, . ,

moreover the tragic or the serious elemen t wh ich had

, ,

already appeared i n the earl ier plays bu t always in a sub

ordinate position is ih those later dramas deeply stressed
, ,

so tha t the works cease t o be comedies a t all t aking on ,

instead the characteristics of a decidedly mixed species .

T h us C ym belin e was set by th e F ol io edi tors as a tragedy ;

,

The Win te r s Tale hovers on th e brink of the u n happy ;

’

and the theme of The Tem p e st is a banished duke in vo lv ,

ing scenes of serious and almost tragic sen timents T h is .

heigh te n ed romantic note and increased tragic elemen t mark

ou t th e Beaumon t and F letcher and th e later S hak e spearian
1 81
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA MA T I C T H E O RY

romantic plays from th e earl ier E l izabethan group T here .

is also in th e later type an added elemen t of in trigue T h e .

in trigue in th e earlier plays was complicated bu t i n th e la t er ,

i t is carried t o lengths wh ich are to be discovered among th e

former dramas only in isolated scenes I t is made more .

involved and takes on forms of evil lacking in t h e earlier type .

T h e conspi racies of Iach imo and of S ebas t ian are qui te apar t
in spi ri t from th e compli ca tions in A Midsum m er N ight s ’

D r eam Obviously th e two groups run togeth er a play like

.
,

M u ch Ado a ho u t N o thing standing between the one and the

other in th is respec t ; bu t in general they are sharply enough
distinguished and while deserving t rea tmen t t ogether mus t
, , ,

be regarded as q uite se parate su b -species of the one type

'
.

T H E C O M ED Y O F H U M O UR S ( C O M ED Y O F S A T I R E ) .

Openly opposed t o this general ro m an tic species stands th e

so -called comedy of h umou rs T h is class of comedy wh ich ’
.
,

deals largely wi th exaggera t ed types o r h umours is one ‘

,
’

wh ich adu mbrated in the classical comedy was revived in

, ,

Englan d in G a m m er G u r to n s N e e dle an d in R a lp h R o iste r

’

D o ister and then after a no t very glorious career was

, , ,

rendered popular by Jonson in Ev er y M a n in his H um o u r .

Of al l the t ypes of comedy this perhaps is one of the mos t

confusing for cri tical analysis mainly owing t o th e fac t ,

t ha t all comedy be i t of h umou rs or of romance or of

,
‘ ’

manners deals wi th t ypes of charac t er rather than wi th

,

personali ties and therefore employs wha t are to al l in ten t s

, ,

and purposes the h u mou rs wh ich are often assumed to be

,

the sole property of B en Jonson T h is being so i t may .

,

be inqui red what precisely are those elemen ts wh ich parti

c u lar l distinguish th is type from others wherein th e types
y
of characters are l ikewise heavily marked I n the comedy .

of h umou rs of cou rse the types are possibly more e xag

,
’

gerated than for example in the S hakespearian t ype of

, ,

early ro man tic comedy T h e fact that t hey are types is

.

1 82
 I N T RO D U CT I O N T O D RA MA T I C T H E O RY

Jonson s great meri t l ies in th e fact no t tha t he popularized

’

th e ancient comedy of h umours no t t hat h e infused into ,

’

English li teratu re the spi ri t of T erence and of Plau tus or ,

that h e used T erence as an inspi ration for increased dramatic

e ff ect bu t that h e drew comedy down t o real li fe presen t ing
, ,

the classes an d th e follies of contemporary L ondon a t a t ime

when there was a fear of comedy s van ish ing al together in t o ’

those fa n tastic and impossible realms of make -believe wh ich

had been popularized by S hakespeare and by Beaumon t
and F letch er All of S hakespeare s d r amas except Lo v e s
.
’

,
’

La bo u r s Lo st The Ta m ing of the S hr e w an d the comi c

’

, ,

scenes of th e fi rst part of H en r y I V had deal t ei th er wi th ,

crude absurdi ty of acciden t o r wi th the h umorous tha t arises

,

ou t of na t u ral ignorance all colou red wi th h is rich roman tic

,

i magination The M er r y Wiv es is farcical as is The

.

Ta m ing of the S hr ew and the F als t a ff scenes of H e n r y I V

,

not only depen d largely upon h umou r for th ei r e ffec t bu t

merely form part of a larger h istory Lo v e s La ho ur s Lo st .
’ ’

has a fanci fu l theme wi th noth ing in i t reminiscen t of

Jonson s style Realism added to in t ensi fied h umou rs
’
.
,
‘ ’

treated in a sat i r i cal spi ri t was fi rs t given t o th e thea t rical

,

world by Jonson H ere possibly a remark migh t be made

.
, ,

concerning Jonson s matter He has been called by several

’
.

cri tics the founder of the comedy of manners ; i t has been

sai d that he deal t wi th the manners of mankind and so ,

stands as t he ancestor of the Restoration comedy S uch .

statemen t s however go far toward con fusing the issue

, , ,

on the one hand be t ween Jonson and S hakespeare and on

, , ,

th e other between Jonson and C ongre v e Jonson in

, .
,

poin t of fact deals hardly at all wi th manners as such he

,

is not concerned wi th the social a ffec t ations of the world bu t ,

wi th the foll ies of particular men o r of particular groups of

men T h e comic of Ev er y M a n in his H u m o u r rises ou t
.

o f the follies of Bo badill of Ma t thew of C o b of C lemen t

, , , ,

1 84
 C O ME D Y
not ou t of the manners of thei r class All the h umou rs .

of E v er y M a n o u t of his H um o ur are based on gen uine

trai ts of character not on the customs and th e ways of
,

mankind S o in The Alchem ist i t is the gullibili ty of fools

.

and the cunni n g of Sharpers that is presen t ed in Vo lp o n e i t is

the natural greed of all types of men S o far i ndeed is .
, ,

Jonson from being the founder of the comedy of ma nners

tha t i t migh t almost be averred that h is species of comedy
is distinguished from several other types by th e fact that i t
puts i ts stress no t on ma n ners bu t on natu ral idiosyncrasies
, .

I t is this fact that he does not reproduce the manners of

t he age that marks o ff S hadwell the l iterary descendan t of
,

Jonson as being a wri ter not only of an inferior geni u s

, , ,

bu t of a class di ff eren t from tha t of E th erege I n only two .

t h ings does Jonson s tand connec t ed wi th the later comedy

of manners— in h is realism and in h is sati re ; and we shall
find that the realism and th e satire of Jonson are defin itely
separated a t many points from the similar quali ti es t ha t
occasionally appear in the Restora t ion dramas .

T h e comedy of humours be i t noted habi tually disregards

’
, ,

humour i t depends occasionally on wi t bu t more generally ,

on sati re T h e exaggera t ion of the typ es gi v es ample o pp o r

.

tu n ity for the in t roduc t ion of th is las t comic method

indeed in i tself i t is partly a manifestation of sati ri cal creative

,

ness T h is distinction between the plays of S hakespeare

.

and the plays of Jonson is clearly to be seen when we glance

a t the developmen t of th e dramatic productivi ty of each
H umour as i t advances t ends t o become more mellow
, , ,

moving ei ther t oward increased kindliness or t oward ex

c e ssive medi t a t ion of a h ighly contemplative kind ; sati re ,

on t he other hand tends to grow more bi tter and more

,

severe H umou r may end in melancholy ; satire nearly

.

always ends in pessimism Whereas in S hakespeare s work

.
’

we see a continued kindliness and a t the close of h is li fe

, ,

1 85
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H EO RY

a melancholy con t emplation of th e shadows and of the shows

of life in Jonson we find a regular progression fro m t he
,

comparatively genial atmosphere of Ev e ryM a n in his H um o u r

t o the bi tterness and the unconcealed con tempt of Vo lp o n e .

As is evi den t t h is lack of h umou r in the so -called comedy of

,

h umou rs marks one of the many anomal ies in ou r li terary

nome n clatu re due obviously to th e rapid al teration i n the
,

sign i ficance O f th e t erms employed by cri tical wri ters I t .

’
would be much safer to style Jonson s comedy the comedy of
real ism or th e comedy of sati re di ffere n tiating i t th us from
,

the romantic comedy wi th i ts atmosphere of h umou r an d

from t he later comedy of manners .

T H E C O MED Y O F M A N N E R S ( C O M ED Y O F WI T ) — T h e .

comedy of manners is as i ts name suggests an en ti rely

, ,

di fferen t species from th e comedy of Jo n son T h ere may .

be h umours in the plays of E therege C ongreve Fa r q u h ar , , ,

and V anbrugh bu t those h umours are no t s t ressed t o th e

,
‘ ’

same exten t as th ey are in Jonson s work ; and there is more ’

ove r a marked change in thei r conception I n Jonson

, .
,

as we have seen the h umours are exaggerated t rai ts of

,

character T h e very names of h is dr a m a tis p er so n a dis

.

play th is D eli ro S ordido F u n go so S hi ft i n Ev ery M a n

.
, , , ,

is H um o u r ; olpone orbaccio i n T e Fo x
o ut o
f h V C h , ,

these show the tendency of h is creative acti v i ty I n the .

comedy of manners on th e oth er hand the h umours are

, ,

rarely such t rai ts of charac t er exaggerated T h e h umours . ,

’

i f we retain the old t erm are deri ved from the c o n ve n ,

tions fo llies and usages of social life N ovel and L ord

, , .

Plausible in Th e Pla in D e a le r ; L ord F roth and S ir Paul

Plyan t in The D o u hle D eale r ; Witw o u d and Petulan t in
Th e Way of the Wo r ld ; the S ir Harry Wilda ir s and the
L ady Betty Mo dish e s of the eigh teen th centu ry— all of these
are figures who take thei r h umorous complexion from the
social follies of thei r day no t from th e innate foll ies of
,

1 86
 I N T RO D U C T I O N TO D R A MA T IC T H E O RY

of manners is set ou t of the bounds of L ondon S edley .

mixes fanciful wi th real names in h is B ella m ir a and seems ,

i n S O doing t o spoi l h is play bu t t he finer drama t is t s of t he

,

time were careful t o avoi d any such admix t ure T hey .

cl ung fi rmly t o the ci rcle of L ondon socie t y As soon as .

th e comedy of manners passed ou t of th e town into t h e

country as i t did in Far q u h ar s The R ecr u iting Oflicer i t

,
’
,

was doomed t o perish I t never could have t ravelled to .

th e myth ical lands of th e S hakespearian T hal ia ; i t woul d

have withered there as a hot-house plan t in a freer a t mo
,

sphere I n places too the Res t oration comedy shared the

.
, ,

Spi ri t of Jonson bu t in sharing tha t spi ri t al tered i t

, , , .

Jonson s dramas as we have seen had been buil t on sati re

’
, , ,

wh ich is an in tegral par t of t he comedy of manners T h is .

sati re however in i t s reappearance was t o t ally changed

, , .

I t was no longer t he sa t i re o f t he self-opin iona t ed and sligh tly

pessimistic individual as wi th Jonson bu t the gen t le satire ,

of t he fine wo rl d a t t he follies of those who strove t o en t er

in t o i t s elegan t ci rcle I t direc t ed i ts laugh t er a t th e
.

hangers-o n a t t he fops an d a t th e would -b e wi ts at the

, , ,

coxcombs and a t the pedan tries of th e v ir tu o si Excep t .

in manly Wycherley who lashed t h e crying age i t

”
,
”
,

never grew bi tter never passed beyond a kind of fastidious

,

con t empt T h e comedy of manners moreover di d not

.
, ,

con fine i tsel f to sati re ; i t u tilized far more wha t Jonson

barely knew -the power of wi t Jonson s is t he satire of .
’

exaggera t ion he a t tains h is e ffec t no t by means of a frui tful

fancy bu t by means of crude and h eavy blows T h e comedy
, .

of manners neglec t ed all tha t I t was ai ry an d delica t e ; .

and accordingly preferred t o sa t irize by util izing tha t species

of esp r it wh ich depended fundamen t ally upon the in c o n
gr u ity be tw een two ideas or between an i dea and an obj ect .

I ts method is en ti rely di fferen t from the method of th e

El izabethan wri ter ; as di fferen t indeed as tha t latter , ,

1 88
 C O ME DY
method is from the genial kindly and meditative h umou r
, ,

O f S hakespe are.

I n disc u ssi n g th e co m edy of manners i t is alm o st in ,

evi table that there should arise th e question of morali ty .

T h e typical plays of the comedy of manners produced during

th e time of the Restoration are so fu ll of indecencies of
word and tho u gh t and si tuation that th is problem mus t be
e v er presen t before us Already some few word s have been
.

said on the subj ect and li ttle more need be done h ere than
,

to poin t ou t tha t these comedies wri t t en i n the age of th e

,

Restoration could not fail t o be indecen t to modern eyes

, .

I t is by no means th e comedy of manners that has a monopol y

of immorali ty at t hat time All the types of comedy pro
.

du c e d between 1 6 6 0 and 1 7 0 0 are stained by the brush o f

th e evil of thei r time . I ndeed i t may be said categorically
,

that there are far worse elements to be found in th e lesser

known non -manners dramas of that period than there are
in th e more accessible plays of E therege and of C ongreve .

I t is certainly noticeable tha t a man like S hadwell i n Th e ,

S q u ir e of Alsa tia where h e deliberately adopts the Jonsonian

,

s t yle is inexpressibly vulgar wh ile in B ur y Fa ir where he

, , ,

has been undoubtedly in fl uenced by the plays of E therege ,

he is comparatively pure and modest even i f j udged by ,

modern standards of taste .

Before passing j udg m en t on t h is comedy of manners

for i ts moral delinque n cies there are several t h ings wh ich
,

mus t be borne in mind F i rst of all the comedy of manners

.
,

is essentially i ntellectual ; i t permi t s of th e introduction and

expression of practically no emotion wha t soever I t there .

fore does no t play upon ou r feelings i n any way but appeals ,

primarily and always to ou r reason I ts wi t is purely .

intellectual ; and the appreciation of i t comes from ou r

minds not from our hearts T h is in t ellectual quali ty in
, .

t he works of E therege and of C ongreve undoubtedly renders

1 89
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA MA T I C T HE O RY

th ei r indecencies an d th ei r vulgari ties compara t ively harm

l ess T h e t ruly i mmoral book is tha t wh ich plays upon
.

ou r emotions and leaves th e reason severely alone T h e .

indecencies in the Resto ra t ion drama rarely i f ever are , ,

in troduced except for th e pu rpose O f raising a laugh from

th e wi t wi th wh ich t hey are presen ted T here is here a .

genu ine insensibil i ty demanded from th e audience and t ha t ,

i nsensibili ty dulls and renders innocuous wha t migh t O th er

wise have been of e v i l e ffec t .

T h e comedy of manners moreover has s t ressed deeply

, ,

that ten dency in all h igh comedy— t h e ar tifi c ialityof pe r son

al i ty an d of theme T h is comedy is realistic bu t no t in
.
,

th e way tha t Jonson s plays were realistic I n h is works

’
.

th ere is a decided a tt emp t t o display t h rough the h umou rs

o r th rough the types trai t s of con t emporary li fe ; th ere is
a mass of topical allusion and the subj ects are O ften t aken
,

from real aspects of h is t i me T h e comedy of manners

.

also re flects real l ife bu t i t is a real life ar tifi c ializ e d and

, , ,

still furth er i t is t h e ai rier wha t we migh t almos t call the

, ,

more spiri tual parts of real l ife I t is th is fac t wh ich Lamb

, .

”
seized upon in h is essay on T h e A rti ficial C omedy T h is .

essay is exaggerate d and therefore loses some of i t s e ffec t ;

,

bu t i t has cap t ured the t ruth concerning th is par t icular

species of dramati c e ffor t T here is an incessan t a tt emp t
.

on th e par t of E therege and of C ongreve to delinea te th e

more refined aspec t s of thei r time— th e gaiety t he w it , ,

the del icacy of th e age T h ere is t oo th e a t tempt t o

.
, ,

a r tifi c ializ e th e manners prese n ted o r else to presen t them

,

in thei r most ethereal ized forms Wh ile we may say t hen .

, ,

that th is dra m a is realistic in that i t presen ts a pictu re of

conte m porary l ife in defini tely metropol i tan su rro undi n gs ,

we mus t q u alify tha t statemen t by declaring tha t i t presen ts

a pictu re only o f certain aspects O f tha t contemporary l i fe ,

a n d tha t i t treats th ose aspec t s in a peculiar way O f its own .

1 90
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H E O RY

less natural socie t y of t h e cen t u ry that followed tha t of

C harles I I T h e t erm was fi rs t used apparen tly by
.
, ,

A ddison i n t h e very years tha t saw th e developmen t of the

type bu t i t is explaine d nowhere more clearly than i n the
,

a n onymous in t roduc t ion to the t h i rd volume of The M o de r n

B r itish D r am a ( 1 8 1 1 ) Th e C a r ele ss H u sba n d of C ibber
is there described as t he fi rst gen teel comedy U pon th e
English s t age an d th e precursor of a n umerous class o f plays
, ,

wh ich di d not as formerly represen t the ope r ation of one

, ,

single passion rush ing wi th i mpetuosi ty t o the accomplish

men t of i ts desi res I t is no t t he na t ural bu t th e arti ficial
.
,

s t a t e of man wh ich th is species of drama presents exh ibi t

,

ing characters no t ac t ing under the predominance of natu ral

feeling bu t warped from thei r gen uine ben t by th e habi ts
, ,
”
rules and ceremonies of h igh l ife
, T here is here of cou rse
.
, ,

a certain misappreh ension probably d ue ul timately t o

,

A ddison bu t the characteristics th us diagnosed are the

,

gen uine characteristics of the gen teel comedy T h e age of .

A nne and t he later age of the m id -eigh teenth cen t ury were
both sen timen t al and less natu ral than the age of C harles .

T hey were still prevailingly in t ellectual bu t the vas t changes ,

wh ich had t aken place in t he years following the Revol ution

of 1 6 8 8 had left t hei r marks on socie t y and on the t heatre .

T h e age t oo was more e ff emina t e than i t had been before

, ,
.

A ffectations ruled t he li fe of th e upper-class society and i t is ,

t hese a ffectations that are reproduced in the pages o f th e

genteel comedy All tha t was vi rile in the earlier drama
.

was los t and i f t he Restoration plays presen t ed a more

, ,

arti ficial state of society than had appeared in t he plays of

Jonson t h is was as much more arti ficial th an th e comedies
,

of E therege and of C ongreve I n the gen t eel comedy mos t .

of the indecencies wh ich had in the eyes of the moral cri tics
, ,

marred the earl ier dramas were abandoned I n trigue there .

is in plen t y bu t i t is in t rigue t hat is sh rouded in the mids t

,

1
92
 CO ME DY
of th e arti ficial a nd moreover i t is in t rigue tha t is often
, , ,

h ighly sen t imen ta lized By the wri ter of the preface in

.

Th e M o de r n B r itish D r am a H o adlys The S u sp icio u s

’

H u sba nd is singled ou t as a prime example of the later

genteel comedy and in tha t drama we find in spite of th e
, ,

l icence of th e drinking and love -making scenes a rich ai r ,

of th e sen t imental T h e coarser manners are toned down

.

to an atmosphere of decorum and i f t here may appear to ,

ou r eyes a more vicious a t mosphere in the hypocrisy of

cer tain situations th e cruder elements of licence have been
c u t away and t hei r place taken by a strictly becoming Spiri t .

I n this gen t eel comedy however there is someth ing

, ,

mo r e than mere moral tone that separat es i t from the

’

earlier type of comic productivi ty T h e wi t wh ich had .

distinguished th e plays of C ongreve has been in i t largely

lost T h e laugh ter arises no t ou t of the playful fancies of
.

brillian t and h ighly intellectual men bu t ou t of the a ff ecta ,

t ions of th is m an n e r iz e d society Lady Betty Modi sh and .

her ga llants are not t ruly clever ; they have wi t of a ki n d ,

bu t they are laughable no t so much by reason of thei r skill

in repartee as by reason of thei r fine ai rs and thei r h ighly
arti ficial mode of li fe T h e heroes of the earl ier comedy of
.

manners are usually ordinary men — C areless and C ou rtine

a nd Beaugard— who laughed at the follies O f t oo refined
a ffecta t ion on the one hand an d of awkward ignorance on
,

t he other H ere the follies have become th e central par t

.

of t he picture and the ordinary men have vanished

, .

T H E C O M ED Y O F I N T R I GU E — Apar t from the comedy of

.

manners and i t s descendan t th e genteel comedy there is

, ,

one t ype of comedy wh ich has prese rved an almost perenn ial
exis t ence during the whole period from i ts inception in th e
days O f F letcher t o the end of the eigh t eenth cen t ury T h is .

t ype is th e comedy of in t rigue I t is rarely perhaps th a t we

.

find a genu ine and pu re comedy of t h is class bu t there are

1
N 93
 I NT RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T IC T HE O RY

innumerable plays wh ich have a preponderance of th e

in trigue elemen t so tha t th e t ype may be considered as an
,

en t i ty in i tself I n th is species of comedy as th e name

.
,

implies the laugh t er arises solely or largely ou t of the dis

,

guises and the in t rigues and the compl ica t ions of th e plot .

I n some of t he comedies of F letche r in t hose of Mr s Behn , ,

and in th ose of M r s C e n tlivr e th e whole in teres t lies in the

,

skilful manipulation of a series of si tuations delicately con

c e ive d an d leading to innumerable mistakes and amusing

dé n o u em en ts . I n general th is comedy stands far below those

,

types we have been co n sidering being in i t s nature C losely

,

allied t o farce I t d i ffers from farce however in tha t i t

.
, ,

does no t necessarily o r even usually employ h orseplay o r

rough inci den t in i ts developmen t V ery often t he com .

plications of th e comedy of in trigue lead t o no th ing bu t

merely laughable si tuations laughable because of th e in t el
,

lectual incongrui ty they presen t T here can be li ttle w it .

i n th is t yp e of drama practically no h umou r an d no t a scrap

, ,

o f sati re bu t there is the gen uin e comedy of si t ua t ion h ighly

,

and in the bes t of th e spe cies in teres t ingly developed T h is

, , .

comedy of si tua t ion as we have seen has a dis t inc t value of

, ,

i ts own an d mus t be accorded an honourable place in the

,

methods a t the disposal of the comic dramatist T h e danger .

in i t l ies in th e fac t t hat i t becomes in an exaggera t ed form , ,

a t ri fle monotonous and gradually palls on the senses and on

th e in tellec t I t has also the disadvantage that th e novel t y
.
,

of the plot-developmen t worn o ff i t often ceases t o have any ,

great val ue o r in teres t for us On the oth er hand the comedy

.
,

of in t rigue is more universal than many of the o ther t ypes .

T h e in t rigue tha t i t presen t s is indepen den t O f time and of

place i t exis t s i n a world O f i ts own I t does not pain t the .

manners of a particular t ime ; i ts theme is the Sportive

merrimen t of mankind I n s t udying i t we have t herefore
.

t o beware of falling in t o one of t wo ex t remes We have t o .

1 94
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H EO RY

On th e o ther hand we may discover a number of sen t i

,

men tal comedies where t here is a marked line of demarca t ion

be t ween two par t s of t he plo t o r be t ween t wo groups O f
,

charac t ers T here are coun t less plays for example of th e

.
, ,

spe cies wh ich combines t hus a sen t imen tal por t ion and a
portion dealing en t i rely wi th in t rigue or more commonly , , ,

wi th h umours T h us in The Fugitiv e of Joseph Richardson

.
’
,

th ere is a distinctly sen t imen t al theme deal ing wi th S ir

William Wingrove and h is daugh t er J ulia whom he plans ,

to give t o L o rd Dar t ford bu t the su rroundings of t h is theme

,

are occupied en t i rely wi th t h e h umours of Larron ,

O Do n n e l an d A dmi ral C leveland S o i n The S ecr et of

’
.
, ,

E dward Morris the sen t imen ta l is richly s t ressed i n th e

rej ec t ion of Hen ry by Rosa because of her pover t y and in the ,

subsequen t rej ec t ion of Rosa by H en ry because the la tt er

has found tha t h is sweethear t s poverty is due t o t he ac t ion
’

of h is own fa t her bu t t h e elemen t of h umours in L izard

,
‘ ’

an d h is family provides all t he comic spi ri t i n th e play .

”
Provides all the comic spiri t i n th e play — here in deed
lies th e secre t of th e sen t imen t al comedy T here is i n .
,

poin t of fac t no such th ing as sentimen tal comedy a t all

, .

T h e sentimen tal parts of the plays c alled sentimental are

purely serious ; th e si tuations are si tua t ions tha t raise a
problem in ou r minds ; the characters are almos t always
individual ized I n t rue comedy Rosa and J ulia would have
.

been mere t yp es an d we sh ould no t have cared wha t t hey

,

did o r fel t ; bu t in t h is sen timental comedy t hey are i ndi

v idualiz e d and a t once t hei r posi tions become pathe t ic o r
,

serious N o t for on e momen t do we even smile a t t he

.

sen timen t al portions o r a t t h e sentimental charac t ers ; the

mi rth all comes in the Cibb e r type from th e basis of manners ,

and in the la t er t ype from the su b -plots o r sub -characters of

the h umours or the in trigue species I n poin t of fac t .
,

al though t h is seems t o have escaped the no t ice of t h e cri tics ,

1
96
 CO ME DY
all tha t we mean by sentimen tal comedy is ei ther a sen ti
mental play (or dr a m e) wi th an added elemen t of mirth
derived from manners or h umours or in trigue o r else a
’
,

play of t he ordinary manners type wh ich ends on a moral

note by causing a revulsion of charac t er and by relating th e
posi tion in the final act O f the dra m a to th e si tuations of real
l ife T h e sen timen t al comedy therefore is not a separa t e
. , ,

t ype of comic creation bu t merely the name given to a

,

particular union of t h e serious and th e amusing .

Before closing t h is section a further note migh t be made

concerning nomenclature I t has been plen t ifully apparen t
.

that no t only i n th is last ins tance have the terms applied

regularly by cri ticism to the type s of comedy been misleading
and erroneous T h e comedy of h umours has noth ing of
.

h umou r in i t : sen t imental comedy canno t truly be said to

exist A plea migh t therefore be made for a new set O f
.

t i tles based no t on chance applica t ion bu t upon a study O f

, ,

the comic methods employed by each species S hakespeare s .

’

comedy migh t deserve the name of comedy of h umou r for ,

tha t is i ts predominan t charac t eris t ic giving bi rth to all

,

t he laugh ter in h is dramas Romantic t ragi -comedy migh t

.

serve for the plays of Beaumon t and F letcher in wh ich a ,

union of the serious an d of th e laughable is marked Jonson s .

’

comedy would be th e comedy of satire dependen t no t upon ,

wi t and innocen t of h umou r T h e plays of E th erege and

, .

of C ongreve would on th e same p rinciple be th e comedy

, ,

O f wi t th e word manners unless fully unders t ood in all i ts

, ,

bearings merely causing confusion between th e d ramas of

,

th e Res t oration and the dramas O f th e early seventeen th

cen tury By thus clarifying the nomenclature of comic
.

t ype s and by bearing these ti tles in mind we migh t go far

t oward appreciating th e fundamental chara c t eris t ics of each
separa t e species .

1 97
 I N T RO D U CT I O N T O D RA M A T I C T H EO RY

i RA I -C O MEDY
( )
v T G

C H A RAC TE R I STI C S O F S E N T I M E N T A L DRA M A — I n th e las t .

section i t has been seen tha t t he sen t imen t al in i t sel f is never

amusing and tha t consequen t ly i t is no t comic in th e o rdinary
,

sense of tha t word On th e o t her hand th e sen t imen t al

.
,

plays are clearly di fferen t ia t ed from t ra gedy no t only i n

having happy endings bu t in presen t ing th ei r ma tt er in
,

such a way t ha t we are no t t h rilled an d awed by th e scenes

se t before us T h is lack of t h rill an d of awe is th e pri me
.

poin t of di fference be t ween t h e t wo T h e sen t imen t al .

d rama however does appeal t o ou r emo t ions r a th er than

, ,

t o o u r in t ellec t o r else i t combines a double emo t ional a n d

,

in t ellec t ual a ppeal T h e emo t ions t ha t i t appea ls t o a re

.

sympa t h y a n d pi t y S ympa th e t ic t ears and sen t imen t al

.
’ ‘ ’

t ears are almos t synonymous t erms for th e eigh t een t h

cen t u ry I n t ragedy as we have seen pi t y and sympa t h y
.
, ,

are largely absen t because th e figures prese n t ed on t he s ta ge

are grea t er an d more massive than ourselves I n sen t i .

men t al drama o n th e con t rary th e a tt emp t is al w a ys made

, ,

t o presen t li fe and t h e chara c t ers of life as t hese a c t ually

appe ar t o us F eel ings may be ar tifi c ializ e d t o modern
.

s tandards sen t i men t alism may frequen t ly conno t e a n a t m o

sphere of h ypocrisy ; bu t t here is t he genu ine endeavou r on
t he part of all the sentimen tal drama t is t s t o crea t e scenes o f
real li fe t hose scenes of real l ife displaying a problem of some
,

distinc t and more o r less poignan t na t u re T h is problem .

i nvolves t he assump t ion t ha t ar t should be rela t ed t o l i fe ,

and t herefore in th e sen t imen t al plays t here is always a

moral no t e T here is an elemen t of preach ing of ineul
.
,

cating some moral or rel igious precep t wh ich may be lofty ,

o r may be merely h ypocri t ically self-seeking I n t he t wo .

plays referred t o above — a n d t here is no need t o mul tiply

i ns t ances — th e p roblem is duly s t ressed I n t he one i t is .

1 98
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA MA T IC T H EO RY
‘

consi dera t ions i t is bound t o be epheme r al and t emporary

, .

E ven S hakespeare u t il izing some th ing of i t s spi ri t in

,

M ea sur e fo r M ea su r e an d in All s Well tha t En ds Well

’
,

failed to produce plays tha t would stand th e t es t of t i me as

Othello an d As Yo u Lihe I t have done .

OTH E R T Y P ES O F T RAG I -C O ME D Y -T h e question of

.

t ragi -comedy of the more marked types has a l ready been

t ouched upon I t has been seen tha t comedy could uni t e
.

wi th genuinely t ragic elemen t s t o crea t e a t ruly grea t play .

T here may however i n concl usion t o th is brief a ttemp t

, ,

at an analysis of d rama t ic C harac t eris t ics be given a word ,

concerning th e union of these two elemen t s I n th e fi rs t .

place i t may be no t ed t ha t th e comic may appea r in t ragi c

plays for th ree very di fferen t pu rposes I t may be employed
.

as a con t ras t t o t he t ragic I n t h is case i t very seldom

.

raises a laugh T h e por t er scene in M acbe th is comic

.
,

bu t i t is a gri m sor t of comedy t ha t serves t o make more

t errible th e even t s t aking place wi th in the cas tle T h e .

comic may on t h e o t her hand be brough t i n as a relief

, ,

ra th er t han as a con t ras t T h e servan t scenes and th e

.

Mercu tio scenes in R o m eo a n d 7 uliet are an example of th is $

H ere th e comic is genuinely amusing and in t ended t o be

amusing devised to form a brea th ing space as i t were in
, , ,

the mids t of t he t ragic action S ome of th e j es t s of L ear s

.
’

fool have t he same purpose al though here the i deas of

,

con t ras t an d of rel ief seem inex t ricably i n t ermingled T h is .

r elief has no t been greatly practised by S hakespeare al though ,

i t has been a marked featu re of many of th e o t her early

seventeen th -century dramas I t is j us t possible tha t h e
.

real ized th e di ffi cul t y i t involves in regard t o t he final

disposi tion of th e h umorous figu res Generally th ese have
.
,

to be go t rid of by death ; Mercu t io is slain in R o m e o a n d

u lie t and Be r e tto in F ord s Tis Pit is s t abbed by mis t ake
y
’ ’
, g y .

T h e end of such cha ra c t ers however does no t fill us

, ,

2 00
 CO ME D Y
wi th t he genuine mood of t ragedy We feel tha t there is
.

something wrong in th ei r deaths ; an elemen t of doub t is

raised an d doub t is fatal to the spi ri t of tragedy T h i rdly
, .
,

th e comic apar t from these may be developed along lines

, ,

of i ts own parallel t o the ma i n plo t and independen t of i t

, .

I n th is case the con t rast between the two moods or spi ri ts

almos t invariably leads the playw righ t to disas t er We may .

have successful romantic dramas such as The Win ter s Ta le ’

,

where t here are comic and serious portions the serious ,

ending no t unhappily ; bu t the union of an unhappy t heme

wi th mir t hful comedy must always seem incongruous unless
the comedy be relegated to a very in ferior posi tion T h e .

excuse tha t most roman tic cri tics an d independen t neo

c lassiC cri t ics have given for tragi -comedy— i ts t ru th t o
na t ure — must therefore be dismissed as unavailing T ru t h .

t o nature is no t t h e t es t of drama ; there are many th ings

in natu re wh ich ca n no t be sa t isfac t orily dramatized and th e ,

union of the di fferen t moods of ordinary li fe mus t be care

fully harmonized before they can be artistically included i n
one single play D rama is based on li fe bu t i t is li fe selec t ed
.
,

an d made harmonious I t presents the moods of our minds

.

and hearts abs t rac t ed and placed in an in t ensi fied isolation .

T h e drama has no t only laws of i ts own bu t charac t eris t ics ,

of i ts own i t is h uman life and character raised and placed

on a new plane of exis t ence where o t her laws and o t her
,

custo m s rule than those on th is ear th We canno t cri t icize

.

t h is drama from th e ordinary poin t of View of na t u ral

ex i stence.

T his independence of drama realized so long ago by

,

A ris t otle must appea r one of the stranges t peculiari ties o f

,

th is par t icular typ e of li terature for the drama more t han

, ,

the maj ori ty of other arts would seem t o take i ts very life
,

from t he actions and the though t s of mor t al men and women .

N evertheless the fac t remains that however much th e

, ,

2 01
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D R A MA T IC T H E O RY

th ea t re may attemp t to depic t h uman pe rsonali t ies i t mus t ,

always Sh ow th em in an i dealized ligh t moving in a world

,

of th ei r own T h is world can be fully unders t ood only

.

when we have endeavoured t o inves t iga t e those elemen t s

wh ich seem t o be common t o all the grea t drama t is t s .

H erein therefore lies t he p o log ia for th is a t temp t t en ta t ive

, ,
a ,

an d possibly fragmen t ary t o investiga t e analyse and as far

, , ,

as possible classify t he charac t eris t ics of tha t ar t wh ich has

,

charmed mill ions for cen t uries upon cen t uries and has given
,

t o th e wo rld th e profound geni us of an fEsc h ylu s a S ophocles

, ,

and a S hakespeare as well as th e gaie t y and th e wi t and th e

,

laugh t er of a T erence a Mo lié r e and a Congreve

, , .

2 02
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T HEO RY
I n re adi n g Ar i sto tl e th e fe w re m a r ks o n th e d ra m a m a de b y Plato
sh o u l d n o t b e d i sr e ga r de d T h e se ar e scatte re d t h r o u gh o u t h is
.

d isc o u r se s alt h o u gh th e m o st i m p o rta n t app ear in The Rep uhlic

,

G o l de n T r e asu r y se r i e s) O n Pla to s c r iti c i sm th e r e is a go o d

’
.

e ssay b
y Pate r in P la to and Pla to n ism an d an i n te re sti n g stu dy by ,

W C G r een
. . Plato s V i e w o f Po e tr y — in Har var d S tudies
’

in P hilo logy v o l xx i x ,
. .

H o r a c e s The Ep istle to the P iso s is w e ll r e n d e re d b y S ai n tsb u ry

’

in h is Loc i C r itici .

M E D I EVA L C R I TI C I S M d o e s n o t d e al large ly w ith d r a m a , o w i n g

to th e loss o f t hat typ e o f lit e r at u r e afte r th e fall o f th e Ro m a n
Em pi r e Ev e n C ha u c e r s d e fin it io n o f t r age d y ( q u o te d p 5 4)
’
. .

do e s n o t st r i c tly r e fe r to d r a m ati c fo rm , b u t to t r a gi c tal e s .

RE NA S C E N C E C R I T I C I S M is we ll d e alt w it h by S pi n gar n , op c it . .

C aste l ve tr o is v e r y i m p o r ta n t , as is V ida O n th e se th e late r n e o

.

c lassi c w r it e r s o f Fr a n c e an d o f En gla n d m o de lle d th e m se l ve s .

A fe w e x t r a c ts w i ll b e fo u n d in Lo ci C r itici .

S i dn eys An Ap o log ie f o r P o etr ie sh o u l d b e r e ad in the re pri n t

’

o f P r o fe sso r Ar b e r I n th i s se r i e s al so w ill b e fo u n d th e wo r k o f
.

P u tte n ha m , The Ar te o f Eng lish P o etr ie , an d o f We b b e , A D isco ur se

o
f English Po e tr ie, b o th o f w h i c h , h o we v e r, d eal rathe r w ith p o e tr y
in ge n e ral t han w ith d r a m a in pa r ti c u lar .

J o n so n w r o te n o syste m o f c r iti c i sm bu t his id eas ar e to b e ,

se e n in h is Tim her , o r D isco ve r ies, an d in th e p r o l o u e s to h is

g
v a r i o u s pla s
y I t sh o u ld b e n o t e d t hat th e j u dgm e n ts gi v e n in
.

Tim her ar e n o t w h o lly o r i gi n al, b u t, li ke t h o se o f S id n e y, ar e v e ry

la r ge l yde r i v e d, e ve n d i r e c tly t r a n slat e d , fro m pa ssa ge s in p r e c e di n g
cr i ti c s.

Bo il e a u L Ar t Po etiq ue sho u ld c e rtai n l y b e r e ad b e fo r e atte m pt

’ ’
s

w
in g an y o r k o n lat e r se v e n t e e n t h-c e n tu r y E n gli sh c r itic s With .

th i s m i gh t b e take n th e Refflex io ns sur la Po etiq ue o f Rapi n Bo th .

o f th e se ha v e een b
e ll a n al y w
se d b y S ai n ts u r y b .

fi
Dr yde n sta n d s o u t as th e r st o r i gi nal En gli sh r ite r o n lite r a r y w
b
t he o r y H is e ssays have e e n e c e ll e n tly e dite d by P r o fe sso r
. x
W P K e r , an d the D r am atic Essays hav e e e n se l e c te d byW H
. . b . .

H udso n fo r th e E v e r ym a n se r i e s .

AU U G STA RTCS
N C I I I M p r e se n ts littl e o f o r i i nal m at e r ial fr o m
g
th e p o i n t o f v i e w
o f th e d r a m a Rym e r sh o u l d b e r e ad to gai n
.

an i de a o f th e se v e r e r fo r m Ad d i so n to gai n an i de a o f th e m o r e
m e ll o w
e d , r e fi n e d t h e o r i e s o f th e a e ; an d P o p e Essa o n C r itic ism
g ( y )
to gai n an id e a o f th e a ve ra e rul e s ta ke n o ve r fr o m th e C o n ti n e n
g t
2 04
 A PPEN D I X
an d lai d d o wn w it h e pi gr am m atic fo r c e D r J o hn so n is
h e re .

i m p o r tan t b e c ause o f h is defian t p e r so nality O f his w o r k se v e r al .

e ssays in The Ra m hle r ( se e p 2 6 ) o u gh t to b e r e a d as w e ll as his

.
,

p r o l o gu e sp o ke n by G ar r i c k at the o p e n i n g o f th e T h e atr e Ro yal

, ,

Dr u r y Lan e .

RO MA N T I C C R I T I C I S M d e al s al m o st e x c l u si v e l y w i th p o e try .

H azlitt is o n e n o ta b l e e x c e pti o n H is Lectur es o n the E nglish C o m ic .

Wr iter s w i ll b e fo u n d in th e Ev e r ym an se r ie s C o l e r i dge s .
’

N o tes o n S ha kespe ar e sh o u l d also b e c o nsu lt d e ,

an d T h ac ke r a s The English Hu m o ur ists ( e d um b

’

y F E B y . . .
,

H a r r ap) .

MO D E R N C R I TI C I S M h as d e v o t e d m o r e spac e to t h i s su bj e c t .

O n c o m e dy Me r e dith s Ess y o n the I de of C o m e dy is i m p o r tan t

’
a a .

P r o fe sso r Be r gso n s Le Rir e ( H ac h e tte ; E n glish t r an slati o n

’
,

Mac m illan) sh o u l d b e stu di e d c a r e fu lly as w e ll as S u lly s An ,

’

Essay o n Laughter T h e r e is a sh o r t e ssay o n c o m e dy b y C Pal m e r

. .

w h i c h pre se n ts so m e valu a b l e su gge sti o n s Re fe r e n c e m i gh t also .

b e m ade to th e n e w t h e o r i e s o f th e aesth e ti c o f Be n e de tt o C r o c e ,

an d to th e st u d i e s in p s c h o lo gy b F r u d an d o t h e r s Pa r ti c u lar
y y e .

atte n ti o n m i gh t b e pai d to th e latte r p h i lo so p h e r s Wit and its ’

O n t r a ge dy W L C o u r t n e ys The
’
Rela tion to the Unco nsc io us . . .

I de a of Tr agedy is val ua b l e T h o r n d i ke s Tr ge dy is r at h e r
’
. a

hist o r ical t ha n a n alyti c al P r o fe sso r Vau ghan s Types of Tr agic ’

.

D r am a is p r o ba b l y th e b e st b o o k o n th e su bj e c t w e hav e Br a n de r .

Matth e ws th r e e w o r ks The D evelop m ent of the D r am a A

’
, ,

S tudy of the D r am a an d The P r inc ip les of Playm a hing sh o u ld

, ,

c e r tai nl b a d d t h i i n t e r e sti n g m at e r ial in

y e r e an e r e
,
s so m e

Pro fe sso r Le w i s C am p b e ll s Tr agic D r m a in Az schylus S opho cles

’
a
‘

, ,

a n d S ha kes e ar e
p A s stat e d in th e t e x t
. M a e t e r l in c k s e ssay o n ,
’

”
T h e T r a gi c al in Dai ly Life in The Tr e asur e of the H u m hle
, ,

is an i m p o r ta n t pi e c e o f c r iti c i sm S i n c e th e w r iti n g o f t his b o o k

.

th e r e h as app ear e d a sh o r t b u t su gge sti v e e ssay o n Tr gedy b y a

D r J S S m a r t an d a fu lle r a n al ysis o f c o m e dy The Psycho logy of

. .
, ,

Laughter and C o m edy b y J Y T G r e i g ,

. . . .

2 0 5
 I N T RO D U CT I O N T O D RA M A T IC T H E ORY

I I B R I EF B I B L I OG R A PH Y O F
. S EL EC T
D R A M AT I C W OR K S

G R E E K D R AMA
(A )

( ) G E N E RA L
i

T h e r e is an i n t e r e sti n g e ssayo n G r e e k d r a m a in De n t s T e m pl e
’

”
Pr i m e r s . The Athe n ia n D r a m a b y P r o fe sso r s G C W Wa r r . . .
,

J. S. P h illim o re ,
an d G G M ur ra
. .
y p r e se n ts a m o r e d e tail e d

a c c o u n t O n th e G r e e k sta ge Man z iu s Histo ry of Thea tr ical

.
’

Ar t and Flic kin ge r s The G r eek Theater m i gh t b e c o nsult e d

’
.

( ii ) P AR TI C UL AR WR I T E R S
IES C HYLU S has l e ft se v e n plays : Per sa , S e ven against The hes,
Pr o m etheus B o und S upp lia nts, Ag am em no n , C hoep ho r a , Eum en ide s
, .

T h e se last t h r e e fo r m a t r il o gy d eali n g w it h th e t h e m e o f O r e ste s,

an d ar e O ft e n c lasse d to ge th e r as th e Or este ia A t r an slati o n o f all,
.

b y A S wa n w i c k, is p u b l ish e d in th e Bo h n L i b r a r y Mo r sh e ad s
’
. .

Ho use of Atr eus is al so a fi n e tra n slati o n o f th e Or esteia .

S O P H O C L ES Agai n , se ve n o f t h i s d r a m ati st s plays ar e e xta n t

’
.

Tr a chin ia , Aj ax , Ele ctr a, Gi dip us Tyr annus, G Ldip us C o loneus,

' '

An tig o ne, P hilo cte tes .T h e r e ar e b e si de s a fe w sc atte r e d fr a gm e n t s

o f h is 1 3 0 O dd d r a m a s T h e tran slati o ns by S ir R C J e b b an d
. . .

b y R Wh it e law a r e b o t h e x c e ll e n t
. .

EU RI P I D ES O f Eu r ipi de s 9 2 d r am as, e i gh te e n o r n i n e te e n have

’
.

b e e n p r ese r ve d Alcestis Medea, H ippo lytus, Hecuha, An dr o m ache,

,

I o n, S upplia nts, Her a cleida , Her a cles Mad, Ip higen ia in Taur is,
Tr o ades, Helen, Pha n issa , E lectr a , Or este s, Ip h igen ia a t Au lis,
B a ccha , C yclops ( Rhesus is p r o b a b ly sp u r i o u s) T h e b e st t r a n s
.

latio n s ar e u n do u b te dly t h o se o f Pro fe sso r G il b e rt Mu r r ay An .

i n te re sti n g r e n de r i n g o f th e C yclops is to b e fo u n d in S h e lle ys w o r ks

’
.

T h e Alcestis app e a r s in pa r t in Br o w n i n g s B ala ustio n s Adventu r e

’ ’
.

AR I ST O P HA N E S w r o te , it is sai d, a b o u t fi fty-fi ve c o m e d i e s Of .

th e se o n ly e le v e n have b e e n ha n d e d d o w n to u s : Achar n ians,

K n ights, C lo uds, Wasps, P e a ce, B ir ds Lysistr ata , Thesm o ,

h o r ia z u sa , Fr ogs, E cclesia z usa , Plu tus T h e re is a t r a n slati o n

p .

in six vo l u m e s, by B B Ro ge r s . . .

2 06
 I N T R O DU C T I O N T O D RA M A T I C T HE O RY

( iii ) PR E-S HA K E SP EARI A N

W A N e il so n s The C hief E liz he than D r am atists gi v e s so m e
. .
’
a

t h i r ty Elizab e than plays o f var yi n g date s T h i s c o lle c tio n w ill b e .

fo u n d e x c e e di n gl y u se fu l ”
T w o v o l u m e s in th e
. Ev e r ym a n
se ri e s— Pr e- S ha kespear ean Tr age dies an d Pr e-S ha kespear ean C o m e
dies— p r o v i de a sm all se r i e s o f i n te r e sti n g plays T h e r e ar e m a ny .

large r c o lle c ti o ns o f e ar ly an d Elizab e than plays Do dsle ys

’
,

Far m e r s Fac sim ile s Mal o n e S o c i e ty p u b li c ati o n s) T h e b e st

’
.
,

e ditio n o f Lyly is t h at e d ite d b y R W Bo n d A H Bu lle n has . . . . .

e d it e d Pe e le s w o r ks ( S t r atfo r d-o n- G r e e n e s plays app e ar

’ ’
Av o n) .

in th e Me r m ai d se r i e s an d hav e also b e e n e dit e d b yJ C h urto n

, .

C o lli ns .T h e b e st e d iti o n o f N ashe is that o f R B Mc K e r r o w . . .

Ma r l o w e s plays app e ar in th e Me r m ai d se r i e s and have al so

’
,

b e e n e dite d r e c e n tly b y C F T Br o o ke O n th e e a r ly c o m e dy
. . . .

pre c e di n g t he se U n i v e r sity Wits se e a pam p hle t b y A W Re e d . .

o n The B eg inn ings o

f th e S e cu la r Ro m a n tic D r am a
( Ox fo r d U ni
v e r si ty P r e ss fo r th e S ha ke sp e a r e Asso c iati o n
, ) S u gg e st e d sh o r t .

li st fo r read i n g : ( i) ea r ly i n te r l u de s : The F o ur P s ; ( ii) e ar ly ’

’
c o m e dy : G a m m er C a r to n s N eedle , Ra lp h Ro ister D o istcr ; ( iii)
r o m a n ti c c o m e dy :
’ ’
Lylys En dim io n, G r e e n e s Fr iar B a co n and
Fr iar B u ngay; i
( )v M a r lo e s Ta m hur la ine an d D r
’
w F a ustus ;

( )
v S e n e c a n dr am a : S a c kv ill e a n d N o r t o n s G o r ho duc ,
’
K y d
’
s

S pa nish Tr agedy A stu dy o f so m e o f S ha ke sp e a r e s o r i gi nal s is

’
.

w
also i n te r e sti n g as sh o i n g h is m e t h o ds ; th e an o nym o u s K ing
Le ir S ha ke sp e a r e C lassi c s an d The Ta m ing of a S hr e w S ha ke
sp e are C lassi c s m igh t b e su
gg e st e d in t h i s c o n n e i o n x .

( iv) S HA K E SP EAR I A N
T he cr iti cal wo r k
S ha ke sp e a r e is so vast t hat o n l y a fe w
on

su gge sti o n s m ay h e r e b e m a de I n c o n n e i o n with t h i s b o o k

. x
P r o fe sso r Br adl e ys S ha kespe a r ea n Tr agedy o u gh t to b e stu di e d
’
.

S ir S id n e y Le e s is the sta n da r d i o gr ap hy S ir Walte r Ral e i gh s

’
b ’
.

v o lu m e in th e E n gli sh Me n o f Le tte r s se r i e s, an d Pro fe sso r

Do de n s S ha kespear e, h is Mind a nd Ar t, ar e al so e xc e e di n gly

w ’

su gge stiv e .

( )
v C ON T E MP O RAR I E S OF S HA K E SP EAR E
T he lle c ti o n o f N e ilso n re fe r re d to a b o v e w ill b e fo u n d u se fu l
co .

T he Me r m ai d se r i e s an d the Be l le s Le tt r e s se r i e s p r e se n t
i n te r esti ng se l e c ti o ns o f plays S c he lli n g s Eliz ahethan D r am a
.
’

2 0 8
 A PPEN D I X
is th e sta n dar d h i sto r y o f th e de v e l o p m e n t o f t r a ge d y an d c o m e dy
in th i s age Fo r o n e c o m pa r ati v e ly u na c q u ai n te d with th e dr a m a
.

o f th e p e r i o d th e fo llo w i n g m igh t b e ta ke n as a su gge st e d c o u r se o f

r e ad i n g
()
i D o m es ic tt
r age dy : A r den o
f F e ver sha m ; H ey w ood s
’

The English Tr aveller an d A Wom an K illed w ith K indness Be lle s

Le tt r e s ( ii ) Do m’ es ic c o m e dy : ’o n so n s E ver y Man in his
t J ’

Hum o ur ; C hap m an s The S hoem a ker s Ho liday .

( iii) S a ir ic t
c o m ed y J
o n so n s T he Alchem ist
’
Be lle s Le ttr e s an d Vo l p o ne .

i
( )v E a r ly c o m e d y o f w i t : F l e t c h e r
’
s T h e W ild -G o o se C h a se .

r a ge dy o f M a r st o n s An ton io and Me llida an d

’

( )
v T h o rro r :

Anton io s Re ve nge ; Fo r d s Tis Pity an d The B r o ken He ar t

’ ’ ’

Be ll e s Le tt r e s We ste r s The White D ev il an d The

’
b
D u chess of Mal /i B e lle s L e tt r e s
( v i) N e o -c la ss ic tr a g e d y

J ’
o nso n s S ej a nus Be ll e s Le ttr e s ( ’)
v ii R o m a n i c t
tr a ge d y

an d tr a g i- c o m e dy : Be a u m o n t an d Fle tc h e r s The Ma id s Tr agedy,

’

Phi/a ster , an d A K ing and N o K ing Be lle s Le ttre s

v iii u r les q u e s e r io u s d r a m a : Be au m o n t an d Fl e t c h e r s The
’

( ) B
K n ight of the B ur n ing P est/e Be lle s Le tt r es
It m u st b e n o te d t hat th i s li st pre se n ts m e r e ly a fe w plays
p o sse ssi n g fe atu re s di sc u sse d in th e te o f th i s o o k xt b .

V
( )i RE STO RA TI ON
S ir A W Wa r d fo r t his p e r i o d is n o t so t r u stw o r thy as h e is
. .

fo r th e e a r li e r ti m e N e ttle to n h as a sli gh t h i st o r y o f dr a m a fro m

.

1 6 42 to 1 7 8 0 w
h i c h m i gh t b e c o nsu lte d D Av e nan t s Lo ve and
’ ’
.

Ho nor an d The S iege of Rho des Be lle s Le tt r e s sh o u l d b e r e ad .

A se l e c ti o n o f D r yde n s plays app e a r s in th e

’
Me r m ai d se r i e s,
an d All f o r Lo ve an d The S p a n ish Fr a r h av e
y e e n e d it e d by b
P r o fe sso r S trun k in th e Be ll e s Le ttr e s c o ll e c ti o n Eth e r e ge .

b
h as e e n e dite d b y V e r ity Wyc h e r l e y, C o n gr e v e , an d Van r u gh b
ar e in th e Me r m ai d se r i e s Far q u h ar s The Beau x S tr a tagem
’ ’

an d The Re cr u iting Ofi ce r in th e Be lle s Le tt r e s e diti o n T he .

se l e c ti o n o f S hadw e ll s pla s in th e
’

y Me r m ai d se r i e s sh o u l d b e
b
r e ad , an d, if p o ssi l e , so m e o f th e c r u de r h e r o i c dra m as t h o se
o f S e ttle w
) T h e r’e ar e h o e v e r , fe w r e p r i n ts o f m i no r ’ Re st$ o r ati o n
.
,

d r am as O tw ays The rphan and Venice Pr eser v d ( Be lle s

. O
1
Mid d le t o n Th e Witc h is lso in te r es in g as a t a a p le o f
’
s cr u de ex m

t t
h is yp e , a n d th e wt
i c h e s ar e in e r e s in g t t
h e n c o m p ar e d w wt i h th e
w e ir d siste r s o f M ac be th .

2 09
 I N T R O D U CT I O N T O DRA M A T I C T H E O RY
Le ttr e s ar e e x c e e d i n glyi m p o r ta n t an d Ro w e s The F a ir P e n ite n t
’
,

an d j a ne S h o r e Be lle s Le ttr e s p r e se n t i n te r e sti n g c harac te r

istic s . Adapta tio n s O f S ha ke sp e ar e al so ar e w o r t h stu dyi n g S o m e .

o f th e se app e ar in th e app e n d i c e s to Fu r n e ss Va r io r um e d iti o n o f

’

S ha ke sp e a r e o t h e r s ar e gi v e n in Mo n ta gu e S u m m e r s S ha kespea r e
’

Adap t tio n s
a O de ll s S ha kespe r e f r o m B etter ton to I r v ing an d
.
’
a

th e p r e se n t w r ite r s D r yden as an Adap ter of S ha kespear e ( O xfo r d

’

U n iv e r sity P r e ss fo r th e S hake sp eare Asso c iati o n ) m i gh t li ke w i se

,

b e gla nc e d at .

( V ii ) EI G H T EE N T H C E N T U RY
S o m e o f th e w r ite r s m e n ti o n e d ab o ve Va n bru gh Fa r q u har , ,

an d Ro we ) r e ally b e l o n g in date to th i s se c ti o n Ei gh te e n th .

c e n tu r
y d r a m a as a w h o l e is p o o r Lillo s The Lo ndon Mer chan t
’
.

an d F a ta l C u r io sit
y Be ll e s L e ttr e s sh o u l d b e r e a d an d al o n
g ,

w ith th e m W H H u dso n s ad m i r a b l e e ssay in Q u iet Hour s in a

. .
’

Lihr ary Addiso n s C ato is the typi c al n e o -c la ssi c t r a ge dy S t e e l e s

’ ’
.
,

The C o nscio us Lo ver s o n e o f th e typi cal se n ti m e n tal d r a m as G ays

’
,

The B eggar s Oper a the typi c al b alla d o p e r a M o o r e s The G am ester

’ ’
.

is a re ad a b l e d o m e sti c t r a ge dy G o l dsm ith s S he S to ops to C o nouer

’
.

Be lles Le tt r e s an d S h e r ida n s The S cho o l f or S c a nda l r e p t e

’

se n t th e r e v i val Of th e c o m e dy o f m a n n e rs Fo r t h i s p e r i o d The .

B r itish Thea tr e a se r ie s o f p lays c o lle c t e d b y Mr s I nc h b ald an d

,

p u b l ish e d in I 8 0 8 w ill b e fo u n d i nvalua b l e It is still fai r lyeasily

,
.

p r o c ure d se c o nd-han d .

( v iii ) RO MA N TI C
N ea r l y all the p o e t s o f th e e a r l y n i n e te e n t h c e n tury atte m pte d
dr a m a Be ll e s L e tt r e s is th e fin e st ; b u t
’
. S h elle y s The C e nci
C o l e r i dge s Re m o r se an d Byr o n s C a in The Tw o F o scar i an d
’ ’
, ,

Wer ner as w e ll as so m e o f Br o w n i n g s plays sho uld b e read

,
’
,
.

T h e o r d i na r y ac ti n g dram a is n o t o f high stan da r d .

i
( ) x M O D E R N

N o m o re tha n a ba r e se l e c ti o n can h e r e b e gi v e n Ro b e rtso n s

’
.

S o cie ty an d C a ste Be lle s Le tt r e s a r e lat e n i n e t e e n t h -c e n tu r

y
a c t in g plays Wil d e s Lady Winder m er e s F a n an d The I m po r t nce
.
’ ’
a

e i g E r nest sh o w a n e w r e v i val o f th e c o m e dy o f w it T h
f
o h n a e .

pl ays o f Pi n e r o an d o f H A J o n e s r eac h a h i gh e r stan da r d t ha n

. .

w as atta i n e d b y th e a c tin g d r a m a in th e e a r l ie r p e r i o d Mase fi e ld s .

’

The Tr agedy of N o n is an i n te r e sti n g d o m e stic tra ge dy Barri e .

,

2 10
 I N T R O D U CT I O N T O D RA M A T I C T HE O RY

(F ) G E R MAN AN D S CAN D I N AV I AN D R AMA

Fo r th e se n ti m e n tal an d d o m e sti c d r a m a o f G e r m a ny K o tz e b u e
( fr e q u e n tly tr a n slate d in th e e ar ly n i n e te e n th c e n tu r y) sh o u l d b e
r e ad. S c h i lle r Le ssi n g an d G o e th e ar e o f gr e at i m p o rta nc e an d
, , , ,

lat e r H au ptm a n n T h e sta n da r d t r a n slati o n o f I b se n s w o r ks is

’
.
,

t hat o f Wil liam Ar c h e r .

O n I b se n an d Bj o r nso n se e the ill u m i nati n g e ssays b y

e d it e d b
yWillia m Ar c h e r .
 I N D EX
Ab r a h a m Linc o ln, 1 0 7 Be au m on t an d Fle t c he r , 2 1, 46 ,
A c c ius, 1 5 5 7 , 90 , 9 9 , 1 0 9, 1 3 9, 1 40 , 18 1,

A dd iso n , 1 7 , 4 7 , 1 3 2 , 1 4 7
lEsc h ylu s, 2 4 , 3 1, 6 —
5 5 7, 10 5; Be h n , Mr s, 1 9 4
t
s e r n n e ss O f t em
pe r , 7 2 ; no b i Be llam ir a , 1 8 8
la y, 7 6 —7 7 Be r g so n , 44, 1 3 3 , —1
1 37 , 1 45 46 ,
Ag am e m no n , 5 6 1 —1
5
1 5 4, 1 5 8 , 1 6 2 ff .

b
Al e r tin o , 1 1 8 BjOr n so n , 6 7
Alchem ist, The , 1 74, 1 85 B lak e , William , 1 3 5
A lfi e r i, 2 1 , 2 4, 1 0 5 ; t
s e r n n e ss o f B r adle y, P r o fe sso r , 6 1 , 7 1
tem
p er , 73 ; no b ility , 77
—8 1 B r o ke n He a r t, The , 1 2 9
Allf o r Lo v e , 1 0 4 B u ry Fa ir , 1 8 9
All s We ll th a t E nds We ll, 2 0 0
’
B yr o n , 1 8 , 1 0 2
Am p hitryo n, 3 9 , 1 3 2
And r o m a q ue , 43 , 1 0 1 C a in , 1 0 2

Antig o ne, 2 4, 6 6 , 1 0 3 C alde r o n , 90

Anto ny a nd Cle op a tr a , 1 0 1 , 1 2 8 C a m hises, 1 1 9
Apius a n d Vir gin ia , 1 1 9 C a r dina l, Th e , 8 9

Ap o logie f o r Po e tr ie , An, 1 6 , 1 5 0 C a r e le ss H u sb an d The , , 1 92

A p p r e c iatio n o f d r am a, 3 2 — 3 4 C t
as e lv e tr o , 1 1 5

Ar de n of Fe v e r sh a m , 2 1 , 4 9 , 5 1 , C a tiline , 2 4

5 5 , 6 6 s 90 C e n c i, Th e ,
98, 1 00
t
A r is o p h an e s, 1 2 C e n tliv r e , Mr s, 1 9 4
t t
Ar is o le , 1 1 -1 3 , 1 7 , 2 5 ; h is C er v te an s, 1 59
t
in sis e n c e o n th e fa le , 3 2 —3 3 ; b Ch geli g
an n , Th e , 1 44
o n th e aim o f
y t
r age d , 40 , 7 2 ; Ch ly s A
ar e
’
u n t, 30
an d u n ive r sali y, 5 1 — 5 2 t
o n th e C h tte to n
a r , 1 8
h e r o , 5 3 — 5 4 ; o n th e yp e s o f t C h u ce o
a r , n tr age d
y, 5 4, 1 1 6, 1 35
tr ag ic h e r o , 9 8 if o n lau g h e r ,. t C h o ep h o r ee , 2 4, 5 6 , 7 7
S3
I C h o r u s, th e , 2 3 , 9 0 -9 1 , 1 10

As Yo u Like I t, 1 4 1 , 1 7 8, 1 8 0, 2 00 C bb C
i e r , o lle y, 4 5 , 1 9 2 , 1 95
—1
96,
Athe ist, The , 9 8 I
99
A u d ie n ce , th e , 2 0 C la r issa H
a r lo w e , 1 0 2

Au r eng -Ze be , 2 3 C lassic d r am a, O p p o se d to ro

A t/ eagles, Le s, 3 2
f
m an tic , 2 1

Co l id ge 8 7 4 8 8 1 0 3
er , 1 , , ,

A L JO H N
B E, , 1 1 9 C o llin s Willi m 1 8
, a ,

Ban ks,Jh o n, 1 0
9 C m dy f Er r o r s The 3 3
o e o , , 1 , 1 65
2 1 3
 I NT R O DU C T I O N T O DR A MA T IC T H E O RY
C o e dy typ es o f f c
m , : ar e, 1 76 Ecce r in is, 1 1 8
1 7 7 c o m e dy O f r o m an ce , 1 77 Eco le d e s Fe m m es, L , 1 3 5
’

1 82 ; co m ed
y o f h u m o u r s,
’
Ec o le d e s Ma r is, L , 1 3 5
’

1 8 2 -1 8 6 ; c o m e d y o f m an n e r s, E d war de s, R ic h ar d , 1 1 9
1 8 6 -1 9 1 ge n t ee l c o m e d
y, 1 91 Ed w a r d I I , 4 1 , 1 2 2 -1 2 6
9 3 ; c o m e d y O f in tr ig u e , 1 9 3
1 z bt
E li a e h an d r am a, 2 1 , 1 1 5 -1 1 6 .

t
1 9 5 ; se n im e n al c o m e d y, 1 9 5 t S e e also S h akespe ar e , e tc .

I 99 Enem y of th e Pe op le , An , 6 7
C o m ic a l Re v e nge , Th e , 2 7 English Tr a v elle r , The , 6 7 , 1 4 1 1 44
C t
o n fl ic , in tr age d y, 40 —44 ; in E n n iu s, 1 5
c o m e d y, 44—4 7 Ep istle to the P iso s, Th e, 1 4
C o n g r e ve , 3 8 , 4 5 , 1 3 5— 1 3 6 , 1 5 8, Essay of D r a m a tick P o esie , 1 7 , 2 5
—1 8 6 —1 9 0 , Essay o n La ughte r , An, 2 2
1 73 7 4, 1 76, 1 8 4, 1

1 92 , 1 97 t
E h e r e ge , G eo r ge , 2 7 , 1 3 6 , 1 47 ,
C on
q f G r an a d a , Th e ,
ue st o 2 2 , 14
5 1 58, 1 8 5, 1 8 6 —1 9 0 , 1
92 , 1 97
C o n sc io us Lo v e r s, Th e , 2 1 Eto u r di , L
96, 1 5 5
’
,

C C
o n sta n t
p e , Th e , 1 6 9
ou l E um e nid e s, 5 6 —5 7
C i l us 1
o r o an 12 8 , 0 1, E u r ip ide s, 1 2 , 5 7 , 8 1 , 1 00

C tess C thleen 5 7
o un a , Ev e ry Ma n in h is H um o u r , 2 4,
C im e in t ag dy 7 7 —8 4
r , r e , , 1 00 1 8 2 —1 8 6
C pid s Re v ge 5 7
u
’
en ,
Ev e ry Ma n o ut of h is H um o u r , 1 85
C st m f the C t y The
u o o o un r , , 1 39 1 86
Cym beli e 9 5 1 8 - 8 n , , 1 1 2

F AB LE , th e , 3 0 if .

Da m o n an d Pithia s, 1 1 9 F ar c e , 2 9 , 3 4—3 5 , 1 7 6 -1 7 7
D an e , 1 1 6 t F ar q u h ar , G eo r g e , 3 9 , 1 3 2 , 1 6 9 ,
D A ve n an t, 1 3 7 1 8 6 —1 9 0
’

Def e n ce of P o etry, 2 7 C
Fa ta l u r io sity, Th e , 1 0 0
D e kke r , 5 7 F a e , in r age d y, 6 0—6 2
t t
D e sc ar e s, 2 4 t Fa ust, 6 7
D ick e n s, 8 6 t
F le c h e r se e Be au m o n an d t
D ide r o , 9 0 t Fle c h er t
Disco v e r ie s, 1 6 J
Fo r d, o h n , 7 4, 1 0 1 , 1 0 9, 1 2 9, 2 0 0
Do cto r Fa u stu s, 4 1 , 1 2 2 —1 2 6 Fugitiv e , The , 1 9 6
’
H
Do ll s o use A 5 0 , 8 5 , ,

t t
D o m e s ic r age d y, 1 3 0 G A LSW R T Y J
O H , O H N, 6 7
D bl D le Th e 1 6 1 8 6 -1 87 Gam este r , The , 2 1
o u e e a r , , 9,
’
Dr a m e , th e , 1 3 0 , 1 44— 1 46 , 1 9 7 G a m m e r G u r to n s N e e dle , 1 8 2
D r in kw a e r , o h n , 1 0 7 t J G e r m an d r am a, 2 1 S ee S c h ille r , .

D r um m e r , The , 1 3 2 e tc .

D r yde n , I 3 , 1 7 , 2 5 a 2 7 2 2 9 , 3 9 s Gh o sts, 7 0 , 8 4, 1 44
43 , 76, 1 0 4: 1 32 , I 3 72 G ism o n d of S a le r n e , 1 1 8
1 48 , 1 66 t
G o e he , 6 7
Duc hess of Ma l /f, Th e , 3 6 , 12 9 G o ld o n i, 2 1
Dyn asts, The , 6 8 , 9 3 Go r b o d u c , 8 9 , 1 1 8
2 14
 I N T R O DU C T I O N T O D RA M A T IC T H E O RY
M lic i us d ligh t i tr g dy
a o e , n a e , O r este , 7 7—8 1
8 6 -8 7 O r e stes, 2 4, 8 1
M ar in e tti , 1 1 3 O rp ha n , Th e 3 6 , 49 ; u se Of ve r se
,

M ar lo we , 4 1 , 46 ; u se o f ve r se , in , 9 5— 9 6 , 9 7 , 9 8 , 9 9 , 1 0 6 , 1 0 9
88 typ es o f her o , 102 ; h is Oth e llo , 2 9 , 4 2 ; su b -p lo , 6 5 ; t
d r am as, 1 2 2 —1 2 6 t
p a h o s, 7 4, 8 2 ; u se o f ve r se in ,
Ma ry Q uee n of
, S c o ts, 109 9 4, 9 7 , 9 8 , 1 0 6 ; De sde m o n a,
Ma ry S tua r t 1 0 7 , 1 0 8 —1 0 9 ; u n i
y , 1 1 1 d t
u r a io n , t
M ase fi e ld J o h n 6 8 8 6
, , , 1 1 2 , 1 2 7 — 1 2 8 , 1 4 3 —1 44, 2 0 0

M asq u e s 9 1 , t
O w ay, T h o m as, 3 6 ; tr age d y an d
M assin ge r 5 7 1 3 9 , , co m e dy, 9 7 —9 8

Mazz in i 6 7 ,

Me asu r e f o r Me asu r e ,
1 4 6 —1
47, PAc u v w s, 1 5
2 00 Pa o lo a n d Fr a nc e sca , 44

Me d ea o f E u r ip ides 8 1
, , , 98, 1 00 P a ssio ns d e 1
’
m e , Les, 2 4

Me de a o f S e n e c a 8 1
, ,
Me lo dr am a 3 0 3 4—3 5
M e n an d e r 1 3
Me r c h an t of Ve nice Th e
P t t
a h e ic fallac , in
y r age d , 6 3
y t
, , 6 4 ; in c o m e d y, 1 4 3
, t
P a h o s, 7 2 — 7 4
Pe llé a s e t Melisa nde , 3 7, 44 ; sym
'

1 41 , 1 4
5
$

, ,

Me r e dith G e o r ge 46 , , b o lism in , 6 9
Me r ryWiv es of Win d so r , The , 1 45 , Ph ile b u s, 2 3
1 48 , 1 6 0, 1 6 5, 1 7 6 —1
7 7, 1 84 t
P h illip s, S e p h e n , 44
Me tastasio 3 1 , P hilo ctetes, 3 6 , 6 4
Mid su m m e r N ight s D r e a m ’
, A, 2 1, Ph r yn ic h u s, 1 2
—
3 3 3 5, 9 7, 1 3 4, 1 3 7, 1 56, 1 6 6, J
Pik e r yn g , o h n , 1 1 9
1 7 7 —1 8 2 P la in Dea le r , The , 1 5 0 , 1 7 5 , 1 8 6
Milto n 1 1 5 , t
P la o , 2 3
Misa n th r op e Le 9 6 , , P lau us, 1 5t
Misf o r tun es of Ar th u r , Th e , 1 1 8 P o e tic s, Th e , 1 1 its lim i atio n s, t
M o lié r e 2 1 4 5 9 6 1 3 5 —1 3 6
, , , , 12 —1
3, 5 1—
52
Mo o r e E dw ar d 2 1 9 0 1 49
, , , , P e sto n
r T h o m as, 1 1 9
,

M o r ality p lays 4 2 1 1 6 , , P r i cipe

n , 11, 1 2 2

Mo r r is E dw ar d 1 9 6
, , P o m eth
r e u s Un b o un d , 9 1 , 1 0 2 , 1 1
5
Mu ch Ad o a b o u t N o thing 9 7 , , 1 41 , Pr o v o k d
’
H
u sb a n d , Th e , 1 6
5
1 44, 1 6 6, 1 7 8 —1 8 2 z b z
P r y ys e w sk i, 6 9 , 8 6
M yste r y p lays, 1 5 ; u se o f ve r se P syc h o lo g y an d d r am a ic h eo r y, t t
in , 8 8 , 1 1 6 2 1 , 1 4 3 if .

tt
P u e n h am , R ic h ar d, 1 1 7
N a n , Th e Tr age dy of , 6 9 h er e di y t
in , 7 0 , 8 4—8 6 R AC E IN , 4, 43 , 9 0 ,
2 1, 2 1 04

t
N o r o n , T h o m as, 8 9 R ad c liffe , Mr s, 1 8
Ra lp h Ro iste r D o iste r , 1 8 2
Gid ip us C o lo n e u s, 3 6 , 6 0 , 9 9 Ra m ble r , Th e , 2 6
(E d zp us Tyr a n n u s 2 3 , 9 8 , 1 44 , Rau b e r , Die , 1 0 4
Old Batch elo r , Th e , 3 9 Rec r u iting Ofi ice r , The , 1 8 8
2 16
 I N DEX
Re in h ar d , 6 8t u se o f ve r se , 88 ; tr age d y an d
Re m o r se , 7 4, 1 0 3 co m ed
y 97 r a e d ie s,
g , t 1 2 6 —1 2 8
Ric a r d u s Te r tiu s, 1 1 9 S h e lle y, 2 7 , 9 1 , 1 0 0 , 1 0 2
J
R ic h ar d so n , o se p h , 1 9 6 S h e r id an , 4 5 , 1 3 5
Rid e r s to th e S e a , 6 9 S h ir le y, am e s, 8 9 J
Rir e , Le , 44 S h o r t Vie fw of Tr age dy, A, 1 6
Ro ad to Ruin , The , 8 3 , 1 4 5 S id ne y, S ir P h ilip , 1 6
R o m an ic t dr am a, O pp o se d to S ir H a r ry Wild a ir , 1 3 2
c lassic , 2 1 S ir Mar tin Ma r -a ll, 3 9 , 1 3 7, 1 61
Ro m eo a n d j7ulie t, 6 0 , 8 9 ; h e r o , 1 62 , 1 65
1 0 2 , 1 2 7, 1 3 3 th e c o m ic in , S m ar , D r t J
S , 6 1 , 6 6, 8 6, 1 0 2
. . .

2 00 S n o w , 6 9 h e r e d i y in , 7 0 , 8 6 t
Ro sm e r sho lm , 5 0 , 6 9 S of o n isb a , 1 1 8
R o we , N ic h o las, 1 0 9 S o p h o c le s, 1 2 , 2 4 ; n o ili y, 8 1
’
b t
R ym e r , T h o m as, 1 6 , 2 9, 1 1
5 S o u ldie r s Fo r tun e , Th e , 9 8
S p an ish d r am a, 2 1 , 9 0 S ee a lso .

SAC V LLE
K I , T HO M AS
, 89 Calde r o n

J J
S t o h n , o h n, 1 0 9 Sp a n ish Frya r , The , 1 3 8 , 1 , 1 66

tb
S ain s u r y, Pr o fe sso r , 1 7 Sp a nish Tr age dy, Th e , 3 0 , 5 8
S a m so n Ago niste s, 1 1 5 t G
S age , r ee k an d m o der n , 1 1 3 -1 1 5
S ar do u , 6 7 t
S e e le , R ic h ar d , 1 49
t
S a ir e , 1 4 8 —1 5 0 , 1 74-1 7 5 S tr if e , 6 8 , 9 2 , 1 06

S avo n ar o la, 1 1 6 b
S tr in d e r g , 9 0
S c h ille r , 1 0 4, 1 1 5 t
S u b -p lo , in tr age d y, 6 4— 6 6 ; in
S c h o o lf o r G r eyb e a r ds, The , 1 3 5 c o m e d y, 1 3 6 —1 3 8

S c h o o l f o r S c a n d al, The , 46 , 4 8 , S u lly, J , 2 2 , 1 5 5 , 1 5 8 , 1 6 3

.

I 77 t
S u p e r n a u r al, in tr age dy, 5 6 — 6 4 ;
S ch o o lf o r Wiv e s
,
Th e , 1 35 in c o m e d y, 1 3 1 — 1 3 4
S c h o p e n h au e r , 1 5 3 S upp lic es, 2 4
S c o r nf u l La dy, Th e , 46 S u r r e y, E ar l o f, 8 9
S ec o n d Mr s Ta n q u e r ay, Th e , 7 4, 8 5 S u sp ic io u s H usb an d , The , 1 9 3
S e cr e t, The , 1 9 6 t J
S w if , o n a h an , 1 4 9 , 1 7 4 t
S e c r e t Lo v e , 2 7 , 1 4 5 b
S ym o lism , in r age d y, 6 9— 7 0 ; t
'
C
S e dle y, h ar le s, 1 8 8 in c o m e d y, 1 4 1
S ej a n u s, 2 4 S ym o n d s, A , 90 J . .

S e lim u s, 12 0 S yn ge , M , 69J . .

S e n e c a, 1 5—1 6 , 4 1 , 5 7 , 8 1 , 1 0 0 ;
in fl ue n ce o n E n g lish d r am a, Tam b u r la ine th e G r e a t, 4 1 , 10 8,
1 1 7 —1 1 9 , 1 2 7 1 2 2 —1 2 6
t t
S e n im e n alism , 2 8 —2 9 S ee a lso
. Ta m er Tam d , The , 4 6
’

C o m e dy Ta m in
g f
o th e S hr ew Th e, , 2 7, 46 ,
S h adw e ll, T h o m as, 1 3 2 , 1 3 6 , 1 5 8 , 1 62 , 1 7 3, 1 76, 1 7 7, 1 84
1 8 3 —1 8 5 , 1 8 9
’
Te m p e st, Th e 1 3 4 ; D r yde n s alte r a ,

S h akesp e ar e , 1 6 —1 7 ; c o m e dy, 3 8 , t
io n o f, 1 3 7 , 1 8 1 — 1 8 2
t b t
4 5 ; p a h o s, 7 3 ; n o ili y, 7 6 , 8 2 ; T e r en ce , 1 5 , 3 8 , 4 5 , 1 5 6 , 1 8 4
2 17
 I N T RO D U C T I O N T O D R A MA T IC T H E O RY
T h ac ke r ay, 1 4 9 V e r se , in t r age dy, as a t
r ag ic

T h o m as, Br an do n , 3 0 r e lie f, 8 5 —8 6 , 9 4—9 6

ig in o f, or
’
P
Tis ity, 2 0 0 8 8 —9 0 ; ge ne r al c o n side r a io n s, t
Tr age dies of th e La st Age C o n 8 8 —9 6 in c o m e dy, 1 42
Ve r tue Be tr ay d , 1 0 9
’
sid e r e d , Th e , 1 6

T r ag ic ir o n y, 6 2 -6 3 Vir gin Ma r tyr , Th e , 5 7

T r ag i-c o m e d y, 2 4— 2 6 , 1 9 8 —2 0 1 . C
Vitto r ia ar am b o na , 1 2 9
S ee also Dr a m e Vo lp o ne , 2 1 , 9 6 , 1 4 5 —1 46 , 1 48 —1 4 9 ,
T r ag ic r e lie f, 7 5—7 8 , 9 4—9 6 1 7 3: I 7 41 1 85
T r ag ic sp ir i , 7 1 —7 4 t t
Vo l air e , 2 1 , 1 04

Tr a ito r , Th e , 8 9
Tr ip to th e 7 u b ilee , A, 3 9
T r issin o , 1 1 8
‘
WAR T O N J an d T 1 8 , . .
,

Tr o a d e s, 4 1
Way of the Wo r ld The 2 , ,
1, 3 8 , 46 ,
482 I 43 , I 4S2 1 5 6 , I S 7: 1 6 4-1 6 ,
Tr o ilu s a n d Cr e ssid a , 2 9 5
71, 1 7 3, 1 8 6, 1 4
Tr op e s, 1 5
1
9
T w ain , Mar k , 1 6 5
We b ste r J o h n 3 5 1 0 9 1 2 9
, , , ,

Tw el h N i h
We r n e r 1 8
f
,
t t 6 1 3 7, 1 6,
—1
g , 4 , 5
6 — 8 0 —1 8 2
1 5 7, Westw a r d Ho 1 8 6
1 73 7 4, 1 7 1 7 7,
Wild Du ck The 6 9
1

Typ es f T ic D r am 36
, ,
ra
Wild Ga lla nt The 5 0
a, 2 1 ,
o
g
, ,

UNI T IE S f ac tio n , 1 0 -1 f
Wild -Go o se Chase The 46 , ,

Winte r s Ta le Th e 1 1 3 1 3 8
, o 1 1 1 o ’
1 43
imt e, 1 1 1 —1
f p lace , 1 1 3
12 o
, , , ,

1 44, 1 8 1 —1 8 2 1 83, 2 01
t
U n iv e r sali y, 4 8 -5 2 ; in r age d y, t Wit 4 7 1 5 7—1 6 2 1 7 0—1 7 2
,

53 if as a
. r ag ic r e lie f,t8 4
-8
5
, ,

Wit a t S ev e r a l Weap o n s 1 3 9
,

in v e r se , 9 3-9 4 in co m e d y, ,

1 3 1 —1 4 2
Wo m a n H te r a , Th e , 1 40 , 1 46
Wo m a n Kille d w ith Kin d n e ss, A,

V AN BR U G H J O HN , , 1 7 6, 1 8 6 —i go
49, 5 5
Wyc h er le y William
V au gh an , P ro fe sso r C . E .
, 2 1 , 36,
1 8 8 —1 9 0
, , 1 50 : 1 75,

41, 66
Ve n ice Pr ese r v d ,
’
2 0, 1 0 6,
5 0 , 9 7,
10
9 Y EA T S W , . B .
, 57