Drama - Encyclopedia

GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES Spanish Simplified Chinese French German Russian Hindi Arabic Portuguese

DRAMA (literally action, from Gr. ~pav, act or do), the term applied to those productions of Art which imitate or, to use a more modern term, represent action by introducing the personages taking part in them as real, and as employed in the action itself. There are numerous varieties of the drama,, differing more or less widely from one another, both as to the objects imitated and as to the means used in the process. But they all agree in the method or manner which is essential to the drama and to dramatic art, namely, imitation in the way of action. The function of all Art being to give pleasure by representation (see FINE ARTS), it is clear that what is distinctive of any one branch or form must be the manner in which this function is performed by it. In the epos, for instance, the method or manner is narrative, and even when Odysseus tells of his action, he is not acting.


The first step towards the drama is the assumption of character, whether real or fictitious. It is caused by the desire, inseparable from human nature, to give expression to feelings and 1t~a~a. ideas. These man. expresses not only by sound and gesture, like other animals, and by speech significant by its delivery as well as by its purport, but also by imitation superadded to these. To imitate, says Aristotle, is instinctive in man from his infancy, and no pleasure is more universal than that which is given by imitation. Inasmuch as the aid of some sort of dress or decoration is usually at hand, while the accompaniment of dance or song, or other music, naturally suggests itself, especially on joyous or solemn occasions, we find that this preliminary step is taken among all peoples, however primitive or remote. But it does not follOw, as is often assumed, that they possess a drama in germ. Boys playing at soldiers, or men walking in a pageanta shoemakers holiday in ribbons and flowers, or a Shetland sword-dancenone of these is in itself a drama. This is not reached till the imitation or representation extends to action.

An action which is to present itself as such to human minds must enable them to recognize in it a procedure from cause to effect. This of course means, neither that the cause Dramatic action, suggested must be the final cause, nor that the result shown forth need pretend to be the ultimate result.

We look upon an action as ended when the purpose with which it began is shown to have been gained or frustrated; and we trace the beginning of an action back to the human will that set it on footthough this will may be in. bondage to a higher or stronger will, or to fate,, in any or all of its purposes. Without an action in the sense statedwithout a plot, ,in a wordthere can be no drama. But the very simplest action will satisfy the dramatic test; a mystery representing the story of Cain and Abel without a deviation from the simple biblical narrative, a farce exhibiting the stalest trick played by designing sobriety upon oblivious drunkenness, may each of them be a complete drama. But even to this point, the imitation of action by action in however crude a form, not all peoples have advanced.

But after this second step has been taken, it only remains for the drama to assume a form regulated by certain literary laws, in order that it may become a branch of dramatic literature. Such a literature, needless to say, only a limited number of nations has come to possess; and, while some are to be found that have, or have had, a drama without a dramatic literature, it is quite conceivable that a nation should continue in possession of the former after having ceased to ct~ltivate the latter. It is self-evident that no drama which forms part of a dramatic literature can ignore the use of speech; and however closely music, dancing and decoration may associate themselves with particular forms or phases of the drama, their aid cannot be more than adventitious. As a matter of fact, the beginnings of dramatic composition are, in the history of such literatures as are well known to us, preceded by the earlier stages in the growth of the lyric and epic forms of poetry, or by one of these at all events; ,and it is in the continuation of both that the drama in its literary form takes its origin in those instances which lie open to our study.

While the aid of all other artseven, strictly speaking, the aid of the literary artis merely an accident, the co-operation of the art of acting is indispensable to that of the drama. The draThe dramatic writer may have reasons for preferring to matte and leave the imagination of his~ reader to supply the tho hisabsence of this co-operation; but, though the term literary drama is freely used of works kept away from the stage, it is in truth either a misnomer or a self-condemnation. It is true that the actor only temporarily interprets, and sometimes misinterprets, the dramatist, while occasionally he reveals dramatic possibilities in a character or situation which remained hidden from their literary inventor. But this only shows that the courses of the dramatic and the histrionic arts do not run parallel; it does not contradict the fact that their conjunction is, on the one side as well as on the other, indispensable. No drama is more than potentially such till it is acted.

To essay, whether in a brief summary or in more or less elaborate detail, a statement of the main lawsof the drama, has often been regarded as a superfluous, not to say, futile effort. But the laws of which it is proposed to give ~ some indication here are not so much those which any the drama, particular literature or period has chosen to set up and follow, as those abstracted by criticism, in pursuit of its own free comparative method, from the process that repeats itself in every drama adequately meeting the demands upon it. Aristotle, whom we still justly revere as the originator of the theory of the drama, and thus its great eop.oO~i-i~s, was, no doubt, in. his practical knowledge of it, confined to its Greek examples, yet his object was not to produce another generation of great Attic tragedians, but rather to show how it was by following the necessary laws of their art that the great masters, true to themselves and to their artistic ends, had achieved what they had achieved. Still more distinctly was such the aim of the greatest modern critical writer on the drama, Lessing, whose chief design was to combat false dramatic theories and to overthrow laws demonstrated by him to be artificial inventions, unreal figments. He proved, what before him had only been suspected, that Shakespeare, though in hopeless conifict with certain rules dating from the sicle de Louis XIV, was not in conflict with those laws of the drama which are of its very essence, and that, accordingly, if Shakespeare and the rules in question could not be harmonized, it was only so much the worse for the rules. To illustrate from great works, and expound with their aid, the organic processes of the art to which they belong, is not only among the highest, it is also one of the most useful functions of literary and artistic criticism. Nor is there, in one sense at least, any finality about it. Neither the great authorities on dramatic theory nor the resolute and acute apologists of more or less transitory phases of the drama Corneille, Dryden and many later successorshave exhausted the statement of the means which the drama has proved, or may prove, capable of employing. The multitude of technical terms and formulae which has gathered round the practice of the most living and the most Protean of arts has at no time seriously interferedwith the operation of creative power. Ontheotherhand, no dramaturgic theory has (though the attempt has been often enough made) ever succeeded in giving rise ,to a single dramatic work of enduring value, unless the creative force was there to animate the form.

It is therefore the operation of this creative force which we are chiefly interested in noting; and its task begins with the beginning, of the dramatists labors. He must of Ch ~

course start with the choice of a subject; yet it is sleet. obvious that the subject is merely the dead material out of which is formed that living sopiething, the action of a play; and it is only in rare instancesfar rarer than might at first sight appearthat the subject is as it were self-moulded as a dramatic action. The less experienced a playwright, the more readily will he, as the phrase is, rush at his subject, more especially if it seems to him to possess prima facie dramatic capabilities; and the consequence will be that which usually attends upon a precipitate start. On the other hand, while the quickness of a great dramatists apprehension is apt to suggest to him an infinite number of subjects,.and insight and experience may lead him half instinctively in the direction of suitable themes, it will often be long before in his mind the subject converts itself into the initial conception of the action of a play. To mould a subjectbe it a Greek legend, or a portion of a Tudor chronicle, or one out of a hundred Italian tales, or a true story of modern lifeinto the action or fable of a play, is the primary task of the dramatist, and with this all-important process the creative part of his work really begins. Although his conception may expand or modify itself as he executes it, yet upon the conception the execution must largely depend. The range of subjects open to a dramatist may be as wide as the world itself, or it may be restricted by an endless variety of causes, conventions and considerations; and it is quite true that even the greatest dramatists have not always found time for contemplating each subject that occurs to them till the ray is caught which proclaims it a dramatic diamond. What they had time for, and what only the playwright who entirely misunderstands his art ignores the necessity of finding time for, is the transformation of the dead material of the subject into the living action of a drama.

What is it, then, that makes an action dramatic, and without which no action, whatever may be its natureserious or ludicrous, ,, stately or trivial, impetuous as a flame of fire, or light ~YO as a western breezecan be so described? The answer to this question can only suggest itself from an attempt to ascertain the laws which determine the nature of all actions corresponding to this description. The first of the laws in question is in so far the most noteworthy among them that it has been the most amply discussed and the most pertinaciously misunderstood. This is the law which requires that a dramatic action should be onethat it should possess unity. What in the subject of a drama is merely an approximate or supposititious, must in its action be an actual unity; and it is indeed this requirement which constitutes the most arduous part of the task of transforming subject into action. There is of course no actual unity in any group of events in human life which we may choose to call by a single collective namea war, a revolution, a conspiracy, an intrigue, an imbroglio. The events of real life, the facts of history, even the imitative incidents of narrative fiction, are like the waves of a ceaseless flood; that which binds a group or body of them into a single action is the bond of the dramatic idea; and this it is incumbent upon the dramatist to supply. Within the limits of a dramatic action all its parts should (as in real life or in history they so persistently refuse to do) flow into its current like tributaries to a single stream; or, to vary the figure, everything in a drama should form a link in a single chain of cause and effect. This law is incumbent upon every kind of dramaalike upon the tragedy which sets itself to solve one of the problems of a life, and upon the farce which sums up the follies of an afternoon.

Such is not, however, the case with certain more or less arbitrary rules which have at different times been set up for this or that kind of drama. The supposed necessity that an action should consist of one event is an erroneous interpretation of the law that it should be, as an action, one. For an event is but an element in an action, though it may be an element of decisive moment. The assassination of Caesar is not the action of a Caesar tragedy; the loss of his treasure is not the action of Tue Miser. Again, unity of action, while excluding those unconnected episodes which Aristotle so severely condemns, does not prohibit the introduction of one or even more subsidiary actions as contributing to the progress of the main action. The sole indispensable law is that these should always be treated as what they aresubsidiary only; and herein lies the difficulty, which Shakespeare so successfully overcame, of fusing a combination of subjects taken from various sources into the idea of a single action; herein also lies the danger in the use of that favorite device of the Spanish and other modern dramas by-plots or under-plots. On the other hand, the modern French drama has largely employed another devicequite legitimate in itselffor increasing the interest of an action without destroying its unity. This may be called the dramatic use of backgrounds, the depiction of surroundings on which the action or its chief characters seem sympathetically to reflect themselves, backbiting good villagers or academicians who inspire oneanother with tedium. But a really double or multiple action, logically carried out as such, is inconceivable in a single drama, though many a play is palpably only two plays knotted into one., It was therefore not all pedantry which protested against the multiplicity of action which had itself formed part of the revolt against the too narrow interpretation of unity adopted by the French classical drama. Thirdly, unity of action need not imply unity of herofor hero (or heroine) is merely a conventional term signifying the principal personage of the action. It is only when the change in the degree of interest excited by different characters in a play results from a change in the conception of the action itself, that the consequent duality (or multiplicity) of heroes recalls a faulty uncertainty in the conception of the action they carry on. Such an objection, while it may hold in the case of Schillers Don Carlos, would therefore be erroneously urged against Shakespeares Julius Caesar. Lastly, as to the theory which made the so-called unities of time and place constitute, together with that of action, the Three Unities indispensable to the (tragic) drama, the following note must suffice. Aristotles supposed exaction of all the Three Unities, having been expanded by Chapelain and approved by Richelieu, was stereotyped by Corneille, though he had (as one might say) got on very well without them, and was finally set forth in Horatian verse by Boileau. Thus it came to be overlooked that there is nothing in Aristotles statement to show that in his judgment unity of time and place are, like unity of action, absolute dramatic laws. Their object is by representing an action as visibly continuous to render its unity more distinctly or easily perceptible. But the imagination is capable of constructing for itself the bridges required for preserving to an action, conceived of as such, its character of continuousness. In another sense these rules were convenient usages conducing to a concise and clear treatment of a limited kind of themes; for they were a Greek invention, and the repeated resort tq the same group of myths made it expedient for a Greek poet to seek the subject of a single tragedy in a part only of one of the myths at his disposal. The observance of unity of place, moreover, was suggested to the Greeks by certain outward conditions of their stageas assuredly as it was adopted by the French in accordance with the construction and usages of theirs, and as the neglect of it by the Elizabethans was in their case encouraged by the established form of the English scene. The palpable artificiality of these laws needs no demonst,ration, so long as the true meaning of the term action be kept in view. Of the action of Othello part takes place at Venice and part at Cyprus, and yet the whole is one in itself; while the limits of time over which an action Hamlets progress to resolve, for instanceextends cannot be restricted by a revolution of the earth round the sun or of the moon round the earth.

In a drama which presents its action as one, this action must be complete in itself. This Aristotelian law, like the other, distinguishes the dramatic action from its subject. The former may be said to have a real artistic, while the CompIet~ latter has only an imaginary real, completeness. The historian, for instance, is aware that the complete exposition of a body of events and transactions at which he aims can never be more than partially accomplished, since he may present only what he knows, and all human knowledge is imperfect. But Art is limited by no such uncertainty. The dramatist, in treating an action as one, comprehends the whole of it in the form of his work, since, to him who has conceived it, all its parts, from cause to effect, are equally clear. It is his fault if in the action of his drama anything is left unaccounted for not motive; though a dramatic motif might not always prove to be a sufficient explanation in real life. Accordingly, every drama should represent in organic sequence the several stages of which a complete action consists, and which are essential to it. This law of completeness, therefore, lies at the foundation of all systems of dramatic construction.

Every action, if conceived, of as complete, has its causes, growth, height, consequences and close. There is no binding s stems 01law to prescribe the relative length or proportion at true- which these several stages in the action should be tlon based treated in a drama; or to regulate the treatment of on this law such subsidiary actions as may be introduced in aid of the main plot, or of such more or less directly connected episodes as may at the same time advance and relieve its progress. But experience has necessarily from time to time established certain rules of practice, and from the adoption of particular systems of division for particular species of the dramasuch as that into five acts for a regular tragedy or comedy, which Roman. example has caused to be so largely followedhas naturally resulted a certain uniformity of relation between the conduct of an action and the outward sections of a play. Essentially, however, there is no difference between the laws regulating the construction of a Sophoclean or Shakespearian tragedy, a comedy of Moliere or Congreve, and a well-built modern farce, because all exhibit an action complete in itself.

The introduction or exposition. forms an integral part of the action, and is therefore to be distinguished from the Prologues prologue in the more ordinary sense of the term, and which like the epilogue (and the Greek irap.I3aou)

epilogues stands outside the action, and is a mere address to the ~lde the public from author, presenter or actor occasioned by the play. Prologue and epilogue are mere external, though at times effective, adjuncts, and have, properly speaking, as little to do with the construction of a play as the bill which announces it or the musical prelude which disposes the mind for its reception. A special kind of preface or argument is the dumb-show, which in some old plays briefly rehearses in pantomime the action that is to follow. The introduction or Par-iso! exposition belongs to the action itself; it is, as the the action. Hindu critics called it, the seed or circumstance from introduc- which the business arises. Clearness being its primary don or ex- requisite, many expedlients have been. at various times Posit Ofl. adopted to secure this feature. Thus the Euripidean prologue, though spoken by one of the characters of the play, took a narrative form, more acceptable to the audience than to the critics, and placed itself half without, half within, the action. The same purpose is served by the separate inductions in many of the old English plays, and by the preludes or prologues, or whatever name they may assume, in. numberless modern dramas of all kindsfrom Faust down to the favorites of the Ambigu and the Adeiphi. More facile is the orientation supplied in French tragedy by the opening scenes between hero and confidant, and in French comedy and its derivatives by those between observant valet and knowing ladys-maid. But all such expedients may be rendered unnecessary by the art of the dramatist, who is able outwardly also to present the introduction of his action as an organic part of that action itself; who seems to take the spectators in medias res, while he is really building the foundations of his plot; who touches in the opening of his action the chord which is to vibrate throughout its course Down with the Capulets I down with the Montagues I With the Moor, sayest thou?

The exposition, which may be short or long, but which should always prepare and may even seem to necessitate the action, ends when the movement of the action itself begins. This transition may occasionally be marked with the utmost distinctness (as in the actual meeting between the hero and the Ghost in Hamlet), while in other instances subsidiary action. or episode may judiciously intervene (as in King Lear, where the subsidiary action of Gloster and his sons opportunely prevents too abrupt a sequence of cause and effect).

o ~.-th From this point the second stage of the actionits ro growth progresses to that third stage which is called its height or climax. All that has preceded the attainment of this constitutes that half of the dramausually its much larger halfwhich Aristotle terms the ~o-is, or tying of the knot. The varieties in the treatment of the growth or second stage of,the action are infinite; it is here that the greatest freedom is manifestly permissible; that in the Indian drama the personages make long journeys across the stage; and that, with the help of their under-plots, the masters of the modern tragic and the comic dramanotably those unequalled weavers of intrigues, the Spaniardsare able most fully to exercise their inventive faculties. If the growth is too rapid, the climax wili fail of its effect; if it is too slow, the interest will be exhausted before the greatest demand upon it has been madea fault to which comedy is specially liable; if it is involved or inverted, a vague uncertainty will take the place of an eager or agreeable suspense, the action will seem to halt, or a fall will begin prematurely. In. the contrivance of the climax itself lies one of the chief tests of the dramatists art; for while the transactions of real life often fail to reach any ~~or climax at all, that of a dramatic action should present itself as self-evident. In the middle of everything, says the Greek poet, lies the strength; and this strongest or highest point it is the task of the dramatist to make manifest. Much here depends upon the niceties of constructive instinct; much (as in all parts of the action) upon a thorough dramatic transformation of the subject. The historical drama at this point presents peculiar difficulties, of which the example of Henry VIII. may be cited as an illustration.

From the climax, or height, the action proceeds through its fall to its close, which in a drama with an unhappy ending we still call its catastrophe, while to termina- Fall. tions in general we apply the term denouement. This latter name would, however, more properly be applied in the sense in. which Aristotle employs its Greek equivalent Xi~nc the untying of the knotto the whole of the second part of the action, from the climax downwards. In the management of the climax, everything depends upon producing the effect; in the fall, everything depends upon not marring it. This may be ensured by a rapid advance to the close; but neither does every action admit of such treatment, nor is it in accordance with the character of those which are of a more subtle or complicated kind. With the latter, therefore, the fall is often a revolution or return, i.e. in Aristotles phrase a change into the reverse of what is expected from the circumstances of the action (irepnr~reta)as in. Coriolanus, where the Return. Roman story lends itself so admirably to dramatic demands. In any case, the art of the dramatist is in this part of his work called upon. for the surest exercise of its tact and skill. The effect of the climax was to concentrate the interest; the fall must therefore, above all, avoid dissipating it. The use of episodes is not even now excluded; but, even where serving the purpose of relief, they must now be such as help to keep alive the interest, previously raised to its highest pitch. This may be effected by the raising of obstacles between the height of the action and its expected consequences; in tragedy by the suggestion of a seemingly possible recovery or escape from them (as in the wonderfully powerful construction of the latter part of Macbeth); in comedy, or wherever the interest of the action is less intense, by the gradual removal of incidental difficulties. In all kinds of the drama discovery will remain, as it was in the judgment of Aristotle, a most effective expedient; but it should be a discovery prepared by that method of treatment which in its consummate master, Sophocles, has been termed his irony. Nowhere should the close or catastrophe be other than a consequence of the action itself. Sudden revulsions from the conditions of the actionsuch as Close or are supplied with the aid of the deus ex machina, or the revising officer of the emperor of China,or the nabob returned from India, or a virulent malariacondemn themselves as unsatisfactory makeshifts. However sudden, and even in manner of accomplishment surprising, may be the catastrophe, it should, like every other part of the action, be in organic connection with the whole preceding action. The sudden suicides which terminate so many tragedies, and the unmerited paternal blessings which close an equal number of comedies, should be something more than a way out of it, or a signal for the fall of the curtain. A catastrophe may conveniently, and even (as in Faust) with powerful effect, be left to the imagination; but to substitute for it a deliberate blank is to leave the action incomplete, and the drama a fragment ending with apossibly interestingconfession of incompetence.

The action of a drama, besides being one and complete in itself, ought likewise to be probable. The probability or necessity (in the Aristotelian sense of the terms) required of a drama ~7i~voi is not that of actual or historical experienceit is a action, conditional probability, or in other words an internal consistency between the course of the action and the conditions under which the dramatist has chosen to carry it on. As to the former, he is fettered by no restrictions save those which he imposes upon himself, whether or not itt deference to the usages of certain accepted species of dramatic composition. Ghosts seldom appear in real life or in dramas of real life; but the introduction of supernatural agency is neither enjoined nor prohibited by any general dramatic law. The use of such expedients is as open to the dramatic as to any other poet; the judiciousness of his use of them depends upon the effect which, consistently with the general conduct of his action, they will exercise upon the spectator, whom other circumstances may or may not predispose to their acceptance. The Ghost in Hamlet belongs to the action of the play; the Ghost in the Persae is not intrinsically less probable, but seems a less immediate product of the surrounding atmosphere. Dramatic probability has, however, a far deeper meaning than this. The Eumenides is probable, with all its mysterious commingling of cults, and so is Macbeth, with all its barbarous witchcraft. The proceedings of the feathered builders of Cloudcuckootown in the Birds of Aristophanes are as true to dramatic probability as are the pranks of Oberons fairies in Midsummer Nights Dream. In other words, it is in the harmony between the action and the characters, and in the consistency of the characters with themselves, in the appropriateness of both to the atmosphere in which they have their being, that this dramatic probability lies. The dramatist has to represent characters affected by the progress of an action in a particular way, and contributing to it in a particular way,, because, if consistent with themselves, they must be so affected, and must so act.

Upon the invention and conduct of his characters the dramatist must therefore expend a great propOrtioneven a preponderance of his labor. His treatment of them will, in at least as high a degree as his choice of subject, conception of action, Characterization: and method of construction, determme the effect which his work produces. And while there are aspects of the dramatic art under which its earlier phases already exhibit an unsurpassed degree of perfection, there is none under which its advance is more notable than this. Many causes have Advance of. .

the drama contributed to this result; the chief 25 to be sought in In this the multiplication of the opportunities ,for mankinds, respects study of man. The theories of the Indian critics on the subject of dramatic oharacter are little more than an elaborate scaffolding. Arist0tles remarks on the subject are scanty; nor indeed is the strength of the dramatic literature from whose examples he abstracted his maxims to be sought in the fulness or variety of its characterization. This relative deficiency was, beyond doubt largely caused by the outward conditions of the Greek theatre-the remoteness of actor from spectator, and the consequent necessity for the use of masks, and for the raising, and consequent conventionalizing, of the tones of the voice. Later Greek and Roman comedy, unable or unwilling to resist the force of habit, limited their range of characters to an accepted gallery of types. Nor is it easy to ignore the fact that the influence of these classical examples, combined with that of national tendencies of mind and temperament, have all along inclined the dramatists of the Romance nations to attach less importance to characterization of a closer and more varied kind than to interest of action and effectiveness of construction. The Italian and the Spanish drama more especially, and the French during a great part of its history, have in general shown a disposition to present their characters, as it were, ready made-whether in the case of trnn4r. hornac .,nrl hnrnr.sc r,r n flint of rnnrk tunAs off en moulded, as in the commedi~z dell~ arie and beyond, according to a long-lived system of local or national selection, These types, expanded, heightened and modified, are recognizable in some of the triumphs of comic characterization achieved by the Germanic drama, and by its master, Shakespeare, above all; but this fact must not obscure one of more importance than itself. In the matter of comic as well as of serious characterizationin the individualizing of characters and in evolving them as it were out of the progress of the actionthe modern drama has not only advanced, but in a sense revolutionized, the dramatic art, as inherited from its ancient masters.

Yet, however the method and scope of characterization may vary under the influence of different historical epochs and different tendencies or tastes of races or nations, the laws of this branch of the dramatic art remain based qn the same essential requirements. What interests us in character. a man or woman in real life, or in the impressions we form of historical personages, is that which seems to us to give them individuality. A dramatic character must therefore, whatever its part in the action, be sufficiently marked by features of its own to interest the imagination; with these features its subsequent conduct must be consistent, and to them its participation in the action must correspond. In order to achieve such a result, the dramatist must have, in the first instance, distinctly conceived the character, however it may have been suggested to him. His task is, not to paint a copy of some contemporary or historical personage, but to conceive a particular kind of man, acting under the operation of particular circumstances. This conception, growing and modifying itself with the progress of the action, also invented by the dramatist, will determine the totality of the character which he creates. The likeness which the result bears to an actual or historical personage may very probably, from secondary points of view, affect the immediate stage success of the creation; upon its dramatic result this likeness can have no influence whatever. In a wider sense than that in which Shakespeare denied the charge that Falstaff was Oldcastle, it should be possible to say of every dramatic character which it is sought to identify with an actual personage, This is not the man. The mirror of the drama is not a photographic apparatus; and not even the most conscientious combination of science and art can bring back even a phase of the real Napoleon.

Distinctiveness, as the primary requisite in dramatic characterization, is to be demanded in the case of all personages introduced into a dramatic actiott, but not in all cases in an equal degree. Schiller, in adding to the dramatis personae of his Fiesco superscriptions of their chief characteristics, labels Sacco as an ordinary person, and this, nO doubt, suffices for Sacco. But with the great masters of characterization a few touches, of which the true actors art knows how to avail itself, distinguish even their lesser characters from one another; and every man is in his humour down to the third citizen. Elaboration is necessarily reserved for characters who are the more important contributors to the action, and the fulness of elaboration for its heroes. Many expedients may lend their aid to the higher degrees of distinctiveness. Much is gained by a significant introduction of hero or heroine-thus Antigone is dragged in by the watchman, Gloucester enters alone upon the scene, Volpone is discovered in adoration of his golden saint. Nothing marks character more clearly than the use of contrast as of Othello with lago, of Ottavio with Max Piccolomini, of Joseph with Charles Surface. Nor is direct antithesis the only effective kind of contrast; Cassius is a foil to Brutus, and Leonora to her namesake the P~rincess. But, besides impressing the imagination as a conception distinct in itself, each character must maintain a consistency between its conduct in the action and the features it has established as its own. ~ This consistency does not imply uniformity; for, as Aristotle observes, there are characters which, to be represented with uniformity, must be presented as uniformly un-uniform.

Of such consistently complex characters the great critic cites no instances, nor indeed are they of frequent occurrence in Greek frnopdv. ~n the n-,n,lern ,-lrnrnn TTnn,let- c fhs~,. ,,rr.4unhls,-l exemplar; and Weislingen in Goethes Gft, and Alcest in the Misanthrope, may be mentioned as other illustrations in dramas differing widely from one another. The list might be enlarged almost indefinitely from the gallery of female characters, in view of the greater pliability and more habitual dependence of the nature of women. It should be added that those dramatic literatures which freely admit of a mixture of the serious with the comic element thereby enormously increase the opportunities of varied characterization. The difficulty of the task at the same time enhances the effect resulting from its satisfactory accomplishment; and, if the conception of a character is found to meet a variety of tests resembling that which life has at hand for every man, its naturalness, as we term it, becomes more obvious to the imagination. Naturalness is only another word for what Aristotle terms propriety; the artificial rules by which usage has at times sought to define particular species of character are in their origin only a convenience of the theatre, though they have largely helped to conventionalize dramatic characterization., Lastly, a character should be directly effective with regard to the dramatic actionin which it takes partthat is to EffeCt vc say, the influence it exerts upon the progress of the action should correspond to its distinctive features; the conduct of the play should seem to spring from the nature of its characters. In other words, no characterization can be effective which is not what may be called economical, i.e. which does not strictly limit itself to suiting the purposes of the action. Even the minor characters should not idly intervene; while the chief characters should predominate over, or determine, the course of the action, its entire conception should harmonize with their distinctive features. It is only a Prometheus whom the gods bind fast to a rock, only a Juliet who will venture into a living death for her Romeo. Thus, in a sense, chance is excluded from dramatic action, or rather, like every other element in it, bends to the dramatic idea.

In view of this predominance of character over action, we may appropriately use such expressions as a tragedy of love or jealousy or ambition, or a comedy of character. For such collocations merely indicate that plays so described have proved (or were intended to prove) specially impressive by the conception or execution of their chief character or characters.

The term manners (as employed in a narrower sense than the Aristotelian l~On) applies to that which colors both action and characters, but does not determine the essence of Manners. either. As exhibiting human agents under certain conditions of time and place, and of the various relations of life, the action of a drama, together with the characters engaged in it, and the incidents and circumstances belonging to it, must more or less adapt itself to the external conditions assumed. From the assumption of some such conditions not even those dramatic species which indulge in the most sovereign licence, such as Old Attic comedy, or burlesque in general, can wholly emancipate themselves; and even supernatural or fantastic characters and actions must suit themselves to some sort of antecedents. But it depends altogether on the measure in which the nature of an action and the development of its characters are effected by considerations of time and place, or of temporary social systems and the transitory distinctions incidental to them, whether the imitation of a particular kind of manners becomes a significant Their element in a particular play. The Hindu caste-system relative is an antecedent of every Hindu drama, and the peculiar sign!!!- organization of Chinese society of nearly every Chinese eence. play with which we are acquainted. Greek tragedy itself, though treating subjects derived from no historic age, had established a standard of manners from which in its decline it did not depart with impunity. Again, the imitation of manners of a particular age or country may or may not be of moment in a play. In some dramas, and in some species of drama, time and place are so purely imaginary and so much a matter of indifference that the adoption of a purely conventional standard of manners, or at least the exclusion of any definitely fixed standard, is here desirable. The ducal reign of Theseus at Athens (if its period be ascertainable) does not date A Midsummer Nights Dream,; nor do the coasts of Bohemia in The Winters Tale localize the manners of the customers of Autolycus. Where, on the other hand, as more especially in the historic drama, or in that kind of comedy which directs its shafts against the ridiculous vices of a particular age or country, significance attaches to the degree in which the manners represented resemble what is more or less known, the dramatist will do well to be careful in his coloring. How admirably is the French court specialized in Henry V.; how completely are we transplanted among the burghers of Brussels in the opening scenes of Eginont; what a portraiture of a clique we have in the Frcieuses ridicules of Moliere; what a reproduction of a class in the pot-house politicians of Holberg! And how minutely have modern dramatists found it necessary to study the more fascinating aspects of la vie parisienne, in order to convey to the curious at home and abroad a conviction of the verisimilitude of their pictures! Yet, even in such instances, the dramatist will only use what suits his dramatic purpose; he will select, not transfer in mass, historic features, and discriminate in his use of modern instances. The details of historic fidelity, and the lesser shades distinguishing the varieties of social usage, will be introduced by him at his choice, or left to be supplied by the actor. Where the reproduction of manners becomes the primary purpose of a play, its effect can only be of an inferior kind; and a drama purely of manners is a contradiction in terms.

No complete system of dramatic species can be abstracted from any one dramatic literature. They are often the result of particular antecedents, and their growth is often ~ ~

affected by peculiar conditions. Different nations or ~, ages use the same names and may preserve some of the same rules for species which in other respects their usage may have materially modified from that of their neighbors or predecessors. The very question of the use of measured or pedestrian speech as fit for different kinds of drama, and therefore distinctive of them, cannot be profitably discussed except in reference to particular literatures. In the Chinese drama the most solemn themes are treated in the same forman admixture of verse and prosewhich not so very long since was characteristic of that airiest of Western dramatic species, the French vaudeville. Who would undertake to define, except in the applications which have been given to the words in successive generations, such terms as tragi-comedy, or indeed as drama (drame) itself? Yet this uncertainty does not imply that all is confusion in the terminology as to the species of the drama. In so far as they are distinguishable according to the effects which their actions, or those which the preponderating parts of their actions, produce, these species may primarily be ranged in accordance with the broad differtnce established by Aristotle between tragedy and comedy. Tragic and comic effects differ in regard to the emotions of the mind which they excite; and a drama is tragic or comic according as such effects are produced by it. The strong or serious emotions are ~ and alone capable of exercising upon us that influence which, employing a bold but marvellously happy figure, Aristotle termed purification, and which a Greek comedian, after a more matter-of-fact fashion, thus expressed:

For whensoeer a man observes his fellow Bear wrongs more grievous than himself has known, More easily he bears his own misfortunes.

That is to say, the petty troubles of self which disturb without elevating the mind are driven out by the sympathetic participation in greater griefs, which raises while it excites the mind employed upon contemplating them. it is to these emotions which are and can be no others than pity and terrorthat actions which we call tragic appeal. Naif as we may think Aristotle in desiderating for such actions a complicated rather than a simple plot, he obviously means that in form as well as in design they should reveal their relative importance. Those actions which we term comic address themselves to the sense of the ridiculous, and their themes are those vices and moral infirmities the representation of which is capable of touching the springs of laughter. Where, accordingly, a drama confines itself to effects of the former class, it may be called a pure tragedy; when to those of the latter, a pure comedy. In dramas where the effects are mixed the nature of the main action and of the main characters (as determined by their distinctive features) alone enables us to classify such plays as serious or humorous dramasor as tragic or comic, if we choose to preserve the terms. But the classification admits of a variety of transitions, from pure tragedy to mixed, from mixed tragedy to mixed comedy, and thence to pure comedy, with the more freely licensed farce and burlesque, the time-honored inversion of the relations of dramatic method and purpose. This system of distinction has no concern with the mere question of the termination of the play, according to which Philostratus and other authorities have sought to distinguish tragic from comic dramas. The serious drama which ends happily (the German Schauspiel) is not a species co-ordinate with tragedy and comedy, but at the most a subordinate variety of the former. Other distinctions may be almost infinitely multiplied, according to the point of view adopted for the classification.

The historical sketch of the drama attempted in the following pages will best serve to indicate the successive growth of national dramatic species, many of which, by asserting their influence in other countries and ages than those which gave birth to them, have acquired a more than national vitality.

The art of acting, whose history forms an organic though a distinct part of that of the drama, necessarily possesses a theory and a technical system of its own. But into these it is ~7art of impossible here to enter. One claim, hOwever, should be vindicated for the art of acting, viz, that, though it is a dependent art, and most signally so in its highest forms, yet its true exercise implies (however much the term may have been. abused) a creative process. The conception of a character is determined by antecedents not of the actors own making; and the term originality can be applied to it only in a relative sense. Study and reflection enable him, with the aid of experience and of the intuition which genius bestows, but which experience may in a high degree supply, to interpret, to combine, and to supplement given materials. But in the transformation of the conception into the represented character the actors functions are really creative; for here he becomes the character by means which belong to his art alone. The distinctiveness which he gives to the character by making the principal features recognized by him in it its groundworkthe consistency which he maintains in it between groundwork and detailsthe appropriateness which he preserves in it to the course of the action and the part borne in it by the characterall these are of his own making, though its means suggested by the conception derived by him from his materials. As to the means at his disposal, they are essentially of two kinds only; but not all forms of the drama have admitted of the use of both, or of both in the same completeness. All acting includes the use of gesture, or, as it has been Gesture more comprehensively termed, of bodily eloquence. From various points of view its laws regulate the actors bearing, walk and movements of face and limbs. They teach what is aesthetically permitted and what is aesthetically pleasing. They deduce from observation what is appropriate to the expression of particular affections of the mind and of their combinations, of emotions and passions, of physical and mental conditions joy and grief, health and sickness, waking, sleeping and dreaming, madness, collapse and deathof particular ages of life and temperaments, as well as of the distinctive characteristics of ~ h race, nationality or class. While under certain conpeec ditionsas in the masked dramathe use of bodily movement as one of the means of expression has at times been partially restricted, there have been, or are, forms of the drama which have altogether excluded the use of speech (such as pantomime), or have restricted the manner of its employment (such as opera). In the spoken drama the laws of rhetoric regulate the actors use of speech, but under conditions of a special nature. Like the orator, he has to follow the laws of pronunciation, modulation, accent and rhythm (the last in certain kinds of prose as well as in such forms of verse as he may be called upon to reproduce). But he has also to give his attention to the special laws of dramatic delivery, which vary in soliloquy and dialogue, and in such narrative or lyrical passages as may occur in his part.

The totality of the effect produced by the actor will in some degree depend upon other aids, among which those of a purely external kind are unlikely to be lost sight of. But the Costume significance of costume in. the actor, like that of decoration and scenery (see THEATRE) in an action, is a wholly relative one, and is to a large measure determined by the claims which custom enables the theatre to make, or forbids its making, upon the imagination of the spectators. The actors real achievement lies in the transformation which the artist himself effects; nor is there any art more sovereign in the use it can make of its means, or so happy in the directness of the results it can accomplish by them.


The origin of the Indian drama may unhesitatingly be described as purely native. The Mahommedans, when they overran India, brought no drama with them; the Persians, the Arabs and the Egyptians were without a national theatre. It would be absurd to suppose the Indian drama to have owed anything to the Chinese or its offshoots. On the other hand, there is no real evidence for assuming any influence of Greek examples upon the Indian drama at any stage of its progress. Finally, it had passed into its decline before the dramatic literature of modern Europe had sprung into being.

The Hindu writers ascribe the invention of dramatic entertainments to an inspired sage Bharata, or to the communications made to him by the god Brahma himself concerning origin an art gathered from the Vedas. As the word Bharata signifies an actor, we have clearly here a mere personification of the invention of the drama. Three kinds of entertainments, of which the ndtya (defined as a dance combined with gesticulation and speech) comes nearest to the drama, were said to have been exhibited before the gods by the spirits and nymphs of Indras heaven, and to these the god ~iva added two new styles of dancing.

The origin of the Indian drama was thus unmistakably religious. Dramatic elements first showed themselves in certain of the hymns of the Rig Veda, which took the form of dialogues between divine personages, and in one of which is to be found the germ of Klidasas famous Vikrama and Urvasi. These hymns were combined with the dances in the festivals of the gods, which soon assumed a more or less conventional form. Thus, from the union of dance and song, to which were afterwards added narrative recitation, and first sung, then spoken, dialogue, was gradually evolved the acted drama. Such scenes and stories from the mythology of Vishnu are still occasionally enacted by pantomime or spoken dialogue in India (jtras of the Bengalis; rdsas of the Western. Provinces); and the most ancient Indian play was said to have treated an episode from the history of that deitythe choice of him as a consort by Laxmia favorite kind of subject in the Indian drama. The tradition connecting its earliest themes with the native mythology of Vishnu agrees with that ascribing the origin of a particular kind of dramatic performancethe sangitato Krishna and the shepherdesses. The authors later poem, the Gitagovinda, has been conjectured to be suggestive of the earliest species of Hindu dramas. But, while the epic poetry of the Hindus gradually approached the dramatic in the way of dialogue, their drama developed itself independently out of the union of the lyric and the epic forms. Their dramatic poetry arose later than their epos, whose great works, the Mahbhdrata and the Ramayana, had themselves been long preceded by the hymnody of the Vedasjust as the Greek drama followed upon the Homeric poems and these had been preceded by the early hymns.

There seems, indeed, no reason for dating the beginnings of the regular Indian drama farther back than the 5th century AD., though it is probable that the earliest extant Sanskrit play, the delightful, and in some respects incomparable, Mrichchhakatikd ii~iJi!~i~J L.~

(The Toy Cart), was considerably earlier in date than the works of Klidasa. Indeed, of his predecessors in dramatic composition very little is known, and even the contemporaries who competed with him as dramatists are mere names. Thus, by the time the Indian drama produced almost the earliest specimens with which we are acquainted, it had already reached its zenith; and it was therefore looked upon as having sprung into being as a perfect art. We know it only in its glory, in its decline, and in its decay.

The history of Indian dramatic literature may be roughly divided into the following periods.

I. To the sit/s Century A .p.This period virtually belongs to the pre-Mahommedan age of Indian history; but already to that second division of it in which Buddhism had become a powerful factor in the social as well as in the moral ,c!assical), and intellectual life of the land. It is the classical period of the Hindu drama, and includes the works of its two indisputably greatest masters. The earliest extant Sanskrit play is the pathetic Mrichchhakatik (The Toy Cart), which has been dated back as far as the close of the 2nd century A.D. It is attributed (as is not uncommon with Indian plays) to a royal author, named Sudraka; but it was more probably written by his court poet, whose name has been concluded to have been Dandin. It may be described as a comedy of middle-class life, treating of the courtship and marriage of a ruined Brahman and a wealthy and large-hearted courtesan.

Kalidsa, the brightest of the nine gems of genius in whom the Indian drama gloried, lived at the court of Ujjain, though whether in the earlier half of the 6th century A.D., or in the 3rd century, or at a yet earlier date, remains an unsettled question. He is the author of Sakuntalathe work which, in the translation by Sir William Jones (1789), first revealed to the Western world of letters the existence of an Indian drama, since reproduced in innumerable versions in many tongues. This heroic comedy, in seven acts, takes its plot from the first book of the Mahabhdrata. It is a dramatic love-idyll of surpassing beauty, and one of the masterpieces of the poetic literature of the world. Another drama by Kfllidgsa, Vikrama and Urvasi (The Hero and the Nymph), though unequal as a whole to Skuntala, contains one act of incomparable loveliness; and its enduring effect upon Indian dramatic literature is shown by the imitations of it in later plays. (It was translated into English in 1827 by H. H. Wilson.) To K~lidgsa has likewise been attributed a third play, /v! lavika and Agnimitra; but it is possible that this conventional comedy, though held to be of ancient date, was composed by a different poet of the same name.

To Harsadeva, king of northern India, are ascribed three extant plays, which were more probably composed by some poet in his pay. One of these, Nagananda (Joy of the Serpents), which begins as an erotic play, but passes into a most impressive exemplification of the supreme virtue of self-sacrifice, is notable as the only Buddhist drama which has been preserved, though others are known to have existed and to have been represented.

The palm of pre-eminence is disputed with Kaiidsa by the great dramatic poet Babhavuti (called Crikaflfha, or he in whose throat is fortune), who flourished in the earlier part of the 8th century. While he is considered more artificial in language than his rival, and in general more bound by rules, he can hardly be deemed his inferior in dramatic genius. Of his three extant plays, Mahavdra-Charitra and Uttara-Rama-Charitra are heroic dramas concerned with the adventures of Rama (the seventh incarnation of Vishnu); the third, the powerful melodrama, in ten acts, of Mlati and Madhava, has love for its theme, and has been called (perhaps with more aptitude than usually belongs to such comparisons) the Romeo and Juliet of the Hindus. It is considered by their critical authorities the best example of the prakaraa, or drama of domestic life. Babhavutis plays, as is indicated by the fact that no jester appears in them, are devoid of the element of humour.

The plays of Rjasekhara. who lived about the end of the oth century ilesi like those of T4sr~,idevs with }isrem ,ind I~.LY.L.L,L ~..OJ.

is stated to be the only example of the saltaka or minor heroic comedy, written entirely in Prakrit.

In this period may probably also be included Vi~akhadattas interesting drama of political intrigue, Mudni-Rakshasa (The Signet of the Minister), in which Chandragupta (Sandracottus) appears as the founder of a dynasty. In subject, therefore, this production, which is one of the few known Indian historical dramas, goes back to the period following on the invasion of India by Alexander the Great; but the date of composition is probably at least as late as A.D. 1000. The plot of the play turns on the gaining-over of the prime minister of the ancien rgime.

Among the remaining chief works of this period is the VeniSamhara (Binding of the Braid) by Narayana Bhatta. Though described as a play in which both pathos and horror are exaggeratedits subject is an outrage resembling that which Dunstan is said to have inflicted on Elgivait is stated to have been always a favorite, as written in exact accordance with dramatic rules. Perhaps the Candakan.tika by Ksemrivara should also be included, which deals with the working of a curse pronounced by an aged priest upon a king who had innocently offended him.

II. The Period of Decline.This may be reckoned from about the 11th to about the 14th century of the Christian era, the beginning roughly coinciding with that of a continuous series of Mahommedan invasions of India. Hanman- Second Nalaka, or the great Nataka (for this irregular ~e~ne). play,, the work of several hands, surpasses all other Indian dramas in length, extending over no fewer than fourteen acts), dates from the 10th or 11th century. Its story is taken from the Rama-cycle, and a prominent character in it is the mythical monkey-chief King Hanman, to whom, indeed, tradition ascribed the original authorship of the play. Ktishfiamicras theosophic mystery, as it has been called,though it rather resembles some of the moralities,Prabodha-Chandrodaya (The Rise of the Moon of Insight, i.e. the victory of true doctrine over error), is ascribed by one authority to the middle of the 11th century, by another to about the end of the 12th. The famous Ratnavali (The Necklace), a court-comedy of love and intrigue, with a half-Terentian plot, seems also to date from the earlier half of the period.

The remaining plays of which it has been possible to conjecture the dates range in the time of their composition from the end of the 11th to the 14th century. Of this period, as compared with the first, the general characteristics seem to be an undue preponderance of narrative and description, and an affected and over-elaborated style. As a striking instance of this class is mentioned a play on the adventures of Rama, the Anargha-Raghava, which in spite, or by reason, of the commonplace character of its sentiments, the extravagance of its diction, and the obscurity of its mythology, is stated to enjoy a higher reputation with the pundits of the present age than the masterpieces of Kalidsa and Babhaviiti. To the close of this period, the 14th century, has likewise (but without any pretension to certainty) been ascribed the only Tamil drama of which we possess an English version. Arichandra (The Martyr of Truth) exemplifieswith a strange likeness in the contrivance of its plot to the Book of Job and Faustby the trials of a heroically enduring king the force of the maxim Better die than lie.

III. Period of Decay.Isolated plays remain from centuries later than the 14th; but these, which chiefly turn on the legends of Kfishfia (the last incarnation of Vishnu), may be regarded as a mere aftergrowth, and exhibit the Indian drama in its decay. Indeed, the latest of them, (d~e~y). Chitra- Yajna, which was composed about the beginning of the I9th century, and still serves as a model for Bengali dramatic performances, is imperfect in its dialogue, which (after the fashion of Italian improvised comedy) it is left to the actors to supplement. Besides these there are farces or farcical entertainments, more or less indelicate, of uncertain dates.

The number of plays which have descended to us from so vast an nvnanca crc a dill rnynnant,,nl.r cm,,11 Rnf ,h~11~h.;,-.

those mentioned by Hindu writers on the drama, amounted to many more than sixty, M. Schuylers bibliography (1906) enumerates over five hundred Sanskrit plays. To these have to be added the plays in Tamil, stated to be abOut a hundred in number, and to have been composed by poets who enjoyed the patronage of the Pandian kings of Madura, and some in other vernaculars.

There certainly is among the flindus no dearth of dramatic theory. The sage Bharata, the reputed inventor of dramatic entertainments, was likewise revered as the father of dramatic criticisma combination of functions to which the latter days of the English theatre might perhaps furnish an occasional parallel. The commentators (possibly under the influence of inspiration rather than as a strict matter of memory) constantly cite his stras, or aphorisms. (From sfftra, thread, was named the stra-dhra, thread-holder, carpenter, a term applied to the architect and general manager of sacrificial solemnities, then to the director of theatrical performances.) By the 11th century, when the drama was already approaching its decline, dramatic criticism had reached an advanced point; and the Dasa-Rupaka (of which the text belongs to that age) distinctly defines the ten several kinds of dramatic composition. Other critical works followed at later dates, exhibiting a rage for subdivision unsurpassed by the efforts of Western theorists, ancient or modern; the misfortune is that there should not be e~famples remaining (if they ever existed) to illustrate all the branches of so elaborate a dramatic system.

What, inquires the manager of an actor in the induction to one of the most famous of Indian plays, are those qualities Exclusive- which the virtuous, the wise, the venerable, the learned ness of the and the Brahmans require in a drama? Profound indian exposition of the various passions, is the reply, drama. pleasing interchange of mutual affection, loftiness of character, delicate expression of desire, a surprising story and elegant language. Then, says the manager (for the Indian dramatists, though not, like Ben Jonson, wont to rail the public into approbation, are unaffected by mauvaise honte), I recollect one. And he proceeds to state that Babhavti has given us a drama composed by him, replete with all qualities, to which indeed this sentence is applicable: How little do they know who speak of us with censuret This entertainment is not for them. Possibly some one exists, or will exist, of similar tastes with myself; for time is boundless, and the world is wide! This disregard of popularity, springing from a consciousness of lofty aims, accounts for much that is characteristic of the higher class of Indian plays. It explains both their relative paucity and their extraordinary length, renders intelligible the chief peculiarity in their diction, and furnishes the key to their most striking ethical as well as literary qualities. Connected in their origin with religious worship, they were only performed on solemn occasions, chiefly of a public nature, and more especially at seasons sacred to some divinity. Thus, though they might in some instances be reproduced, they were always written with a view to one particular solemn representation. Again, the greater part of every one of the plays of Northern India is written in Sanskrit, which ceased to be a popular language by 300 B.C., but continued the classical and learned, and at the same time the sacred and court form of speech of the Brahmans. Sanskrit is spoken by the heroes and principal personages of the plays, while the female and inferior characters use varieties, more or less refined, of the Prakrit languages (as a rule not more than three, that which is employed in the songs of the women being the poetic dialect of the most common Prakrit language, the ~auraseni). Hence, part at least of each play cannot have been understood by the large majority of the audience, except in so far as their general acquaintance with the legends or stories treated enabled them to follow the course of the action. Every audience thus contained an inner audience, which could alone feel the full effect of the drama. - It is, then, easy to see why the Hindu critics should make demands upon the art, into which only highly-trained and refined intellects were capable of entering, or called upon to enter. The general public cOuld not be expected to appreciate the Sentiments expressed in a drama, and thus (according to the process prescribed by Hindu theory) to receive instructio1~ by means of amusement. These sentiments are termed rsas (tastes or flavours), arid said to spring from the bhdvas (conditions of mind and body). A variety of subdivisions is added; but the santa rdsa is logically enough excluded from dramatic composition, inasmuch as it implies absolute quiescence.

The Hindu critics know of no distinction directly corresponding to that between tragedy and comedy, still less of any determined by the nature of the close of a play. For, in accordance Species of with the child-like element of their character, the dramas.

Hindus dislike an unhappy ending to any story, and a positive rule accordingly prohibits a fatal conclusion in their dramas. The general term for all dramatic compositions is rupaka (from rupa, form), those of an inferior class being distinguished as uparupakas. Of the various subdivisions of the rpaka, in a more limited sense, the ntaka, or play proper, represents the most perfect kind. Its subject should always be celebrated and importantit is virtually either heroism or love, and most frequently the latterand the hero should be a demigod, or divinity (such as Rama in Babhavtis heroic plays) or a king (such as the hero of Sakuntala). But although the earlier dramatists took their plots from the sacred writings or Purnas, they held themselves at liberty to vary the incidentsa licence from which the later poets abstained. Thus, in accordance, perhaps, with the respective developments in the religious life of the two peoples, the Hindu drama in this respect reversed the progressive practice of the Greek. The p-rakaraas agree in all essentials with the ntdkas except that they are less elevated; their stories are mere fictions, taken from actual life in a respectable class of society.1 Among the species of the uparupaka may be mentioned the trolaka, in which the personages are partly human, partly divine, and of which a famous example remains.1 Of the bha4a, a monologue in one act, one literary example is extanta curious picture of manners in which the speaker describes the different persons he meets at a spring festival in the streets of Kolahalapur.3 The satire of the farcical prahasanas is usually directed against the hypocrisy of ascetics and Brahmans, and the sensuality of the wealthy and powerful. These trifles represent the lower extreme of the dramatic scale, to which, of course, the principles that follow only partially apply.

Unity of action is strictly enjoined by Hindu theory, though not invariably observed in practice. Episodical or prolix interruptions are forbidden; but, in order to facilitate Th ,the connection, the story of the play is sometimes :nities. carried on by narratives spoken by actors or interpreters, something after the fashion of the Chorus in Henry V., or of Gower in Pericles. Unity of time is liberally, if rather arbitrarily, understood by the later critical authorities as limiting the duration of the action to a single year; but even this is exceeded in more than one classical play.i The single acts are to confine the events occurring in them to one course of the sun, and usually do so. Unity of place is unknown to the Hindu drama, by reason of the absence of scenery; for the plays were performed in the open courts of palaces, perhaps at times in large halls set apart for public entertainments, or in the open air. Hence change of scene is usually indicated in the texts; and we find5 the characters making long journeys on the stage, under the eyes of spectators not trained to demand real mileage.

With the solemn character of the higher kind of dramatic performances accord the rules and prohibitions defining what may be called the pro prieties of the Indian drama. It has been already seen that all plays must have a happy ~~tje~ ending. Furthermore, not only should death never be inflicted coram populo, but the various operations of biting, scratching, kissing, eating, sleeping, the bath, and the marriage ceremony should never take place on the stage. Yet such rules are made to be occasionally broken. It is true that the mild humour of the vidshaka is restricted to his gesticulating 2 Vikrama and Urvasi. i 54aradcf-Tilaka.

4Sakuntala; Uttara-Rt~ina-Charitrrr. ~ Arichandra, act iv.

eaUng instead of perpetrating the obnoxious act.1 The charming love-scene in the Saltuntala (at least in the earlier recension of the play) breaks off just as the hero is about to act the part of the bee to the honey of the heroines lips.2 But later writers are less squeamish, or less refined. In two dramas1 the heroine is dragged on the stage by her braid of hair; and this outrage is in both instances the motive of the action. In a third,4 sleeping and the marriage ceremony occur in the course of the representation.

The dramatic construction of the Indian plays presents no very striking peculiarities. They open with a benediction (nandf), spoken by the manager (supposed to be a Construc- highly accomplished person), and followed by some account of the author, and an introductory scene between the manager and one of the actors, which is more or less skilfully connected by the introduction of one of the characters with the pening of the play itself. This is divided into acts (anks) and scenes; of the former a nataka should have not fewer than 5, or more than 10; 7 appears a common number; the great natdka reaches 14. Thus the length of the higher class of Indian plays is considerableabout that of an Aeschylean trilogy; but not more than a single play was ever performed on the same occasion. Comic plays are restricted to two acts (here called sand his). In theory the scheme of an Indian drama corresponds very closely to the general outline of dramatic construction given above; it is a characteristic fnerit that the business is rarely concluded before the last act. The Scenes and piece closes, as it began, with a benediction or prayer. sit US 055. Within this framework room is found for situations as ingeniously devised and highly wrought as those in any modern Western play. What could be more pitiful than the scene in Sakuntala, where the true wife appears before her husband, whose remembrance of her is fatally overclouded by a charm; what more terrific than that in Ma/at-i and Mad/java, where the lover rescues his beloved from the horrors of the charnel field? Recognitionespecially between parents and childrenf requently gives rise to scenes of a pathos which Euripides has not surpassed.i The ingenious device of a play within the play (so familiar to the English drama) is employed with the utmost success by Babhavti.6 On the other hand, miraculous metamorphosis7 and, in a later play,8 vulgar magic lend their aid to the progress of the action. With scenes of strong effectiveness contrast others of the most delicate poetic grace-such as the indescribably lovely little episode of the two damsels of the god of love helping one another to pluck the red and green bud from the mango tree; or of gentle domestic pathossuch as that of the courtesan listening to the prattle of her lovers child, one of the prettiest scenes of a kind rarely kept free from affectation in the modern drama. For the denouement in the narrower sense of the term the In.dian dramatists largely resort to the expedient of the deus ex machina, often in a sufficiently literal sense.9

Every species of drama having its appropriate kind of hero or heroine, theory here again amuses itself with an infinitude of subdivisions. Among the heroines, of whom not less Characters.

than three hundred and eighty-four types are said to be distinguished, are to be noticed the courtesans, whose social position to some extent resembles that of the Greek hetaerae, and association with whom does not seem in practice, however it may be in theory, to be regarded as a disgrace even to Brahmans.io In general, the Indian drama indicates relations between the sexes subject to peculiar restraints of usage, but freer than those which Mahommedan example seems to have introduced into higher Indian society. The male characters are frequently drawn with skill, and sometimes with genuine force. Prince Samsthanaka n is a type of selfishness born in the purple worthy to rank beside figures of the modern drama, of which Veni-Sam/fara; Viddha-Salabhanjika.

~ Skuntal; Uttara-Rmci-Charitra. 61b. act vii.

Vikrama and Urvsi, act iv.. - Ratnvali.

~ Vikrama and Urvsi: Arichandra; Nagnanda.

10 M,ichchhakatlka. Miichchhakalik.

this has at times naturally been a favorite class of character, elsewhere,n the intrigues of ministers are not more fully exposed than their characters and principles of action are judiciously discriminated. Among the lesser personages common in the Indian drama, two are worth noticing, as corresponding, though by no means precisely, to familiar types of other dramatic literatures. These are the vita, the accomp]ished but dependent companion (both of men and women), and the vidshaka, the humble associate (not servant) of the prince, and the buffoon of the action.ii Strangely enough, he is always a Brahman, or the pupil of a Brahmanperhaps a survival from a purely popular phase of the drama. His humour is to be ever intent on the pleasures of a quiet life, and on that of eating in particular; his jokes are generally devoid of both harm and point.

Thus, clothing itself in a diction always ornate and tropical, in which (as Rckert has happily expressed it) the prose is the warp and the verse the weft, where (as Goethe says) D~tion words become allusions, allusions similes, and similes metaphors, the Indian drama essentially depended upon its literary qualities, and upon the familiar sanctity of its favorite themes for such effects as it was able to produce. Of scenic apparatus it knew but little. The plays were usually performed in the hall of a palace; the simple devices by which exits and entrances were facilitated it is unnecessary to describe, and on the contrivances employed for securing such SICI7

properties as were required (above all, the cars of costume. the gods and of their emissaries) ,1~r it is useless to speculate. Propriety of costume, on the other hand, seems always to have been observed, agreeably both to the peculiarities of the Indian drama and to the habits of the Indian people.

The ministers of an art practised under such conditions could not but be regarded with respect, and spared the contempt or worse, which, except among one other great civilized A~ors. people, the Greeks, has everywhere, at one period or another, been the actors lot. Companies of actors seem to have been common in India at an early date, and the inductions show the players to have been regarded as respectable members of society. In later, if not in earlier, times individual actors enjoyed a widespread reputation. all the world is acquainted with the talents of Kalaha-Kandala.if The managers or directors, as already stated, were usually gifted and highly-cultured Brahmans. Female parts were in general, though not invariably, represented by females. One would like to know whether such was the case in a piece16 whereafter the fashion of more than one Western playa crafty minister passes off his daughter as a boy, on which assumption she is all but married to a person of her own sex.

The Indian drama would, if only for purposes of comparison, be invaluable to the student of this branch of literature. But from the point of view of purely literary excellence it holds its Summary own against all except the very foremost dramas of the world. It is, indeed, a mere phrase to call Kalidsa the Indian Shakespearea title which, moreover, if intended as anything more than a synonym for poetic pre-eminence, might fairly be disputed in favor of Babhavuti; while it would be absolutely misleading to place a dramatic literature, which, like the Indian, is the mere quintessence of the culture of a caste, by the side of one which represents the fullest development of the artistic consciousness of such a people as the Hellenes. The Indian drama cannot be described as national in the broadest and highest sense of the word; it is, in short, the drama of a literary class, though as such it exhibits many of the noblest and most refined, as well as of the most characteristic, features of Hindu religion and civilization. The ethics of the Indian drama are of a lofty character, but they are those of a scholastic system of religious philosophy, self-conscious of its completeness. To the power of Fate is occasionally ascribed a supremacy, to which gods as well as mortals must bow;17 but, if mans present life is merely a ii Mudr-Rakshasa. 1~ Sakuntala; Nagnanda.

ii Skunfal, acts vi. and vii; Ma/au and Madhava, act v.

d Induction to Anargha-Raghava.

12 Viddha-Salabhanjika. ~ Vikrama and (Jrvsi.

phase in the cycle of his destinies, the highest of moral efforts at the same time points to the summit of possibilities, and selfsacrifice is the supreme condition both of individual perfection and of the progress of the world. Such conceptions as these. seem at once to enfold and to overshadow the moral life of the Indian drama. The affections and passions forming part of self it delineates with a fidelity to nature which no art can afford to neglect; on, the other hand, the freedom of the picture is restricted by conditions which to us are unfamiliar and at times seem intolerable, but which it was impossible for the Indian poets imagination to ignore. The sheer self-absorption of ambition or love appears inconceivable by the minds of any of these poets; and their social philosophy is always based on the system of caste. On the other hand, they are masters of many of the truest forms of pathos, above all of that which blends with resignation. In humour of a delicate kind they are by no means deficient; to its lower forms they are generally strangers, even in productions of a professedly comic intention. Of wit, Indian dramatic literaturethough a play on words is as the breath of its nostrilsfurnishes hardly any examples intelligible to Western minds.

The distinctive excellence of the Indian drama is to be sought in the poetic robe which envelops it as flowers overspread the bosom of the earth in the season of spring. In its POet I) of nobler productions, at least, it is never untrue to its drama, half religious, half rural origin; it weaves the wreaths of idyllic fancies in an unbroken chain, adding to its favorite and familiar blossoms ever fresh beauties from an, inexhaustible garden. Nor is it unequal to depicting the grander aspects of nature in her mighty forests and on the shores of the ocean: A close familiarity with its native literature can here alone follow its diction through a ceaseless flow of phrase and figure, listen with understanding to the hum of the bee as it hangs over the lotus, and contemplate with Sakuntals pious sympathy the creeper as it winds round the mango tree. But the poetic beauty of the Indian drama reveals itself in the mysterious charm of its outline, if not in its full glow, even to the untrained; nor should the study of itfor which the materials seem continually on the increasebe left aside by any lover of literature.


Like the Indian drama, the Chinese arose from the union of the arts of dance and song. To the ballets and pantomimes out of which it developed itself, and which have continued to flourish by the side of its more advanced forms, the Chinese ascribe a primitive antiquity of origin; many of them originally had a symbolical reference to such subjects as the harvest, and war and peace. A very ancient pantomime is said to have symbolized the -conquest of China by Wu-Wang; others were of a humbler, and often of a very obscure, character. To their music the Chinese likewise attribute a great antiquity of origin.

There are traditions which carry back the characters of the Chinese drama to the 18th century before the Christian era. Others declare the Emperor Wan-Te (ft. about A.D. 580) to have invented the drama; but this honor is more usually given to the emperor Yuen-Tsung (A.D. 720), who is likewise remembered as a radical musical reformer. Pantomimes henceforth fell into disrepute; and the history of the Chinese drama from this date is divided, with an accuracy we cannot profess to control, into four distinct periods. Each of these periods, we are told, has a style, and each style a name of its own; but these names, such as Diversions of the Woods in Flower, have little or no meaning for us; and it would therefore be useless to cite them.

The first period is that of the dramas composed under the Tang dynasty, from a.n. 720 to 907. These pieces, called Tchhouen-Khi, were limited to the representation of extraordinary events, and were therefore, in design at least, a species of heroic drama. The ensuing times of civil war interrupted~ the pleasures of peace and prosperity (a Chinese phrase for dramatic performances)which, however, revived.

The second period is that of the Tsung Dynasty, -from 960 to 1119. The plays of this period are called Hi-K hio, and presented what became a standing peculiarity of the Chinese CIaszI~1 drama, viz, that in them figures a principal personage age.

who sings.

The third and best-known age of the Chinese drama was under the Kin and Yuen dynasties, from 1125 to 1367. The plays of this period are called Vuen-Pen and Tsa-Ki; the latter seem to have resembled the Hi-Khio, and to have treated very various subjects. The Yuen-Pen are the plays from which our literary knowledge of the Chinese drama is mainly derived; the short pieces called Yen-Kia were in the same style, but briefer. The list of dramatic authors under the Yuen dynasty, the most important period in Chinese literary annals, which covered the years 1260 to 1368, is tolerably extensive, comprising 85, among whom four are designated as courtesans; the number of plays composed by these and by anonymous authors is reckoned at not less than 564. In 1735 the Jesuit missionary Joseph Henry Prmare first revealed to Europe the existence of the tragedy Tchao-Chi-Cu-Eul (The Little Orphan of the House of Tchao), which was founded upon an earlier piece treating of the fortunes of an heir to the imperial throne, who was preserved in a mysterious box like another Cypselus or Moses. Voltaire seized the theme of the earlier play for a rhetorical tragedy, LOrp/selin de la Chine, in which he coolly professes it was his intention to paint the manners of the Chinese and the Tartars. The later play, which is something less elevated in the rank of its characters, and very decidedly less refined in treatment, was afterwards retranslated by Stanislas Jvlien; and to the labors of this scholar, of Sir J. F. Davis (1795-1890) and of Antoine Bazin (1799-1863), we owe a series of translated Chinese dramas, among which there can be no hesitation whatever in designating the master-piece.

The justly famous Pi-Pa-Ki (The Story of tile Lute) belongs to a period rather later than that of the Yuen plays, having been composed towards the close of the 14th century by ~, ,~ K! Kao-Tong-Kia, and reproduced in 1404, under the Ming ~

dynasty, with the alterations of Mao-Tseu, a commentator of learning and taste. Pi-Pa-Ki, which as a domestic drama of sentiment possesses very high merit, long enjoyed a quite exceptional popularity in China; it was repeatedly republished with laudatory prefaces, and so late as the 18th century was regarded as a monument of morality, and as the master-piece of the Chinese theatre. It would seem to have remained without any worthy competitors; for, although it had been originally designed to produce a reaction against the immorality of the drama then in fashion, especially of Wang-Chi-Fous celebrated Si-Siang-Ki (The Story of the Western Pavilion), yet the fourth period of the Chinese drama, under the Ming dynasty, from 1368 to 1644, exhibited no improvement. What (says the preface to the 1704 edition of Fi-Pa-Ki) ~J~:cay do you find there? Farcical dialogue, a mass of scenes in which one fancies one hears the hubbub of the streets or the ignoble language of the highways, the extravagances of demons and spirits, in addition to love-intrigues repugnant to delicacy of manners. Nor would it appear that the Chinese theatre has ever recovered from its decay.

In theory, no drama could be more consistently elevated in purpose and in tone than the Chinese. Every play, we learn, should have both a moral and a meaning. A virtuous Th ~aim is imposed upon Chinese dramatists by an article ~51~~5 of the penal code of the empire; and those who write immoral plays are to expect after death a purgatory which will last so long as these plays continue to be performed. In practice, however, the Chinese drama falls far short of its ideal; indeed, according to the native critic already cited, among ten thousand playwrights not one is to be found intent upon perfecting the education of mankind by means of precepts and examples.

The Chinese are, like the Hindus, unacquainted with the distinction between tragedy and comedy; they classify their plays according to subjects in twelve categories. It may be -.. Religious doubted whether what seems the highest of these is drama. actually such; for the religious element in the Chinese drama is often sheer buffoonery. Moreover, Chinese religious life, as reflected in the drama, seems one in which creed elbows creed, and superstitions are welcome whatever their origin. Of all religious traditions and doctrines, however, those of Buddhism (which had reached China long before the known beginnings of its drama) are the most prominent; thus, the theme of absolute self-sacrifice is treated in one play, that of entire absorption in the religious life in another.2 The historical flistoilcal drama is not unknown to the Chinese; and although a law prohibits the bringing on the stage of emperors, empresses, and the famous princes, ministers, and generals of former ages, no such restriction. is observed in practice. In Han-Kong- Tseu (The Sorrows of Han), for instance, which treats a national historic legend strangely recalling in parts the story of Esther and the myth of the daughter of Erechtheus, the D t, emperor Yuen-Ti (the representative, to be sure, of owes ~ a fallen dynasty) plays a part, and a sufficiently sorry one. By far the greater number, however, of the Chinese plays accessible in translations belong to the domestic species, and to that subspecies which may be called the criminal drama. Their favorite virtue is piety, of a formal1 or a practical4 kind to parents or parents-in-law; their favorite interest lies in the discovery of long-hidden guilt, and in the vindication of persecuted innocence.f In the choice and elaboration of such subjects they leave little to be desired by the most ardent devotees of the literature of agony. Besides this description of plays, we have at least one love-comedy pure and simplea piece of a nature not tolerably mild, but ineffably harmless.6 Free in its choice of themes, the Chinese drama is likewise remarkably unrestricted in its range of characters. Chinese society, it is well known, is not based, like Indian, upon the principle of caste; rank is in China determined by office, and this again depends on the results of examination. These familiar facts are constantly brought home to the reader of Chinese plays. The Tchoang-Yuen, or senior classman on the list of licentiates, is the flower of Chinese society, and the hero of many a drama;1 and it is a proud boast that for years ones ancestors have held high posts, which they owed to their literary successes. 8 On the other hand, a person who has failed in his military examination, becomes, as if by a natural transition, a man-eating monster.9 But of mere class the Chinese drama is no respecter, painting with noteworthy freedom the virtues and the vices of nearly every phase of society. The same liberty is taken with regard to the female sex; it is clear that in earlier times there were few vexatious restrictions in Chinese life upon the social intercourse between men and women. The variety of female characters in the Chinese drama is great, ranging from the heroine who sacrifices herself for the sake of an empire ii to the well-brought-up young lady who avers that woman came into the world to be obedient, to unravel skeins of silk, and to work with her needle nfrom the chambermaid who contrives the most gently sentimental of rend ezvous,i2 to the reckless courtesan who, like another Millwood, upbraids the partner of her guilt on his suing for mercy, and bids him die with her in hopes of a reunion after death.1 In marriage the first or legitimate wife is distinguished from the second, who is at times a ci-devant courtesan, and towards whom the feelings of the former vary between bitter jealousy i4 and sisterly kindness.15

The conduct of the plays exhibits much ingenuity, and an aversion from restrictions of time and place; in fact, the nature of the plot constantly covers a long series of years, and spans wide intervals of local distance. The plays are divided into acts and scenesthe former being usually four in number, at times i Tire Self-Sacrifice of Tchao-Li.

2 Lai-Seng-Tchai (The Debt to be Paid in the Next World).

~ Lao-Seng-Eul. Pi-Pa-Ki.

The Circle of Chalk (HoeI-Lan-Ki); The Tunic Matched; The Revenge of Teou-Ngo.

6 Tchao-Mel-Hiang (The Intrigues of a Chambermaid).

~ Tchao-MeI-Hiang; Ho-Han-Chan; Pi-Pa-Ki.

8 Hoel-Lan-Ki, Prol. sc. i. Tchao-Li.

iO Han-Kong-Tseu. u Pi-Pa-Ki, Sc. 2.

u Tchao-MeI-Hiang. -

18He-Lang-Tan, act iv.; cf. Hoei-Lan-Ki, act iv.

4Hoei-Lan-Ki. i~ Pi-Pa-Ki.

with an induction ~r narrative prologue spoken by some of the characters (Sie- Tsen). Favorite plays were, however, allowed to extend to great length; the Pi-Pa-Ki is divided Consfrucinto 24 sections, and in another recension apparently tion and comprised 42. I do not wish, says the manager conduct of in the prologue, that this performance should last plots. too long; finish it to-day, but cut out nothing whence it appears that the performance of some plays occupied more than a single day. The rule was always observed that a separate act should be given up to the denouement; while, according to a theory of which it is not always easy to trace the operation, the perfection of construction was sought in the dualism or contrast of scene and scene, just as the perfection of diction was placed in the parallelism or antithesis of phrase and phrase. Being subject to no restrictions as to what might, or might not, be represented on the stage, the conduct of the plots allowed of the introduction of almost every variety of incidents. Death takes place, in sight of the audience, by starvation,i6 by drowning,17 by poison,f8 by execution; i~ flogging and torture are inflicted on the stage;2 wonders are wrought;21 and magic is brought into play; n the ghost of an innocently-executed daughter calls upon her father to revenge her foul murder, and assists in person at the L.ubsequent judicial enquiry.n Certain peculiarities in the conduct of the business are due to the usages of society rather than to dramaturgic laws. Marriages are generally managed at least in the higher spheres of societyby ladies professionally em~iloyed as matrimonial agents.24 The happy resolution of the ~.sdus of the action is usually brought about by the direct interposition of superior official authority2fa tribute to the paternal system of government, which is the characteristic Chinese variety of the deus ex machina. This naturally tends to the favorite close of a glorification of the emperor,Is resembling that of Louis XIV. at the end of Tartufe, or in spirit, at all events, those of the virgin queen in more than. one Elizabethan, play. It should be added that the characters save the necessity for a hill of the play by persistently announcing and re-announcing their names and genealogies, and the necessity for a book by frequently recapitulating the previous course of the plot.

One peculiarity of the Chinese drama remains to be noticed. The chief character of a play represents the author as well as the personage; he or she is hero or heroine and chorus in The prinone. This is brought about by the heros (or heroines) cipalpersin ging the poetical passages, or those containing sonage maxims of wisdom and morality, or reminiscences and who sings. examples drawn from legend or history. Arising out of the dialogue, these passages at the same time diversify it, and give to it such elevation and brilliancy as it can boast. The singing character must be the principal personage in the action, but may be taken from any class of society. If this personage dies in the course of the play, another sings in his place. From the mention of this distinctive feature of the Chinese drama, it will be obvious how unfair it would be to judge of any of its productions, without a due appreciation of the lyric passages, which do not appear to be altogether restricted to the singing of the principal personage, for other characters frequently recite verses. In these lyrical or didactic passages are to be sought those flowers of diction which, as Julien has shown, consist partly in the use of a metaphorical phraseology of infinite nicety in its variationssuch as a long series of phrases compounded with the word signifying jet and expressing severally the ideas ofrarity, distinction, beauty, &c., or as others derived from the names of colors, birds, beasts, precious metals, elements, constellations, &c., or alluding to favorite legends or anecdotes. These features constitute the literary element par excellence of Chinese dramatic composition. At the same time, though it is impossible for the untrained reader to be alive to i6 Pi-Pa-Ki, sc. 15. Ho-Han-Chan, act ii.

~i HoeI-Lan-Ki, act i. a Teou-Ngo- Vuen, act iii.

~ Hoei-Lan-Ki, act ii. ii Teou-Ngo- Yuen, act iii.

~ Pi-Pa-Ki, sc. 18.23 Teou-Ngo- Vuen, act. iv.

24 Tchao-Me-i-Hiang; Pi-P~-Ki. 25Hoei-Lan-Ki.


the charms of so unfamiliar a phraseology, it may be questioned whether even in its diction the Chinese drama can claim to be regarded as really poetic. It may abound in poetic oinament; it is not, like the Indian, bathed in poetry.

On the other hand, the merits of this dramatic literature are by no means restricted to ingenuity of construction and variety Merits ~ of charactermerits, in themselves important, which the no candid criticism will deny to it. Its master-piece Chinese is not only truly pathetic in the conception and the drama, main situations, of its action, but includes scenes of singular grace and delicacy of treatmentsuch as that where the remarried husband of the deserted heroine in vain essays in the presence of his second wife to sing to his new lute, now that he has cast aside the old.1 In the last act of a tragedy appealing at once to patriotism and to pity, there is true imaginative power in the picture of the emperor, when aware of the departure, but not of the death, of his beloved, sitting in solitude broken only by the ominous shriek of the wild-fowl.2 Nor is the Chinese drama devoid of humour. The lively abigail who has to persuade her mistress into confessing herself in love by arguing (almost like Beatrke) that humanity bids us love men the corrupt judge (a common type in the Chinese plays) who falls on his knees before the prosecuting parties to a suit as before the father and mother who give him sustenance,4 may serve as examples; and in Pi-Pa-Ki there is a scene of admirable burlesque on the still more characteristic theme of the humours of a competitive examination.5 If such illustrations could not easily be multiplied, they are at least worth citing in order to deprecate a perfunctory criticism on the qualities of a dramatic literature as to which our materials for judgment are still scanty.

While in the north of China houses are temporarily set apart for dramatic performances, in the south these are usually confined to theatres erected in the streets (Hi- Thai).

sce; civ Thus scenic decorations of any importance must always costume, have been out of question in the Chinese theatre. The costumes, on the other hand, are described as magnificent; they are traditionally those worn before the i~th century, in accordance with the historical coloring of most of the plays. ActOrS. The actors profession is not a respectable one in China, the managers being in the habit of buying children of slaves and bringing them up as slaves of their own. Women may not appear on the stage, since the emperor Kien-Lung admitted an actress among his concubines; female parts are therefore played by lads, occasionally by eunuchs.


The Japanese drama, as all evidence seems to agree in showing, still remains what in substance it has always beenan amusement passionately loved by the lower orders, but hardly dignified by literature deserving the name. Apart from its native elements of music, dance and song, and legendary or historical narrative and pantomime, it is clearly to be regarded as a Chinese importation; nor has it in its more advanced forms apparently even attempted to emancipate itself from the reproduction of the conventional Chinese types. As early as the ~lose of the 6th century Hada Kawatsu, a man of Chinese extraction, but born in Japan, is said to have been ordered to arrange entertainments for the benefit of the country, and to have written as many as thirty-three plays. The Japanese, however, ascribe the origin of their drama to the introduction of the dance called Sambso as a charm against a volcanic depression of, the earth which occurred in 805; and this dance appears still to be used as a prelude to theatrical exhibitions. In 1108 lived a woman called Iso no Zenji, who is looked upon as the mother of the Japanese drama. But her performances seem to have been confined to dancing or posturing in male attire (otokomai); and the introiPi-paKi, sc. 14. - 2Hai1-KongTseu.

$ Tchtw-Mei-Hiang, act ii.

Teou-Ngo- Vuen, act ii.; cf. Hoei-Lan-Ki.

~ Ps-Pa-Ki, sc. 5.

ducition of the drama proper is universally attributed to Sarnwaka Kanzabur, who in 1624 opened the first theatre (sibaia) at Yeddo. N~t long afterwards (1651) the playhouses were removed to their present site in the capital; and both here and in the provincial towns, especially of the north, the drama has since continued to flourish. Persons of rank were formerly never seen at these theatres; but actors were occasionally engaged to play in private at the houses of the nobles, who appear themselves to, have taken part in performances of a species of opera affected by them, always treating patriotic legends and called no. The mikado has a court theatre.

The subjects of the serious popular plays are mainly mythologicalthe acts of the great spirit Day-Sin, the incarnation of Brahma, and similar themesor historical, treating Subjects of of the doings of the early dynasties. In these the the plays.

names of the personages are changed. An example of the latter class is to be found in the jOruri, or musical romance, in which the universally popular tale of Chiushingura (The Loyal League) has been amplified and adapted for theatrical representation. This famous narrative of the feudal fidelity of the fortyseven ronins, who about the year 1699 revenged their chiefs judicial suicide upon the arrogant official to whom it was due, is stirring rather than touching in its incidents, and contains much bloodshed, together with a tea-house scene which suffices as a specimen of the Japanese comedy of manners. One of the books of this dramatic romance consists of a metrical description, mainly in dialogue, of a journey which (after the fashion of Indian plays) has to be carried out on the stage. The performance of one of these quasi-historical dramas sometimes lasts over several day~ they are produced with much pomp of costume; but the acting is very realistic, and han-han is performed, almost to the life. Besides these tragic plays (in which, however, comic intermezzos are often inserted) the Japanese have middle-class domestic dramas of a very realistic kind. The language of these, unlike that of Chinese comedy, is often gross and scurrilous, but intrigues against married women are rigidly excluded. FaiIy and demon operas and ballets, and farces and intermezzos, form a~i easy transition to the interludes of tumblers andjugglers. As a specimen of nearly every class of play is required to make up a Japanese theatrical entertainment, which lasts from sunrise to sunset, and as the lower houses appropriate and mutilate the plays of the higher, it is clear that the status of the Japanese theatre cannot be regarded as at all high. III respect, however; of its movable scenery and properties, it is in advance of its Chinese prototype. The performers are, except in the ballet, males only; and the comic acting is said to be excellent of its kind. Though the leading actors enjoy great popularity and very respectable salaries, the class is held in contempt, and the companies were formerly recruited from the lowest sources. The disabilities under which they lay have, however, been removed; a Dramatic Reform Association has been organized by a number of noblemen and scholars, and a theatre on European lines built (see JAPAN).



Such dramatic examples of the drama as may be discoverable in Siam will probably have to be regarded as belonging to a branch of the Indian drama. The drama of the Malay Siam populations of Java and the neighboring island of Sumatra also resembles the Indian, to which it may have owed what development it has reached. The Javanese, as we learn, distinguish among the lyrics sung on occasions of popular significance the pant on, a short simile or fable, ~u,~m~itra, and the tcharita, a more advanced species, taking the &c.

form of dialogue and sung or recited by actors proper.

From the tchaniia the Javanese drama, which in its higher forms treats the stories of gods and kings, appears to have been derived. As in the Indian drama, the functions of the director or manager are of great importance; as in the Greek, the performers wear masks, here made of wood. The comic drama is often represented in both Java and Sumatra by parties of strollers consisting of two men and a womana troop sufficient for a wide variety of plot.

Among other more highly civilized Asiatic peoples, the traces of the dramatic art are either few or late. The originally Aryan persian Persians exhibit no trace of the drama in their ample earlier literature. But in its later national development the two species, widely different from one another, of the religious drama or mystery and of the popular comedy or farce have made their appearancethe former in a growth of singular interest.

Of the Persian tazies (lamentations or complaints) the subjects are invariably derived from religious history, and more or less Th. directly connected with the martyrdoms of the EazJ~s. house of Ali. The performance of these episodes or scenes takes place during the first ten days of the month of Muharram, when the adherents of the great Shiite sect all over Persia and Mahommedan India commemorate the ~aths of the Prophet and his daughter Fatima, the mother of Ali, the martyrdoms of Au himself, shamefully murdered in the sanctuary, and of his unoffending son Hasan, done to death by hi3 miserable guilty Deianira of a wife, and lastly the never-to-be-forgotten sacrifice of Hasans brother, the heroic Hosain, on the bloody field of Kerbela (AD. 680). With the establishment in Persia, early in the 16th century, of the Safawid (Sufi) dynasty by the Shiites, the cult of the martyrs Hasan and Hosain secured the official sanction which it has since retained. Thus the performance of these tazis, and the defraying of the equipment of them, are regarded as religious, and in a theological sense meritorious, acts; and the plays are frequently provided by the court or by other wealthy persons, by way of pleasing the people or securing divine favor. The plays are performed, usually by natives of Isfahan, in courtyards of mosques, palaces, inns, &c., and in the country in temporary structures erected for the purpose.

It would seem that, no farther back than the beginning of the 19th century, the tazi~s were still only songs or elegies in honor of the martyrs, occasionally chanted by persons actually representing them. Just, however, as Greek tragedy was formed by a gradual detachment of the dialogue from the choric song of which it was originally only a secondary outgrowth, and by its gradually becoming the substance of the drama, so the Miracle Play of Hasan and Hosain, as we may call it, has now come to be a continuous succession of dramatic scenes. Of these fifty-two have, thanks to the labors of Alexander Chodzko and Sir Lewis Pelly, been actually taken down. in writing, and thirty-seven published in translations; and it is clear that there is no limit to the extension of the treatment, as is shown by such a tazi as the Marriage of Kassem, dealing with the unfortunate Hosains unfortunate son.i The performance is usually opened by a prologue delivered by the rouzkhdn, a personage of semi-priestly character claiming descent from the Prophet, who edifies and excites the audience by a pathetic recitation of legends and vehement admonitions in prose or verse concerning the subject of the action. But the custom seems to have arisen of specially prefacing the drama proper by a kind of induction which illustrates the cause or effect of the sacred storyas for instance that of Amir Timur (Tamerlane), who appears as lamenting and avenging the death of Hosain; or the episode of Josephs betrayal by his brethren, as prefiguring the cruelty shown to All and his sons. At the climax of the action proper Hosain prays to be granted at the day of judgment the key of the treasure of intercession; and the final scene shows the fulfilment of his prayer, which opens paradise to those who have helped the holy martyr, or who have so much as shed a single tear for him. It will thus be seen that not only is this complex and elaborate production unapproached in its length and in its patient development of a long sequence of momentous events by any chronicle history or religious drama, but that it embodies together with the passionately ,cherished traditions of a great religious community the expression of a long-lived resentment of foreign invasionand is thus a kind of Oberammergau play and complaint of the Nibelungs in one. -

I Translated by Comte de Gobineau, in his Religions et philosophies dans lAsie centrale (Paris, 1865).

The other kind of Persian drama is the ~macha (= spectacle), a kind of comedy or farce, sometimes called teglid (disguising), performed by wandering minstrels or jocul at ores called loutys, who travel about accompanied by their baya- ~ach~ dres, and amuse such spectators as they find by their improvised entertainments, which seem to be on much the same level as English interludes. A favorite and ancient variety of the species is the karaguez or puppet-play, of which the protagonist is called ktchel phlvan (the bald hero).

The modern Persian drama seems to have admitted Western influences, as in the case of such comedies as The Plead ers of the Court, and, avowedly, Monsieur Jourdan and Muslali Shah, of whOm the former steals away the wits of young Persia by his pictures of the delights of Paris.

There is no necessity for any reference here to the civilization or to the literature of the Hebrews, or to those of other Semitic peoples, with whom the drama is either entirely wanting, or only appears as a quite occasional and exotic growth. Dramatic elements are apparent in two of the books of the Hebrew scripturethe Book of Ruth and the Book of Job, of which latter the author of Everyman, and Goethe in his Faust, made so impressive a use.

From Polynesia and aboriginal America we also have isolated traces of drama. Among these are the performances, accompanied by dancing and intermixed with recitation and singing, of the South Sea Islanders, first described by ~ Captain Cook, and reintroduced to the notice of students -Pei.tz:

of comparative mythology by W. Wyatt Gill. Of the so-called Inca drama of the Peruvians, the unique relic, Apu Ollantay, said to have been written down in the Quichua tongue from native dictation by Spanish priests shortly after the conquest of Peru, has been partly translated by Sir Clements Markham, and has been rendered into German verse. It appears to be an historic play of the heroic type, combining stirring incidents with a pathos finding expression in at least one lyric of some sweetness the lament of the lost Collyar. With it may be contrasted the ferocious Aztek dramatic ballet, Rabinal-Achi (translated by Brasseur de Bourbourg), of which the text seems rather a succession of warlike harangues than an attempt at dramatic treatment of character. But these are mere isolated curiosities.


The civilization and religious ideas of the Egyptians so vitally influenced the people of whose drama we are about to speak that a reference to them cannot be altogether omitted. The influence of Egyptian upon Greek civilization has probably been overestimated by Herodotus; but while it will never be clearly known how much the Greeks owed to the Egyptians in divers branches of knowledge, it is certain that the former confessed themselves the scholars of Egypt in the cardinal doctrine of its natural theology. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul there found its most solemn. expression in mysterious recitations connected with the rites of sepulture, and treating of the migration of the soul from its earthly to its eternal abode. These solemnities, whose transition into the Hellenic mysteries has usually been attributed to the agency of the Thracian worship of Dionysus, undoubtedly contained a dramatic element, upon the extent of which it is, however, useless to speculate. The ideas to which they sought to give utterance centred in that of Osiris, the vivifying power or universal soul of nature, whom Herodotus simply identifies with the Dionysus of the Greeks. The same deity was likewise honored by processions among the rural Egyptian population, which, according to the same authority, in nearly all respects except the absence of choruses~ resembled the Greek phallic processions in honor of the wine-god.

That the Egyptians looked upon music as an important science seems fully established; it was diligently studied by their priests, though not, as among the Greeks, forming a part~ of general education, and in the sacred rites of their gods they as a rule permitted the use of flute and harp, as well as of vocal music. Dancing was as an art confined to professionalperson,s;~but though the higher orders abstained from its practice, the lower indulged in it on festive occasions, when a tendency to pantomime naturally asserted itself, and licence and wanton buffoonery prevailed, as in the early rustic festivals of the Greek and Italian peoples. Of a dance of armed men, on the other hand, there seems no satisfactory trace in the representations of the Egyptian monuments.


Whatever elements the Greek drama may, in the sources from which it sprang, have owed to Egyptian, or Phrygian, or other Asiatic influences, its development was independent Pefl claus and self-sustained. Not only in its beginnings, but so long as the stage existed in Greece, the drama was in intimate connection with the national religion. This is the most signal feature of its history, and one which cannot in the same degree or to the same extent be ascribed to the drama of any other people, ancient or modern. Not only did both the great branches of the Greek drama alike originate in the usages of religious worship, but they never lost their formal union with it, though one of them (comedy) in its later growth abandoned all direct reference to its origin. Hellenic polytheism was at once so active and so fluid or flexible in its anthropomorphic formations, that no other religious system has ever with the same conquering force assimilated to itself foreign elements, or with equal vivacity and variety developed its own. Thus, the worship of Dionysus, introduced into Greece by the Phoenicians as that of the tauriform sun-god whom his worshippers adored with loud cries (whence Bacchus or Iacchus), and the god of generation (whence his phallic emblem) and production, was brought into connection with the Dorian religion of the sun-god Apollo. Apollo and his sister, again, corresponded to the Pelasgian and Achaean divinities of sun and moon, whom the Phoenician Dionysus and Demeter superseded, or with whose worship theirs was blended. Dionysus, whose rites were specifically conducted with reference to his attributes as the wine-god, was attended by deified representations of his original worshippers, who wore the skin of the goat sacrificed to him. These were the sat yrs. Out of the connected worships of Dionysus, Bacchus, Apollo and Demeter sprang the beginnings of the Greek drama.

Both tragedy and comedy, says Aristotle, originated in. a rude and unpremeditated mannerthe first from the leaders of the dithyramb, and the second from those who led off the phallic songs. This diversity of origin, and the distinction jealously maintained down to the latest times between the two branches of the dramatic art, even where they might seem to come into actual contact with one another, necessitate a separate statement as to the origin and history of either.

The custom of offering thanks to the gods by hymns and dances in the places of public resort was first practised by the Greeks in the Dorian states, whose whole system of life was organized on a military basis. Hence the dances of the Dorians originally taught or imitated the movements of soldiers, and their hymns were warlike chants. Such were the beginnings of the chorus, and of its songs (called paeans, from an epithet of Apollo), accompanied first by the phorminx and then by the flute. A step in advance was taken when the poet with his trained singers and dancers, like the Indian stra-dhdra, performed these religious functions as the representative of the population. From the Done paean at a very early period several styles of choral dancing formed themselves, to which the three styles of dance in scenic productionsthe tragic, the comic and the satyricare stated afterwards to have corresponded. But none of these could have led to a literary growth. This was due to the introduction among the Dorians Th di - of the dithyramb (from 87o1, descended from Zeus, and ,rarnb. ~ Opicq.q3os, the Latin triumphus), originally a song of revellers, probably led by a flute-player and accompanied by the music of other Eastern instruments, in which it was customary in Crete to celebrate the birth of Bacchus (the doubly-born) and possibly also his later adventures. The leader of the band (coryphaeus) may be supposed to have at times assumed the character of the wine-god, whose worshippers bore aloft the vineclad thyrsus. The dithyramb was reduced to a definite form by the Lesbian Anon (fi. 610), who composed regular poems, turned the moving band of worshippers into a standing or cyclic chorus of attendants on Dionysus a chorus of satyrs, a tragic or goat chorusinvented a style of music adapted to the character of the chorus, and called these songs tragedies or goat-songs. Anon, whose goat-chorus may perhaps have some connection with an early Arcadian worship of Pan, associated it permanently with Dionysus, and thus became the inventor of lyrical tragedy a transition stage between the dithyramb and the regular drama.

His invention, or the chorus with which it dealt, was established according to fixed rules by his contemporary Stesichorus. About the time when Anon introduced these improvements into the Dorian city of Corinth, the (likewise Dorian) ~amiies at Sicyon honored the hero-king Adrastus by tragic choruses. Hence the invention of tragedy was ascribed by the Sicyonians to their poet Epigenes; but this step, significant for the future history of the Greek drama, of employing the Bacchic chorus for the celebration of other than Bacchic themes, was soon. annulled by the tyrant Cleisthenes.

The element which transformed lyrical tragedy into the tragic drama was added by the Ionians. The custom of the recitation of poetry by, wandering minstrels, called Th h rhapsodes (from t5itf3i3os, staff, or from Mirmtv, to piece s0e. together), first sprang up in the Ionia beyond the sea; to such minstrels was due the spread of the Homeric poems and of subsequent epic cycles. These recitations, with or without musical accompaniment, soon included gnomic or didactic, as well as epic, verse; if Homer was a rhapsode, so was the sententious or moral Hesiod. The popular effect of these recitations was enormously increased by the metrical innovations of Archilochus (from 708), who invented the trochee and the iambus, the latter the arrowy metre which is the native form of satirical invectivethe specie~ of composition in. which Archilochus excelledthough it was soon used for other purposes also. The recitation of these iambics may already have nearly approached to theatrical declamation. The rhapsodes were welcome guests at popular festivals, where they exercised their art in mutual emulation, or ultimately recited parts, perhaps the whole, of longer poems. The recitation of a long epic may thus have resembled theatrical dialogue; even more so must the alternation of iambic poems, the form being frequently an address in the second person. The rhapsode was in some sense an actor; and when these recitations reached Attica, they thus brought with them the germs of theatrical dialogue.

The rhapsodes were actually introduced into Attica at a very early period; the Iliad, we know, was chanted at the Brauronia, a rural festival of Bacchus, whose worship had early fflvefltlon entered Attica, and was cherished among its rustic of the population. Meanwhile the cyclic chorus of the Dorians had found its way into Attica and Athens, rams. ever since the Athenians had recognized the authority of the great centre of the Apolline religion at Delphi. From the second half of the 6th century onwards the chorus of satyrs formed a leading feature of the grcat festival of Dionysus at Athens. It therefore only remained for the rhapsodic and the cyclicin other words, or the epic and the choralelements to coalesce; and this must have been brought about by a union of the two accompaniments of religious worship in the festive rites of Bacchus, and by the domestication of these rites in the ruling city. This occurred in the time of Peisistratus, perhaps after his restoration in 554. To Thespis (534), said to have been a contemporary of the tyrant and a native of an Attic deme (Icaria), the invention of tragedy is accordingly ascribed. Whether his name be that of an actual person or not, his claim to be regarded as the inventor of tragedy is founded on the statement that he introduced an actor (&1roKpLr,~c, originally, answerer), doubtless, at first, generally the poet himself, who, instead of merely alternating his recitations with the songs of the, chorus, addressed his speech to its leaderthe coryjihaeuswith whom he thus carried on ~

species of dialogue. Or, in other words, the leader of the chorus (coryphaeus), instead of addressing himself to the chorus, held converse with the actor. The chorus stood round its leader in front of the Bacchic altar (thymele); the actor stood with the coryphaeus, who had occupied a more elevated position in order to be visible above his fellows, on a rude table, or possibly on a cart, though the wagon of Thespis may be a fiction, due to a confusion between his table and the wagon of Susarion. In any case, we have here, with the beginnings of dialogue, the beginning of the stage. It is a significant minor invention ascribed to Thespis, that he disguised the actors face first by means of a pigment, afterwards by a mask. In the dialogue was treated some myth relating to Bacchus, or to some other deity or hero. Whether or not Thespis actually wrote tragedies (and there seems no reason to doubt it), Phrynichus and one or two other poets are mentioned as having carried on choral tragedy as set on foot by him, and as having introduced improvements into its still predominating lyrical element. The step which made dramatic action possible, and with which the Greek drama thus really began, was, as is distinctly stated by Aristotle, taken by Aeschylus. He added a second actor; and, by reducing the functions of the chorus, he further established the dialogue as the principal part of tragedy. Sophocles afterwards added a third actor, by which change the preponderance of the dialogue was made complete.

If the origin of Greek comedy is simpler in its nature than that of Greek tragedy, the beginnings of its progress are involved in more obscurity. Its association with religious wor1~l~iI~~Of ship was not initial; its foundations lay in popular mirth, though religious festivals, and those of the vintage god in particular, must from the first have been the most obvious occasions for its exhibition. It is said to have been invented by Susarion, a native of Doric Megaris, whose inhabitants were famed for their coarse humour, which they communicated to their own and other Dorian colonies in Sicily, to this day the home of vivacious mimic dialogue. In the rural Bacchic vintage festivals bands of jolly companions (ic&,uos, properly a revel continued after supper) went about in carts or afoot, carrying the phallic emblem, and indulging in the ribald licence of wanton mirth. From the song sung in these processions or at the Bacchic feasts, which combined the praise of the god with gross personal ridicule, and was called comus in a secondary sense, the Bacchic reveller taking part in it was called a comussinger or comoedus. These phallic processions, which were afterwards held in most Greek cities, and in Athens seem to have early included a topical speech as well as a choral song, determined the character of Old Attic comedy, whose most prominent feature was an absolute licence of personal vilification.

Thus independent of one another in their origin, Greek tragedy and comedy never actually coalesced. The satyr-drama, though in some sense it partook of the nature of both, The satyr- was in its origin as in its history connected with tragedy alone, whose origin it directly recalled. Pratinas of Philus, a contemporary of Aeschylus in his earlier days, is said to have restored the tragic chorus to the satyrs; i.e. he first produced dramas in which, though they were the same in form and theme as the tragedies, the choric dances were different and entirely carried on by satyrs. The tragic poets, while never writing comedies, henceforth also composed satyrdramas; but neither tragedies nor satyr-dramas were ever written by the, comic poets, and it was in conjunction with tragedies only that the satyr-dramas were performed. The theory of the Platonic Socrates, that the same man ought to be the best tragic and the best comic poet, was among the Greeks never exemplified in practice. The so-called hilaro ~ tragedy or tragi-comedy of later writers, perhaps in some of its features in a measure anticipated by Euripides,i in form nowise differed from tragedy; it merely contained a comic element in its characters, and invariably had a happy ending. It is an instructive fact that the serious and sentimental element in the comedy of Menander and his con ~ Alcestis; Orestes.

temporaries did far more to destroy the essential difference between the two great branches of the Greek dramatic art.

Periods of Greek Tragedy.The history of Greekwhich to all intents and purposes remained Attictragedy divides itself into three periods.

I. The Period before A eschylus (535499) .From this we have but a few names of authors and playsthose of the former being (besides Thespis) Choerilus, Phrynichus and Pratinas, all of whom lived to contend with Aeschylus for the tragic prize. To each of them certain innovations are ascribedfor instance the introduction of female characters to Phrynichus. He is best remembered by the overpowering effect said to have been created by his Capture of Miletus, in which the chorus consisted of the wives of the Phoenician sailors in the service of the Great King.

II. The Classical Period of Attic Tragedythat of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, and their contemporaries (499405). To this belong all the really importan.t phases in the progress of Greek tragedy, which severally connect themselves with the names of its three great masters. They may be regarded as the representatives of successive generations of Attic history and life, though of course in these, as in the progress of their art itself, there is an unbroken continuity.

Aeschylus (525456) had not only fought both at Marathon and at Salamis against those Persians whose rout he celebrated with patriotic price, 2 but he had been trained in the Aeschylus. Eleusinian mysteries, and strenuously asserted the value of the institution most intimately associated with the primitive political traditions of the pastthe Areopagus.3 He had been born in the generation after Solon, to whose maxims he fondly clung; and it was the Dorian development of Hellenic life and the philosophical system based upon it with which his religious and moral convictions were imbued. Thus even upon the generation which succeeded him, and to which the powerful simplicity of his dramatic and poetic diction seemed strange, the ethical loftiness of his conceptions and the sublimity of his dramatic imagination fell like the note of a mightier age. To us nothing is more striking than the conciliatory tendencies of his conservative mind, and the progressive nature of what may have seemed to his later contemporaries antiquated ideals.

Sophocles (495405) was the associate of Pericles, and an upholder of his authority, rather than a consistent pupil of his political principles; but his manhood, and perhaps Sophocles. the maturity of his genius, coincided with the great days when he could stand, like his mighty friend and the community they both so gloriously represented, on the sunny heights of achievement. Serenely pious as well as nobly patriotic, he nevertheless treats the myths of the national religion in the spirit of a conscious artist, contrasting with lofty irony the struggles of humanity with the irresistible march of its destinies. Perhaps he, too, was one of the initiated; and the note of personal responsibility which is the mystics inner religion is recognizable in his view of life.4 The art of Sophocles may in its perfection be said to typify the greatest epoch in the life of Athensan epoch conscious of unequalled achievements, but neither wholly unconscious of the brief endurance which was its destiny.

Euripides (480406), as is the fate of genius of a more complex kind, has been more variously and antithetically judged than either of his great fellow-tragedians. His art has Eui!pides. been described as devoid of the idealism of theirs, his genius as rhetorical rather than poetical, his morality as that of a sophistical wit. On the other hand, he has been recognized not only as the most tragic of the Attic tragedians and the most pathetic of ancient poets, but also as the most humane in his social philosophy and the most various in his psychological insight. At least, though far removed from the more naf age of the national life, he is, both in patriotic spirit and in his choice of themes, genuinely Attic; and if he was haunted on the stage by the daemon of Socrates, he was, like Socrates himself, the representative of an age which was a seedtime as well as a season of decay. His technical innovations 2Persae. 3Eumenides. sAntigone; Oedipus Rex corresponded to his literary characteristics; but neither in the treatment of the chorus, nor in his management of the beginning and the ending of a tragedy, did he introduce any radical change. To Euripides the general progress of dramatic literature nevertheless owes more than to a~iy other ancient poet. Tragedy followed in his footsteps in Greece and at Rome. Comedy owed him something in the later phases of the very Aristophanes who mocked him, and more in the human philosophy expressed in the sentiments~ of Menander; and, when the modern drama came to engraft the ancient upon its own crude growth, his was directly or indirectly the most powerful influence in the establishment of a living connection between them.

The incontestable pre-eminence of the three great tragic poets was in - course of time acknowledged at Athens by the The great usage allowing no tragedies but theirs to be performed tragic more than once, and by the prescription that one masters play of theirs shou~ld be performed at each Dionysia, and their as well as by the law of Lycurgus Cc. 330) which co~ obliged the actors to use, in the case of works of the porares. great masters, authentic copies preserved in the public archives. Yet it is possible that the exclusiveness of these tributes is not entirely justifiable; and not all the tragic poets contemporary with the great writers were among the myriad of younglings derided by Aristophanes. Of those who attained to celebrity Ion of Chios (d. before 4I9) seems to have followed earlier traditions of style than Euripides; Agathon, who survived the latter, on the other hand, introduced certain. innovations of a transnormal kind both into the substance and the form of dramatic composition.i III. Of the third period of Greek tragedy the concluding limit cannot be precisely fixed. Down to the days of Alexander The sue- the Great, Athens had remained the chief home of cessorsof tragedy. Though tragedies must have begun to be the great acted at the Syracusan and Macedonian courts, since masters at Aeschylus, Euripides and Agathon had sojourned Athens. therethough the practice of producing plays at the Dionysia before the allies of Athens must have led to their holding similar exhibitions at homeyet before the death of Alexander we meet with no instance of a tragic poet writing or of a tragedy written outside Athens. An exception should indeed be made in favor of the tyrant Dionysius of Syracuse, who (like Critias in his earlier days at Athens) was addicted to tragic composition. Not all the tragedians of this period, however, were Athenian.s born; though the names of Euphorion, the son of Aeschylus, Iophon, the son of Sophocles, and Euripides and Sophocles, the nephew and the grandson respectively of their great namesakes, illustrate the descent of the tragic art as an hereditary family possession. Chaeremon (fi. 380) already exhibits tragedy on the road to certain decay, for we learn that his plays were written for reading.

Soon after the death of Alexander theatres are found spread over the whole Hellenic world of Europe and Asiaa result to which the practice of the conqueror and his father of celebrating their victories by scenic performances had doubtless contributed. Alexandria having now become a literary centre with which even Athens was in some respects unable to compete, while the latter still remained the home of comedy, the tragic poets flocked to the capital of the Ptolemies; and here, in the canon of Greek poets drawn up by command of Ptolemy Philadeiphus (283247), Alexander the Aetolian undertook the list of tragedies, while Lycophron was charged with the comedies. But Lycophron himself was induded in all the versions of the list of the seven tragic poets famed as the Pleias who still wrote in the style of the Attic masters and followed the rules observed by them. Tragedy and the dramatic art continued to be favored by the later Ptolemies; and about 100 B.C. we meet with the curious phenomenon of a Jewish poet, Ezechiel, composing Greek tragedies, of one of which (the Exodus from Egypt) fragments have come down to us. Tragedy, with the satyr-drama and comedy, survived in Alexandria beyond the days of Cicero and Varro; nor was their doom finally sealed till the emperor Caracalla abolished theatrical performances in the Egyptian capital in AD. 217.

Thus Greek tragedy is virtually only another name for Attic; nor was any departure from the lines laid down The by its three great masters made in most respects by tragedy of the Roman imitators of these poets and of their suc- the great cessors. masters.

Tragedy was defined by Plato as an imitation of the noblest life. Its proper themesthe deeds and sufferings of heroes were familiar to audiences intimately acquainted with the mythology of the national religion. To such SubJects themes Greek tragedy almost wholly confined itself; ~ and in later days there were numerous books which discussed these myths of the tragedians. They only very exceptionally treated historic themes, though one great national calamity,1 and a yet greater national victory,1 and in later times a few other historical subjects,4 were brought upon the stage. Such veiled historical allusions as critical ingenuity has sought not only in passages but in the entire themes of other Attic tragedies i cannot, of course, even if accepted as such, stamp the plays in which they occur as historic dramas. No doubt Attic tragedy, though after a different and more decorous fashion, shared the tendency of her comic sister to introduce allusions to contemporary events and persons; and the indulgence of this tendency was facilitated by the revision (&ao,cui~) to which the works of the great poets were subjected by them, or by those who produced their works after them.6 So far as we know, the subjects of the tragedies before Aeschyius were derived from the epos; and it was a famous saying of this poet that his dramas were but dry scraps from the great banquets of Homer an expression which may be understood as including the poems which belong to the so-called Homeric cycles. Sophocles, Euripides and their successors likewise resorted to the Trojan, and also to the Heraclean and the Thesean myths, and to Attic legend in general, as well as to Theban, to which already Aeschylus had had recourse, and to the side or subsidiary myths connected with these several groups. These substantially remained to the last the themes of Greek tragedy, the Trojan myths always retaining so prominent a place that Lucian could jest on. the universality of their dominion. Purely invented subjects were occasionally treated by the later tragedians; of this innovation Agathon was the originator.7

Thespis is said to have introduced the use of a prologue and a rhesis (speech)the former being probably the opening speech recited by the coryphaeus, the latter the dialogue ~

between him and the actor. It was a natural result ~ of the introduction of the second actor that a second rhesis should likewise be added; and this tripartite division would be the earliest form of the trilogy,three sections of the same myth forming the beginning, middle and end of a single drama, marked off from one another by the choral The songs. From this Aeschylus proceeded to the treat- Aeschyment of these several portions of a myth in three lean separate plays, connected together by their subject trilogy. and by being performed in sequence on a single occasion. This is the Aeschylean trilogy, of which we have only one ,extant example, the Oresteiaas to which critics may differ whether Aeschylus adhered in it to his principle that the strength should Id., Phoenissae; Aeschylus, Persae (Persae-trilogy ?).

~ Moschion, Themistocles; Theodectes, Mausolus; Lycophron, Marathonli; Cassandrei; Socii; Philiscus, Theinistocles.

Aeschylus, Sepiem c. Thebes; Prometheus Vinctus; Da,faistrilogy; Sophocles, Antigone; Oedipus Coloneus; Euripides, Medea.

6 Quite distinct from this revision was the practice against which the law of Lycurgus was directed, of cobbling and heeling the dramas of the great masters by alterations of a kind familiar enough to the students of Shakespeare as improved by Colley Cibber and other experts. The later tragedians also appear to have occasionally transposed long speeches or episodes from one tragedy intoanother a device largely followed by the Roman dramatists, and called conta,nination by Latin writers.

Anthos (The Flower)- -

lie in the middlein other words, that the interest should centre in the second play. In any case, the symmetry of the trilogy The t was destroyed by the practice of performing after it a e ra-. satyr-drama, probably as a rule, if not always, connected in subject with the trilogy, which thus became a tetralogy, though this term, unlike the other, seems to be a purely technical expression invented by the learned.i Sophocles, a more conscious and probably a more self-critical artist than Aeschylus, may be assumed from the first to have elaborated his tragedies with ,greater, care; and to this, as well as to his innovation of the third actor, which materially added to the fulness of the action, we may attribute his introduction of the custom of contending for the prize with single plays. It does not follow that he never produced connected trilogies, though we have no example of such by him or any later author; on the other hand, there is no proof that either he or any of his successors ever departed from the Aeschylean rule of producing three tragedies, followed by a satyr-drama, on the same day. This remained the third and last stage in the history of the construction of Attic tragedy. The tendency of its phcaed action towards complication was a natural progress, acuoas. and is emphatically approved by Aristotle. This complication, in which Euripides excelled, led to his use of prologues, in which one of the characters opens the play by an exposition of the circumstances under which its action begins. This practice, though ridiculed by Aristophanes, was too convenient not to be adopted by the successors of Euripides, and Menander transferred it to comedy. As the dialogue increased in importance, so the dramatic significance of the. chorus diminished. While in Aeschylus it mostly, and in, Sophocles occasionally, takes part in the action, its songs could not but more and more approach the character of lyrical intermezzos; and this they openly assumed when Agathon began the practice of inserting choral songs (embolima) which had nothing to do with the action of the play. In ,the general contrivance of their actions it was only natural that, as compared with Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides should exhibit an advance in both freedom and ingenuity; but the palm, due to a treatment at once piously adhering to the substance of the ancient legends and original in an. effective dramatic treatment of them,, must be given to Sophocles. Euripides was, moreover, less skilful in untying complicated actions than in weaving them; hence his frequent resort 2 to the expedient of the deus ex machina, which Sophocles employs only in his latest play.1

The other distinctions to be drawn between the dramatic qualities of the three great tragic masters must be mainly based Ch upon a critical estimate of the individual genius of ~arac. each. In the characters of their tragedies, Aeschylus and Sophocles avoided those lapses of dignity with which from one point of view Euripides has been charged by Aristophanes and other critics, but which, from another, connect themselves with his humanity. If his men and women are less heroic and statuesque, they are, more like men and women. Aristotle objected to the later tragedians that, compared with the great masters, they were deficient in the drawing of character by which he meant the lofty drawing of lofty character. In ,~, diction, the transition is even more manifest from the D Ofl. helmeted phrases of Aeschylus, who had Miltons love of long words and sonorous proper names, to the play of Euripides smooth and diligent tongue; but to a sustained style even he remained essentially true, and it was reserved for his successors to introduce into tragedy the low speech i.e. the conversational languageof comedy. Upon the whole, however, the Euripidean diction seems to have remained the standard of later tragedy, the flowery style of speech introduced by Agathon finding no permanent favor.

1 One satyr-drama only is preserved to us, the Cyclops of Euripides, a dramatic version of the Homeric tale of the visit of Odysseus to Polyphemus. Lycophron, by using the satyr-drama (in his Menedemus) as a vehicle of personal ridicule applied it to a purpose resembling that of Old Attic Comedy.

2 Ion; Supplices; Iphigenia in Tauris; Electra; Helena; Hsppolytus; Andromache. Philoctetes.

Finally, A~schyIus is said to have made certain reforms, in tragic costume of which the object is self-evidentto have improved the mask, and to have invented the cot humus Improveor buskin, upon which the actor was raised to loftier meats In stature. Euripides was not afraid of rags and tatters; costume, but the sarcasms of Aristophanes on this head seem &C.

feeble to those who are aware that they would apply to King Lear as well as to Telephus.

Periods of Greek Comedy.The history of Greek comedy is likewise that of an essentially Attic growth, although Sicilian comedy was earlier in date than her Attic sister or descendant. The former is represented by Epicharmus (fi. 500), and by the names of one or two other poets. It probably had a chorus, and, dealing as it did in a mixture of philosophical discourse, antithetical rhetoric and wild buffoonery, necessarily varied in style. His comedies were the earliest examples of the class distinguished as motoriae from the statariae and the mixtae by their greater freedom and turbulence of movement. Though in some respects Sicilian comedy, seems to have resembled the Middle rathet than the Old Attic comedy, its subjects sometimes, like those of the latter, coincided with the myths of tragedy, of which they were doubtless parodies. The so-called mimes of Sophron (fl. 430) were dramatic scenes from Sicilian everyday life, intended, not for the stage, but for recitation, and classed as male and female according to the sex of the characters.

Attic comedy is usually divided into three periods or species.

I. Old comedy, which dated from the complete establishment of democracy by Pericles, though a comedy directed against Themistocles is mentioned. The Megarean farcical The Old entertainments had long spread in the rural districts comedy. of Attica, and were now introduced into the city,where from about 460 onwards the comus became a matter of public concern. Cratinus (c. 450422) and Crates (c. 449425) first moulded these beginnings into the forms of Attic art. The final victory of Pericles and the democratic party may be reckoned from the ostracism of Thucydides (444); and so eagerly was the season. of freedom employed by the comic poets that already four years afterwards a lawwhich, however, remained only a short time in forcelimited their licence. Cratinus,4 an exceedingly bold and broad satirist, apparently of conservative tendencies, was followed by Eupolis (446after 415), every one of whose plays appears to have attacked some individual,1 by Phrynichus, Plato and others; but the representative of old comedy in its fullest development is Aristophanes (c. 444C. 380), a comic poet of unique and unsurpassed genius. Dignified by the acquisition of a chorus (more numeroustwenty-four to twelve or afterwards fifteenthough, of a less costly kind than the tragic) of masked actors, and of scenery and Ar~

machinery, as well as by a corresponding literary phnes. elaboration and elegance of style, Old Attic comedy nevertheless remained true both to its origin and to the purposes of its introduction into the free imperial city. Its special season was at the festival of the Lenaea, when the Athenians could enjoy the fun against one another without espying strangers; but it was also performed at the Great Dionysia. It borrowed much from tragedy, but it retained the phallic abandonment of the old rural festivals, the licence of word and gesture, and the audacious directness of personal invective. These characteristics are not features peculiar to Aristophanes. He was twitted by some of the older comic poets with having degenerated from the full freedom of the art by a tendency to refinement, and he took credit to himself for having superseded the time-honored cancan and the stale practical joking of his predecessors by a nobler kind of mirth. But in daring, as he likewise boasted, he had no peer; and the shafts of his wit, though dipped in winelees and at times feathered from very obscene fowl, flew at high game.6 He has been accused of seeking to degrade what he ought to have recognized as good 7; and it has been shown with complete success that he is not to be taken as an impartial or accurate A rchilochi; Pytine (The Bottle).

~ Maricas (Cleon); Baptae (Alcibiades); Lacones (Cimon)

6 Knights. Clouds.

authority on Athenian history. But partisan as he was, he was also a genuine patriot; and his very political sympathies which were conservative, like those of the comic poets in general, not only because it was the old families upon whom the expense of the chore gia in the main devolvedwere such as have often stimulated the most effective political satire. Of the conservative quality of reverence he was, however, altogether devoid; and his love for Athens was that of the most free-spoken of sons. Flexible even in hia religious notions, he was, in this as in other respects, ready to be educated by his times; and, like a true comic poet, he could be witty at the expense even of his friends, and, it might almost be said, of himself. In wealth of fancy i and in beauty of lyric melody, he has few peers among the great poets of all times.

The distinctive feature of Old, as compared with Middle comedy, is the parabasis, the speech in which the chorus, moving towards and facing the audience, addressed it in the para- name of the poet, often abandoning all reference to the action of the play. The loss of the parabasis was involved in the loss of the chorus, of which comedy was deprived in consequence of the general reduction of expenditure upon the comic drama, culminating in the law of the personally aggrieved dithyrambic poet Cinesias (396) ~2 But with the downfall of the independence of Athenian public life, the ground had been cut from under the feet of its most characteristic representative. Already in 414, in the anxious time after the sailing of the Sicilian expedition, the law of Syracosius had prohibited the comic poets from making direct reference to current events; but the Birds had taken their flight above the range of all regulations. The catastrophe of the city (405) was preceded by the temporary overthrow of the democracy (411), and was followed by the establishment of an oligarchical tyranny under Spartan protection; and, when liberty was restored (404), the citizens for a time addressed themselves to their new life in a soberer spirit, and continued (or passed) the law prohibiting the introduction by name of any individual as one of the personages of a play. The change to which comedy had to accommodate itself was one which cannot be defined by precise dates, yet it was not the less inevitable in its progress and results. Comedy, in her struggle for existence, now chiefly devoted herself to literary and social themes, such as the criticism of tragic poets,1 and the literary craze of womens rights,4 and the transition to Middle comedy accomplished itself. Of the later plays of Aristophanes, three6 are without a parabasis, and in the last of those preserved to us which properly belongs to Middle comedy6 the chorus is quite insignificant.

II. Middle comedy, whose period extends over the remaining years of Athenian freedom (from about 400 to 338), thus differed in substance as well as in form from its predecessor. It Middle is represented by the names of thirty-seven writers comedy. (more than double the number of poets attributed to Old comedy), among whom Eubulus, Antiphanes and Alexis are stated to have been pre-eminently fertile and successful. It was a comedy of manners as well as character, although its ridicule of particular classes of men tended to the creation of standing types, such as soldiers, parasites, courtesans, revellers, anda favorite figure already drawn by Aristophanes7 the self-conceited cook. In style it necessarily inclined to become more easy and conversational and to substitute insinuation for invective; while in that branch which was devoted to the parodying of tragic myths its purpose may have been to criticize, but its effect must have been to degrade. This species of the comic art had found favor at Athens already before the close of the great civil war; its inventor was the Thasian Hegemon, whose Gigantomachia was amusing the Athenians on the day when the news arrived of the Sicilian disaster.

i Birds.

2 Strattis, The Choricide (against Cinesias).

i Aristophanes, Frogs; Phrynichus, Musge; Tragoedi. ,kristophanes, Ecclesiazusae.

6 Lysistraki; Thesmophoriazusae; Plutus II.

~ Plutus. ~ A ~~olosicon.

III. New comedy, which is dated from the establishment of the Macedonian supremacy (338), is merely a further development of Middle, from which indeed it was not distinguished Tb N till the time of Hadrian. If its favorite types were coied,~ more numerous, including the captain (of mercenaries) ~the original of a long line of comic favoritesthe cunning slave, &c., they were probably also more conventional. New comedy appears to have first constituted love intrigues the main subject of dramatic actions. The most famous of the sixty-four writers said to have belonged to this period of comedy were Philemon (fi. from 330), Menander (342329) and his contemporary Diphilus. Of these authors we know something Ml from fragments, but more from their Latin adapters nde~~nl~ Plautus and Terence. As comedians of character, ~der. they were limited by a range of types which left little room for originality of treatment; in the construction of their plots they were skilful rather than varied. In style, as well as to some extent in construction, Menander seems to have taken Euripides as his model, infusing into his comedy an element of moral and sentimental reflection, which refined if it did not enliven it.

New comedy, and with it Greek comedy proper, is regarded as having come to an end with Posidippus (fi. c. 280). Other comic writers of a later date are, however, mentioned, Decay of among them Rhinthon of Tarentum (fi. c. zoo), whose comedy.

mixed compositions have been called by various names, among them by that of phlyacographies (from phi yax, idle chatter). He was succeeded by Sopater, Sotades and others; but the dramatic element in these often obscene, but not perhaps altogether frivolous, travesties is not always clearly ascertainable. It is certain that Greek comedy gradually ceased to be productive; and though even in its original form it long continued to -be acted in imperial Rome, these are phases of its history which may here be passed by.

The religious origin of the Attic drama impresses itself upon all its most peculiar features. Theatrical performances were held at Athens only at fixed seasons in the early part Results of of the yearat the Bacchic festivals of the country religious Dionysia (vintage), the Lenaea (wine-press), probably origin of at the Anthesteria, and above all, at the Great Dionysia, ~ or the Dionysia par excellence, at the end of March rama. and beginning of April, when in her most glorious age Athens was crowded with visitors from the islands and cities of her federal empire. As a part of religious worship, the performances took place in a sacred localitythe Lenaeum on the southeastern declivity of the Acropolis; where the first wine-press (lenos) was said to have been set up, and where now an altar of Bacchus (thymele) formed the centre of the theatre. For the same reason the exhibitions claimed the attendance of the v~~hole population, and room was therefore provided on a grand scale according to the Platonic Socrates, for more than 30,000 spectators (see THEATRE). The performances lasted all day, or were at least, in accordance with their festive character, extended to as great a length as possible. To their religious origin is likewise to be attributed the fact that they were treated as a matter of state concern. The expenses of the chorus, which in theory represented the people at large, were defrayed on behalf of the state by the liturgies (public services) of wealthy citizens, chosen in turn by the tribes to be choragi (leaders, i.e. providers of the chorus), the duty of training being, of course, deputed by them to professional persons (chorodidascali). Publicly appointed and sworn judges decided between the merits of the dramas produced in competition with one another; the successful poet, performers and choragus were crowned with ivy, and the lastnamed was allowed at his own expense to consecrate a tripod in memory of his victory in the neighborhood of the sacred Bacchic enclosure. Such a monumentone of the most graceful relics of ancient Athensstill stands in the place where it was erected, and recalls to posterity the victory of Lysicrates, achieved in the same year as that of Alexander on the Granicus. The dramatic exhibitions being a matter of religion and state, the entrance money (theoricum), which had been introduced to prevent overcrowding, was from the time of Pericles provided out of the public treasury. The whole population had a right to its Bacchic holiday; neither women, nor boys, nor slaves were excluded from theatrical spectacles at Athens.

The religious character of dramatic performances at Athens, and the circumstances under which they accordingly took place, likewise determined their externals of costume and Cosdtunle scenery. The actors dress was originally the festive scenery. Dionysian attire, of which it always retained the gay and variegated hues. The use of the mask, surmounted, high over the forehead, by an ample wig, was due to the actors .appearing in the open air and at a distance from most of the spectators; the several species of mask were elaborated with great care, and adapted to the different types of theatrical character. The cothurnus, or thick-soled boot, which further raised the height of the tragic actor (while the comedian wore a thin-soled boot), was likewise a relic of Bacchic costume. The scenery was, in the simplicity of its original conception, suited to open-air performances; but in course of time the art of scene-painting came to be highly cultivated, and movable scenes were contrived, together with machinery of the ambitious kind required by the Attic drama, whether for bringing gods down from heaven, or for raising mortals aloft.

On a stage and among surroundings thus conventional, it might seem as if little scope could have been left for the actors Actors art. But, though the demands made upon the Attic actor differed in. kind even from those made upon his Roman successor, and still more from those which the histrionic art has to meet in modern times, they were not the less rigorous. Mask and buskin might increase his stature, and the former might at once lend the appropriate expression to his appearance and the necessary resonance to his voice. But in declamation, dialogue and lyric passage, in gesticulation and movement, he had to avoid the least violation of the general harmony of the performance. Yet it is clear that the refinements of by-play must, from the nature of the case, have been impossible on the Attic stage; the gesticulation must have been broad and massive; the movement slow, and the grouping hard, in tragedy; and the weighty sameness of the recitation must have had an effect even more solemn and less varied than the half-chant which still lingers on the modern stage. Not more than three actors, as has been seen, appeared in any Attic tragedy. The actors were provided by the poet; perhaps the performer of the first parts (protagonist) ~was paid by the state. It was again a result of the religious origin of Attic dramatic performances and of the public importance attached to them, that the actors profession was held in high esteem. These artists were as a matter of course free Athenian citizens, often the dramatists themselves, and at times were employed in other branches of the public service. In later days, when tragedy had migrated to Alexandria, and when theatrical entertainments hadspread over all the Hellenie world, the art of acting seems to have reached an unprecedented height, and to have taken an extraordinary hold of the public mind. Synods, or companies, of Dionysian artists abounded, who were in possession of various privileges, and in one instance at least (at Pergamum) of rich endowments. The most important of these was the Ionic company, established first in Teos, and afterwards in Lebedos, near Colophon, which is said to have lasted longer than many a famous state. We likewise hear of stroffing companies performing in parlibus. Thus it came to pass that the vitality of some of the masterpieces of the Greek drama is without a parallel in theatrical history; while Greek actors were undoubtedly among the principal and most effective agents of the spread of literary culture through a great part of the known world.

The theory and technical system of the drama exercised the critical powers both of dramatists, such as Sophocles, and of the Writers on greatest among Greek philosophers. If Plato touched the th~oiy the subject incidentally, Aristotle has in his Poetics Od~~:a (after 334) included an exposition of it, which, mutilated as it is, has formed the basis of all later systematic inquiries. The specialities of Greek tragic dramaturgy refer above all to the chorus; its general laws are those of the regular drama of all times. The theories of Aristotle and other earlier writers, were elaborated by the Alexandrians, many of whom doubtless combined example with precept; they also devoted themse~lves to commentaries on the old masters, such as those in which Didymus (c. 30 B.C.) abundantly excelled, and collected a vast amount of learning on dramatic composition in general, which was doomed to perish, with so many other treasures, inthe flames kindled by religious fanaticism.


In its most productive age, as well as in. the times of its declin? and decay, the Roman drama exhibits the continued coexistence of native forms by the side of those imported from Greece either kind being necessarily often subject to the influence of the other. Italy (with Sicily) has ever been the native land of acting and of scenic representation; and, though Roman dramatic literature at its height is but a faint reflex of Greek examples, there is perhaps no branch of Roman literary art more congenial than this to the soil whence it sprang.

Quick observation and apt improvisation. have always been distinctive features in the Italian character. Thus in the rural festivities of Italy there developed from a very early period in lively intermixture the elements of the origin of its nntive dance, of jocular and abusive succession of song, forms.

speech and dialogue, and of an assumption of character such as may be witnessed in. any ordinary dialogue carried on by southern Italians at the present day. Not less indigenous was the invariable accompaniment of the music of the flute (tibia). The occasions of these half obligatory, half impromptu festivities were religious celebrations, public or privateamong the latter more especially weddings, which have in. all ages been provocative of demonstrative mirth. The so-called Fescennine verses (from Fescennium in southern Etruria, and very possibly connected with fascinum = phallos), which were afterwards confined to weddings, and ultimately suggested an elaborate species of artistic poetry, never merged into actual dramatic performances. In the saturae, on the other handa name Saturae originally suggested by the goatskins of the shepherds, but from primitive times connected with the fulness of both performers and performancethere seems from the first to have been a dramatic element; they were probably comic songs or stories recited with gesticulation and the invariable flute accompaniment. Introduced into the city, these entertainments received a new impulse from the performances of the Etruscan players (ludiones) who had been brought into Rome when scenic games (ludi scenici) were introduced there in 364 s.c. for purposes of religious propitiation. These (h)istriones, as they Isirtones were called at Rome (is/ri had been their native name), who have had the privilege of transmitting their appellation to the entire histrionic art and its professors, were at first only dancers and pantomimists in a city where their speech was exotic. But their performances encouraged and developed those of other players and mountebanks, so that after the establishment of the regular drama at Rome on the Greek model, the saturae came to be performed as farcical after-pieces (exodia), until they gave way to other species. Among these the mimi were at Rome probably coeval in their beginnings with the stage Mimi itself, where those who performed them were afterwards known under the same name, possibly in the place of an older appellation (planipedes, bare-footed, representatives of slaves and humble folk). These loose farces, after being probably at first performed independently, were then played as afterpieces, till in the imperial period, when they reasserted their predominance, they were again produced independently. At the close of the republican period the mimus found its way into literature, through D. Laberius, C. Matius and Publilius Syrus, and was assimilated in both form and subjects to other varieties of the comic dramapreserving, however, as its distinctive feature, a preponderance of the mimic or gesticulatory element. Together with the pantomimus (see below) the mimus continued to prevail in the days of the Empire, having transferred its original grossness to its treatment of mythological subjects, with which it dealt in accordance with the demands of a lubrique and adulterate age. As a matter of course, the inimus freely borr~wed from other species, among which, so far as they were of native Italian origin, the Atellane fables (from Atella Atellanae. in Campania) call for special mention. Very probably of Oscan origin, they began with delineations of the life of small towns, in which dramatic and other satire has never ceased to find a favorite subject. The principal personages in these living sketches gradually assumed a fixed and conventional character, which they retained even when, after the final overthrow of Campanian independence (210), the Atellanae had been transplanted to Rome. Here the heavy father or husband (pappus), the ass-eared gluttoa (maccus), the full-cheeked, voracious chatterbox (bucco), and the wily sharper (dorsenus) became accepted comic types, and, with others of a smiliar kind, were handed down, to reappear in the modern Italian drama. In these characters lay the essence of the Atellanae: their plots were extremely simple; the dialogue (perhaps interspersed with songs in the Saturnian metre) was left to the performers to improvise. In course of time these plays assumed a literary form, being elaborated as after-pieces by Lucius Pomponius of Bononia, Novius and other authors; but under the Empire they were gradually absorbed in the pantomimes.

The regular, as distinct from the popular, Roman, drama, on the other hand, was of foreign (i.e. Greek) origin; and its Origin of early history, at all events, attaches itself to more or the regular less fixed dates. It begins with the year 240 B.C., i~oman when at the ludi Romani, held with unusual splendour drama, after the first Punic War, its victorious conclusion was, in accordance with Macedonian precedent, celebrated by the first production of a tragedy and a comedy on the Roman stage. The author of both, who appeared in person as an actor, was Livius Andronicus (b. 278 or earlier), a native of the Greek city of Tarentum, where the Dionysiac festivals enjoyed high popularity. His models were, in tragedy, the later Greek tragedians and their revisions of the three great Attic masters; in comedy, we may feel sure, Menander and his school. Greek examples continued to dominate the regular Roman drama during the whole of its course, e~,ren when it resorted to native themes.

The main features of Roman tragedy admit of no doubt, although our conclusions respecting its earlier progress are only derived from analogy, from scattered notices, especially 111sf wy of of the titles of plays, and from such fragmentsmostly tragedy, very briefas have come down to us. Of the known titles of the tragedies of Livius Andronictis, six belong to the Trojan cycle, and this preference consistently maintained itself among the tragedians of the - Trojugenae; next in popularity seem to have been the myths of the house of Tantalus, of the Pelopidae and of the Argonauts. The distinctions drawn by later Roman writers between the styles of the tragic poets of the republican period must in general be taken on trust. The Campanian Cn. Naevius (fi. from 236) wrote comedies as well as tragedies, so that the rigorous separation observed among the Greeks in the cultivation of the two dramatic species was at first neglected at Rome. His realistic tendency, displayed in that fondness for political allusions which brought upon him the vengeance of a noble family (the Metelli) incapable of understanding a joke of this description, might perhaps under more favorable circumstances have led him more fully to develop a Practexta. new tragic species invented by him. But the fabula praetexta or praetext ala (from the purple-bordered robe worn by higher magistrates) was not destined to become the means of emancipating the Roman serious drama from the control of Greek examples. In design, it was national tragedy on historic subjects of patriotic interestwhich the Greeks had treated only in isolated instances; and one might at first sight marvel why, after Naevius and his successors had produced skilful examples of the species; it should have failed to overshadow and outlast in popularity a tragedy telling the oft-told foreign tales of Thebes and Mycenae, or even the pseudo-ancestral story of Troy. But it should not be forgotten to how great an extent so-called early Roman history consisted of the traditions of the genies, and how little the party-life of later republican Rome lent itself to a dramatic treatment likely to be acceptable both tothe nobility and to the multitude. As for the emperors, the last licence they would have permitted to the theatre was a free populartreatment of the national history; if Augustus prohibited the publication of a tragedy by his adoptive father on the subject of Oedipus, it was improbable that he or his successors should have sanctioned the performance of plays dealing with the earthly fortunes of Divus Julius himself, or with the story of Marius, or that of the Gracchi, or any of the other tragic themes of later republican or imperial history. The historic drama at Rome thus had no opportunity for a vigorous life, even could tragedy have severed its main course from ~the Greek literature of which it has been well called a free-hand copy. The praetextae of which we know chiefly treatpossibly here and tbere helped to form flegends of a hoary antiquity, or celebrate battles chronicled in family or public records2 and in the end the species died a natural death.1

Q. Ennius (239f 68), the favorite poet of the great families, was qualified by his Tarentine education, which taught the Oscan youth the Greek as well as the Latin tongue (so that ,,. Ennlus he boasted three souls), to become the literary and his exponent of the Hellenizing t~ndencies of his age of successors. Roman society. Nearly half of the extant names of his tragedies belong to the Trojan cycle; and Euripides was clearly his favorite source and model. M. Pacuvius (b. C. 229), like Ennius subject from his youth up to the influences of Greek civilization, and the first Roman dramatist who devoted himself exclusively to the tragic drama, was the least fertile of the chief Roman tragedians, but was regarded by the ancients as indisputably superior to Ennius. He again was generally (though not uniformly) held to have been surpassed by L. Accius (b. 170), a learned scholar and prolific dramatist, of whose plays 50 titles and a very large number of fragmenfs have been preserved. The plays of the last-named three poets maintained themselves on the stage till the close of the republic; and Accius was quoted by the emperor Tiberius.4 Of the other tragic writers of the republic several were dilettantisuch as the great orator and eminent politician. C. Julius Strabo; the cultivated officer Q. Tullius Cicero, who made an attempt, disapproved by his illustrious brother, to introduce the satyr-drama into the Roman theatre; L. Cornelius Balbus, a Caesarean partisan; and finally C. Julius Caesar himself.

Tragedy continued to be cultivated under the earlier emperors; and one author, the famous and ill-fated L. Annaeus Seneca (4 B.C.A.D. 65), left behind him a series of works Seneca. which were to exercise a paramount influence upon the beginnings of modern tragedy. In accordance with the character of their authtrs prose-work, they exhibit a strong predominance of the rhetorical element, and an artificiality of style far removed from that of the poets Sophocles and Euripides, from whom Seneca derived his themes. Yet he is interesting, not only by these devices and by a sensational choice of themes, but also by a quickness of treatment which we may call modern, a quality not easily resisted in a dramatist. The metrification of his plays is very strict, and they were doubtless intended for recitation, whether or not also designed for the stage. A few tragic poets are mentioned after Seneca, till about the reign. of Domitian(8I96) the list comes to an end. The close of Roman tragic literature is obscurer than its beginning; and, while there are traces of tragic performances at Rome as late as even the 6th century, we are ignorant how long the works of the old i Naevius, Clastidium (Marcellus?); Ennius, Amb-racia; Pacuvius, Paulus; Accius, Aenead~e (Decius?).

Balbuss Iter (The Mission), an isolated play onan episode of the Pharsalian campaign, seems to have been composed for the mere private delectation of its author and hero. Octavia, ,a late praetexla ascribed to Seneca, was certainly not written by him. -

~ Oderint diim metii~,nt (Afrp,j,c1

masters of Roman tragedy maintained themselves on the stage.

It would obviously be an error to draw from the plays of Seneca conclusions as to the method and style of the earlier Character- writers. In general, however, no important changes istics of seem to have occurred in the progress of Roman tragic Roman composition. The later Greek plays remained, so far tragedy. as can be gathered, the models in treatment; and, inasmuch as at Rome the several plays wereperformed singly, there was every inducement to make their action as full and complicated as possible. The dialogue-scenes (diverb-ia) appear to have been largely interspersed with musical passages (cantica); but the effect of the latter must have suffered from the barbarous custom of having the songs sung by a boy, placed in front of the flute-player (cantor), while the actor accompanied them with gesticulations. The chorus (unlike the Greek) stood on the stage itself and seems occasionally at least to have taken part in the action. But the whole of the musical element can hardly have attained to so full a development as among the Greeks. The divisions of the action appear at first to have been three; from the addition of prologue and epilogue may have arisen the invention (probably due in tragedy to Varro) of the fixed number of five acts. In style, such influence as the genius of Roman literature could exercise must have been in the direction of the rhetorical and the pathetic; a superfluity of energy on the one hand, and a defect of poetic richness on the other, can hardly have failed to characterize these, as they did all the other productions of early Roman poetry.

In Roman comedy two different kindsrespectively called palliata and togata from well-known names of dresswere distinguished,the former treating Greek subjects and rnstozv of imitating Greek originals, the latter professing a native comedy. character. The palliata sought its originals especially in New Attic comedy; and its authors, as they advanced in refinement of style, became more andmore dependent upon their models, and unwilling to gratify the coarser palilata. tastes of the public by local allusions or gross seasonings. But that kind of comedy which shrinks from the rude breath of popular applause usually has in the end to give way to less squeamish rivals; and thus, after the species had been cultivated for about a century (c. 250I 5oB .c.), palliatae ceased to be composed except for the amusement of select circles, though the works of the most successful authors, Plautus and Terence, kept the stage even after the establishment of the empire. Among the earlier writers of palliatac were the tragic poets Andronicus, Naevius and Ennius, but they were alike plautus. surpassed by T. Maccius Plautus (254184), nearly all of whose comedies esteemed genuine by Varronot less than 20 in numberhave been preserved, though twelve of them were not known to the modern world before 1429. He was exclusively a comic poet, and, though he borrowed his plots from the Greeksfrom Diphilus and Philemon apparently in preference to the more refined Menanderthere was in him a genuinely national as well as a genuinely popular element. Of the extent of his originality it is impossible to judge; probably it lies in his elaboration of types of character and the comic turns of his dialogue rather than in his plots. Modern comedy is indebted to him in all these points; and, in consequence of this fact, as well as of the attention his text has for linguistic reasons received from scholarship both ancient and modern, his merits have met with quite their full share of recognition. Caecilius Statius (an Insubrian brought to Rome as a captive C. 200) stands midway between Plautus and Terence, but no Terence. plays of his remain. P. Terentius Afer (c. 185159)

was, as his cognomen implies, a native of Carthage, of whose conqueror he enjoyed the patronage. His six extant comedies seem to be tolerably close renderings of their Greek originals, nearly all of which were plays of Menander. It was the good fortune of the works of Terence to be preserved in an exceptionally large number of MSS. in the monastic libraries of the middle ages, and thus (as will be seen) to become a main link between the ancient and the Christian drama, As a.

dramatist he is distinguished by correctness of style rather than by variety in his plots -or vivacity in his characters; his chief meritand at the same time the quality which has rendered him so suitable for modern imitationis to be sought in the polite ease of his dialogue. In general, the main features of the pallialae, which were divided into five acts, are those of the New Comedy of Athens, like which they had no chorus; for purposes of explanation from author to audience the prologue sufficed; the Roman versions were probably terser than their originals, which they often altered by the process called contamination.

The togatae, in the wider sense of- the term, included all Roman plays of native originamong the rest, the praetextae, in contradistinction to which and to the transient Togat~e species of the trabeatae (from the dress of, the knights)

the comedies dealing with the life of the lower classes were afterwards called tabernariae (from taberna, a shop), a name suited by some of their extant titles,i while others point to the treatment of provincial scenes.2 The togata, which was necessarily more realistic than the palliata, and doubtless fresher as well as coarser in tone, flourished in Roman literature between 170 and 80 B.C. In this species Titinius, all whose plays bear Latin titles and were tabernariae, was succeeded by the more refined L. Afranius, who, though still choosing natural subjects, seems to have treated them in the spirit of Menander. His plays continued to be performed under the empire, though with an admixture of elements derived from that lower species, the pantomime, to which they also were in the end to succumb. The Romans likewise adopted the burlesque kind of comedy called from its inventor Rhinthonica, and by other names (see above). But with them, the general course of the drama, which with the Greeks lost itself in the sand, could not fail to be merged into the flood.

The end of Roman dramatic literature was dilettantism and criticism; the end of the Roman drama was spectacle and show, buffoonery and sensual allurement. It was for this that the theatre had passed through all its early Engels,7nan troubles, when the political puritanism of the old theatre. school had upheld the martial games of the circus against the enervating influence of the stage. In those days the guardians of Roman virtue had sought to diminish the attractions of the theatre by insisting upon its remaining as uncomfortable as possible; but as was usual at Rome, the privileges of the upper orders were at last extended to the population at large, though a separation of classes continued to be characteristic of a Roman audience. The first permanent theatre erected at Rome was that of Cn. Pompeius (55 B.C.), which contained nearly 18,000 seats; but even of this the portion allotted to the performers (scaena) was of wood; nor was it till the reign ~f Tiberius (A.D. 22) that, after being burnt down, the edifice was rebuilt in stone.

Though a species of amateur literary censorship, introduced by Pompeius, became customary in the Augustan age, in general the dramas laws at Rome were given by the dramas Adore. patronsin other words, the production of plays was a matter of private speculation. The exhibitions were contracted for with the officials charged with the superintendence of public amusements (curatores ludorum); the actors were slaves trained for the art, mostly natives of southern Italy or Greece. Many of them rose to reputation and wealth, purchased their freedom, and themselves became directors of companies; but, though Sulla might make a knight of Roscius, and Caesar and his friends defy ancient prejudice, the stigma of civil disability (infamia) was not removed from the profession, which in the great days of the Attic drama had been held in honor at Athens. But, on the whole, the social treatment of actors was easy in the days of the early empire; senators and knights actually appeared on the stage; Nero sang on it; and a pantomimus was made praefectus urbi by Elagabalus.

The actors art was carried on at Rome under conditions differing in other respects from those of the Greek theatre.

i Augur; Cinerarius (The Crimper); Fullonia (Tile Fullers Trade); Libertus (The Freedman); T-ibicina (The Flute-Girl).

1 l3run-disinae; Ferentinatis; Setina.

The Romans loved a full stage, and from the later period of the republic liked to see it crowded with supernumeraries. This accorded with their military instincts, and with the general grossness of their tastes, which led them in the theatre as well as in the circus to delight in spectacle and tumult, and to applaud Pompeius when he furnished forth the return of Agamemnon in the Clytaemncstra with a grand total of 600 heavily-laden mules. On the other hand, the actors stood nearer to the spectators in the Roman theatre than in the Greek, the stage (pulpitum) not being separated from the first rows of the audience by an orchestra occupied by the chorus; and this led in earlier times to the absence of masks, diversely colored wigs serving to distinguish the age of the characters. Roscius, however, is said (because of an obliquity of vision which disfigured his countenance) to have introduced the use of masks; and the retrograde innovation, though disapproved of, maintained itself. The tragic actors wore the crepida, corresponding to the cothurnus, and a heavy toga, which in the pra~etexta had the purple border giving its name to the species. The conventional costumes of the various kinds of comedy are likewise indicated by their names. The comparative nearness of the actors to the spectators encouraged the growth,of that close criticism of acting which has always been dear to an Italian public, and which in ancient days manifested itself at Rome in all the ways familiar to modern audiences. Where there is criticism, devices are apt to spring up for anticipating or directing it; and the evil institution of the claque is modelled on Roman precedent, typified by the standing conclusion plaudite! in the epilogues of the palliatae.

In fine, though the art of acting at Rome must have originally formed itself on Greek example and precept, it was doubtless elaborated with a care unknown to the greatest Attic Roscius artists. Its most famous representatives were Gallus, called after his emancipation Q. Roscius Gallus (d. c.

62 B.C.), who, like the great English Roscius, excelled equally in tragedy and comedy, and his younger contemporary Clodius Aesopus, a Greek by birth, likewise eminent in both branches of his art, though in tragedy more particularly. Both these great actors are said to have been constant hearers of the great orator Hortensius; and Roscius wrote a treatise on the relations between oratory and acting. In the influence of oratory upon the drama are perhaps to be sought the chief among the nobler features of Roman tragedy to which a native origin may be fairly ascribed.


The ignoble end of the Romanand with it of the ancient classicaldrama has been already foreshadowed. The elements of dance and song, never integrally united with the dialogue in Roman tragedy, were now altogether separated from it. While it became customary simply to recite tragedies to the small audiences who continued (or, as a matter of courtesy, affected) to appreciate them, the pantomimus commended itself to the heterogeneous multitudes of the Roman theatre and to an effete upper class by confining the performance of the actor to ~ gesticulation and dancing, a chorus singing the accompanying text. The species was developed with extraordinary success already under Augustus by Pylades and Bathyllus; and so popular were these entertainments that even eminent poets, such as Lucan (d. AD. 65), wrote the librettos for these fabulae salticae (ballets), of which the subjects were generally mythological, only now and then historical, and chiefly of an amorous kind. A single masked performer was able to enchant admiring crowds by the art of gesticulation and movement only. In what direction this art tended, when suiting itself to the most abnormal demands of a recklessly sensual age, may be gathered from the remark of one of the last pagan historians of the empire, that the introduction of pantomimes was a sign of the general moral decay of the world which began with the Alimus beginning of the monarchy. Comedy more easily lost itself in the cognate form of the mimus, which survived all other kinds of comic entertainments because of its more audacious immorality and open obscenity. Women took part in these performapces, by means of which, as late as the 6th century, a mima acquired a celebrity which ultimately raised her to the imperial throne, and perhaps occasioned the removal of a disability which would have rendereL her marriage with Justinian impossible.

Meanwhile, the regular drama had lingered on, enjoying in all its forms imperial patronage in the days of the literary revival under Hadrian (117138); but the perennial The drama taste for the spectacles of the amphitheatre, which and the was as strong at Byzantium as it was at Rome, and Christian which reached its climax in the days of Constantine ChurCh.

the Great (30633 7), under whom the reaction set in, determined the downfall of the dramatic art. It was not absolutely extinguished even by the irruptions of the northern barbarians; but a bitter adversary had by this time risen into power. The whole authority of the Christian Church had, without usually caring to distinguish between the nobler and the looser elements in the drama, involved all its manifestations in a consistent condemnation (as in Tertullians De spectaculis, 200 c.), comprehended them all in an uncompromising anathema. When the faith of that Church was acknowledged as the religion of the Roman empire, the doom of the theatre was sealed. It died hard, however, both in the capitals and in many of the provincial centres of East and West alike. At Rome the last mention of spectacula as still in existence seems to date from the sway of the East-Goths under Theodoric and his successor, in the earlier half of the 6th century. In the capital and provinces of the Eastern empire the decline and fall of the stage cannot be similarly traced; but its end is authoritatively assigned to the period of Saracen invasions which began with the Omayyad dynasty in the 7th century.

It cannot be pretended that the doom which thus slowly and gradually overtook the Roman theatre was undeserved. The remnants of the literary drama had long been overshadowed by entertainments such as both earlier and later Roman emperors Domitian and Trajan as well as Galerius and Constantinehad found themselves constrained to prohibit in the interests of public morality and order, by the bloody spectacles of the amphitheatre and by the maddening excitement of the circus. The art of acting had sunk into pandering to the lewd or frivolous itch of eye and ear; its professors had, in the words of a most judicious modern historian, become a danger to the peace of householders, as well as to the peace of the streets; and the theatre had contributed its utmost to the demoralization of a world. The attitude taken up by the Christian Church towards the stage was in general as unavoidable as its particular expressions were at times heated by fanaticism or distorted by ignorance. Had she not visited with her condemnation a wilderness of decay, she could not herself have becomewhat she little dreamt of becomingthe nursing mother of the new birth of an art which seemed incapable of regeneration.

Though already in the 4th century scenici had been excluded from the benefit of Christian sacraments, and excommunication had been extended to those who visited theatres instead of churches on Sundays and holidays, while the clergy ~7~a1 were absolutely prohibited from entering a theatre, mimes. and though similar enactments had followed at later datesyet the entertainments of the condemned profession had never been entirely suppressed, and had even occasionally received imperial patronage. The legislation on the subject in the Codex Theodosianus (accepted by both empires in the earlier part of the 5th century) shows a measure of tolerance indicating a conviction that the theatrical profession could not be suppressed. Gradually, however, as they lost all footing in the centres of civic life, the mimes and their fellows became a wandering fraternity, who doubtless appeared at festivals when their services were required, and vanished again .into the depths of the obscurity which has ever covered that mysterious existencethe strollers life. It was thus that these strange intermediaries of civilization carried dQwn such traditions as survived of the acting drama of pagan antiquity into the succeeding ages.


While the scattered and persecuted strollers thus kept alive something of the popularity, if not of the loftier traditions, of ~ their art, neither, on the other hand, was there an ~~:- utter absence of written compositions to bridge the monastic gap between ancient and modern dramatic literature. literary In the midst of the condemnation with which the drama. Christian Church visited the stage, its professors and votaries, we find individual ecclesiastics resorting in their writings to both the tragic and the comic form of the ancient drama. These isolated productions, which include the Xpurr~ iriurxwv (Passion of Christ) formerly attributed to St Gregory Nazianzen, and the Querolus, long fathered upon. Plautus himself, were doubtless mostly written for educational purposes whether Euripides and Lycophron, or Menander, Plautus and Terence, served as the outward models. The same was probably If fth the design of the famous comedies of Hrosvitha, the ~OSV 4. Benedictine nun of Gandersheim, in Eastphalian Saxony, which associate themselves in the history of Christian literature with the spiritual revival of the 10th century in the days of Otto the Great. While avowedly imitated in form from the comedies of Terence, these religious exercises derive their themesmartyrdoms,f and miraculous or otherwise startling conversions 2from the legends of Christian saints. Thus, from perhaps the 9th to the 12th centuries, Germany and France, and through the latter, by means of the Norman Conquest, England, became acquainted with what may be called the literary monastic drama. It was no doubt occasionally performed by the children under the care of monks or nuns, or by the religious themselves; an exhibition of the former kind was that of the Play of SI Katharine, acted at Dunstable about the year 1110 in copes by the scholars of the Norman Geoffrey, afterwards abbot of St Albans. Nothing is known concerning it except the fact of its performance, which was certainly not regarded as a novelty.

These efforts of the cloister came in time to blend themselves with more popular forms of the early medieval drama. The The Jocu- natural agents in the transmission of these popular latoms, forms werethosemimes,whom, while therepresentatives Jongleurs, of more elaborate developments, the pantomimes miastre ~ in particular, had inevitably succumbed, the Roman drama had left surviving it, unextinguished and unextinguishable. Above all, it is necessary to point out how in the long interval now in questionthe dark ages, which may, from the present point of view, be reckoned from about the 6th to the 11th century the Latin and the Teutonic elements of what may be broadly designated as medieval minstrelsy, more or less imperceptibly, coalesced. The traditions of the disestablished and disendowed mimus combined with the occupation of the Teutonic scp, who as a professional personage does not occur in the earliest Teutonic poetry, but on the other hand is very distinctly traceable under this name or that of the gleeman, in Anglo-Saxon literature, before it fell under the control of the Christian Church. Her influence and that of docile rulers, both in England and in the far wider area of the Frank empire, gradually prevailed even over the inherited goodwifi which neither Alfred nor even Charles the Great had denied to the composite growth in which mimus and scp alike had a share.

How far the joculatoreswhich in the early middle ages came to be the name most widely given to these irresponsible transmitters of a great artistic trustkept alive the usage of entertainments more essentially dramatic than the minor varieties of their performances, we cannot say. In different countries these entertainers suited themselves to different tastes, and with the rise of native literatures to different literary tendencies. The literature of the troubadours of Provence, which communicated itself to Spain and Italy, came only into isolated contact with the beginnings of the religious drama; in northern France the Jon gleurs, as the joculalores were now called, were confounded 1Galjjcanus, part ii.; Sapient-ia.

Gall icanus. Dart i.: Callimachus: Abraham: Pabhnutius.

with the trouvres, who, to the accompaniment of vielle or harp, sang the chansons de gesle commemorative of deeds of war. As appointed servants of particular households they were here, and afterwards in England, called menestrels (from m-inisteriales) or minstrels. Such a histrio or m-imus (as he is called) was Taillefer, who rode first into the fight at Hastings, singing his songs of Roland and Charlemagne, and tossing his sword in the air and catching it again. In England such accomplished minstrels easily outshone the less versatile gleemen of preNorman times, and one or two of them appeared as landholders in Domesday Book, and many enjoyed the favor of the Norman, Angevin and Plantagenet kings. But here, as elsewhere, the humbler members of the craft spent their lives in strolling from castle to convent, from village-green to city-street, and there exhibiting their skill as dancers, tumblers, jugglers proper, and as masquers and conductors of bears and other dumb contributors to popular wonder and merrimen.t. Their only chance of survival finally came to lie in organization under the protection of powerful nobles; but when, in the 15th century in England, companies of players issued forth from towns and villages, the profession, in so far as its members had not secured preference, saw itself threatened with ruin.

In any attempt to explain the transmission of dramatic elements from pagan to Christian times, and the influence exercised by this transmission upon the beginnings of Su,vivajs the medieval drama, account should finally be taken and adapt~ of the pertinacious survival of popular festive rites and ~-~1~~ of ceremonies. From the days of Gregory the Great, i.e. festive from the end of the 6th century onwards, the Western ceremonies Church tolerated and even attracted to her own and festivals popular customs, significant of rejoicing, usages. which were in truth relics of heathen ritual. Such were the Mithraic feast of the 25th of December, or the egg of Eostre-tide, and a multitude of Celtic or Teutonic agricultural ceremonies. These rites, originally symbolical of propitiation or of weathermagic, were of a semi-dramatic naturesuch as the dipping of the neck of corn in water, sprinkling holy drops upon persons or animals, processions of beasts or men. in beast-masks, dressing trees with flowers, and the like, but above all ceremonial dances, often in disguise. The sword-dance, recorded by Tacitus, of which an important feature was the symbolic threat of death to a victim, endured (though it is rarely mentioned) to the later middle ages. By this time it had attracted to itself a variety of additional features, and of characters familiar as pace-eggers, mummers, morris-dancers (probably of distinct origin), who continually enlarged the scope of their performances, especially as regarded their comic element. The dramatic expulsion of death, or winter, by the destruction of a lay-figurecommon through western Europe about the 8th centuryseems connected with a more elaborate rite, in which a disguised performer (who perhaps originally represented summer) was slain and afterwards revived (the Pfingstl, Jack in the Green, or Green Knight). This representation, after acquiring a comic complexion, was annexed by the character dancers, who about the I5th century took to adding stifi livelier incidents from songs treating of popular heroes, such as St George and Robin Hood; which latter found a place in the festivities of May Day with their central figure, the May Queen. The earliest ceremonial observances of this sort were clearly connected with pastoral and agricultural life; but the inhabitants of the towns also came to have a share in them; and so, as will be seen later, did the clergy. They were in particular responsible for the buffooneries of the feast of fools (or asses), which enjoyed the greatest popularity in France (though protests against it are on record from the 11th century onwards to the I7th), but was well known from London to Constantinople. This riotous New Years celebration was probably derived from the ancient Kalend feasts, which may have bequeathed to it both the hobby-horse and the lord, or bishop, of misrule. In the 16th century the feast of fools was combined with the elaborate festivities of, courts and cities during the twelve Christmasfeast-daysthe season when throughout the Drevious two centuries the mummers esneciallv flourished, who in their disguisings and viseres began as dancers gesticulating in dumb-show, but ultimately developed into actors proper.

Thus the literary and the professional element; as well as that of popular festive usages, had survived to become tributaries to the main stream of the early Christian drama, The !IttW~7 which had its direct source in the liturgy of the Church itself. The service of the Mass contains in itself the dramatic elements, and combines with the reading medieval out of portions of Scripture by the priestits epical ilgious parta lyrical part in the anthems and responses of the congregation. At a very early periodcertainly already in the 5th centuryit was usual on special occasions to increase the attractions of public worship by living pictures, illustrating the Gospel narrative and accompanied by songs; and thus a certain amount of action gradually introduced itself into the service. The insertion, before or after sung portions of the service, of tropes, originally one or more verses ropes. of texts, usually serving as introits and in connection with the gospel of the day, and recited by the two halves of the choir, naturally led to dialogue chanting; and this was frequently accompanied by illustrative fragments of action, such as drawing down the veil from before the altar.

This practice of interpolations in the offices of the church, which is attested by texts from the 9th century onwards (the so-called Winchester tropes belong to the 10th ~~gical and 11th), progressed, till on the great festivals of the mstery. church the epical part of the liturgy was systematically connected with spectacular and in some measure mimical adjuncts, the lyrical accompaniment being of course retained. Thus the liturgical mysterythe earliest form of the Christian dramawas gradually called into existence. This had certainly been accomplished as early as the 10th century,, when on great ecclesiastical festivals it was customary for the priests to perform in the churches these offices (as they were called). The whole Easter story, frOm the burial to Emmaus, was thus presented, the Manes and the angel adding their lyrical planclus; while the surroundings of th& Nativitythe Shepherds, the Innocents, &c.were linked with the Shepherds of Epiphany by a recitation of Prophets, including Vergil and the Sibyl. Before long, from the 11th century onwards, mysteries, as they were called, were produced in France on scriptural subjects unconnected with the great Church festivalssuch as the Wise and Foolish Virgins, Adam (with the fall of Lucifer), Daniel, Lazarus, &c. Compositions on the last-named two themes remain from the hand of one of the very earli~st of medieval play-writers, Hilarius, who may have been an Englishman, and who certainly studied under Abelard. He also wrote a miracle of St Nicholas, one of the most widely popular of medieval saints. Into the pieces founded on the Scripture narrative outside characters and incidents were occasionally introduced, by way of diverting the audience.

These mysteries and miracles being as yet represented by the clergy only, the language in which they were usually written is Latinin many varieties of verse with occasional The prose; but already in the 11th century the further step was taken of composing these texts in. the vernacularthe earliest example being the mystery. of the Resurrection. In time a whole series of mysteries was joined together; a process which was at first roughly and then. more elaborately pursued in France and elsewhere, and finally resulted in the collective mysterymerely a scholars term of course, but one to which the principal examples of the English mystery-drama correspond.

The productions of the medieval religious drama it is usual technically to divide into three classes. The mysteries propr Mysteries deal with scriptural events only, their purpose being miracles, to set forth, with the aid of the prophetic or preparatory and morals history of the Old Testament, and more espccially of distin- the fulfiffing events qf the New, the central mystery guished. of the Redemption of the world, as accomplished by the Nativity, the Passion and the Resurrection. But in fact these were not kept distinctly apart from the miracle-plays, or miracles, which are strictly speaking concerned with the legends of the saints of the church; and in England the name mysteries was not in use. Of these species the miracles must more especially have been fed from the resources of the monastic literary drama~ Thirdly, the moralities, or moral-plays, teach and illustrate the same truthsnot, however, by direct representation of scriptural or legendary events and personages, but allegorically, their characters being personified virtues or qualities. Of the moralities the Norman trouvres had been the inventors; and doubtless this innovation connects itself with the endeavour, which in France had almost proved victorious by the end of the 13th century, to emancipate dramatic performances from the control of the church.

The attitude of the clergy towards the dramatic performances which had arisen out of the elaboration of the services of the church, but soon admitted elements from other sources, The clergy was not, and could not be, uniform. As the plays grew and the longer, their paraphernalia more extensive, and their religious spectators more numerous, they began to be repre- drama.

sented outside as well as inside the churches, at first in the churchyards, and the use of the vulgar tongue came to be gradually preferred. A Beverley Resurrection play (1220 c.) and some others are bilingual. Miracles were less dependent on this connection with the church services than mysteries proper; and lay associations, gilds, and schools in particular, soon began to act plays in honor. of their patron saints in or hear their own halls. Lastly, as scenes and characters of a more or less trivial description were admitted even into the plays acted or superintended by the clergy, as some of these characters came to be depended on by the audiences for conventional extravagance or fun, every new Herod seeking to out-Herod his predecessor, and the devils and their chief asserting themselves as indispensable ,favorites, the comic element in the religious drama increased; and that drama itself, even where it remained associated with the church, grew more and more profane. The endeavour to sanctify the popular tastes to religious uses, which connects itself with the institution of the great festival of Corpus Christi (1264, confirmed 1311), when the symbol of the mystery of the IncarnatiOIl was borne in solemn procession, led to the closer union of the dramatic exhibitions (hence often called processus) with this and other, religious feasts; but it neither limited their range nor controlled their development.

It is impossible to condense into a few sentences the extremely varied history of the processes of transformation undergone by the medieval drama in Europe during the two centuries from about 1200 to about x4oorn which it ran of the a course of its own, and during the succeeding period, medieval in which it was only partially affected by the influence drama in of the Renaissance. A few typical phenomena may, Europe. however, be noted inthe case of the drama of each of the several chief countries of the West; where the vernacular successfully supplanted Latin as the ordinary medium of dramatic speech, where song was effectually ousted by recitation and dialogue, and, where ~nally, though the emancipation was on this head nowhere absolute, the religious drama gave place to the secular.

In France, where dramatic performances had never fallen entirely into the hands of the clergy, the progress was speediest and most decided towards forms approaching those France. of the modern drama. The earliest play in the French tongue, however, the 12th-century Adam, supposed to have been written by a Norman in England (as is a fragmentary Resurrection of much the same date), still reveals its connection with the liturgical drama. Jean Bodel of Arras miracle-play of St Nicolas (before 1205) iS already the production of a secular author, probably designed for the edification of some civic confraternity to which he belonged, and has some realistic features. On the other hand, the Theophilus of Rutebeuf (d. c. 1280) treats its Faust-like theme, with which we meet again in Low-German dramatic literature two centurieslater, in a rather lifeless form but in a highly religious spirit, and belongs to the cycle of miracles of the Virgin of which exampla~ abound throughout this period. Easter or Passion plays were fully established in popular acceptance in Paris as well as in other towns of France by the end of the 14th century; and in 1402 the Confrrie de la Passion, who at first devoted themselves exclusively to the performance of this species, obtained a royal privilege for the purpose. These series of religious plays were both extensive and elaborate; perhaps the most notable series (c. 1450) is that by Arnoul Greban, who died as a canon of Le Mans, his native town. Its revision, by Jean Michel, containing much illustrative detail (first performed at Angers in 1486), was very popular. Still more elaborate is the Rouen Christmas mystery of 1474, and the celebrated Mystre du vieil testament, produced at Abbeville in 1458, and performed at Paris in 1500. Most of the Provenal Christmas and Passion plays date from the 14th century, as well as a miracle of St Agnes. The miracles of saints were popular in all parts of France, and the diversity of local coloring naturally imparted to these productions contributed materially to the growth of the early French drama. The miracles of Ste Genevieve and St Denis came directly home to the inhabitants of Paris, as that of St Martin to the citizens of Tours; while the early victories of St Louis over the English might claim a national significance for the dramatic celebration of his deeds. The local saints of Provence were in their turn honored by miracles dating from the I5th and 16th centuries.

It is less easy to trace the origins of the comic medieval drama in France, connected as they are with an extraordinary variety of associations for professional, pious and pleasurable purposes. The ludi inlionesti in which the students of a Paris college (Navarre) were in 1315 debarred from engaging cannot be proved to have been dramatic performances; the earliest known secular plays presented by university students in France were moralities, performed in 1426 and 1431. These plays, depicting conflicts between opposing influencesand at bottom the struggle between good and evil in the human soulbecome more frequent from about this time onwards. Now it is (at Rennes in 1439) the contention between Bien-avist~ and Mal-avis (who at the close find themselves respectively in charge of Bonne-fin and Malefin); now, one between lhoinme juste and lhomine inondain; now, the contrasted story of Les Enf ants de Maintenant, who, however, is no abstraction, but an honest baker with a wife called Mignotte. Political and social problems are likewise treated; and the Mystre du Concile de Bdtean historical moralitydates back to 1432. But thought is taken even more largely of the sufferings of the people than. of the controversies of the Church; and in 1507 we even meet with a hygienic or abstinence morality (by N. de la Chesnaye) in which Banquet enters into a conspiracy with Apoplexy, Epilepsy and the whole regiment of diseases.

Long before this development of an ~artificial species had been consummatedfrom the beginning of the 14th century onwards the famous fraternity or professional union of the Basoche (clerks of the Parlement and the Ch~telet) had been entrusted with the conduct of popular festivals at Paris, in which, as of right, they took a prominent personal share; and from a date unknown they had performed plays. But after the Confrrie de Ia Passion had been allowed to monopolize the religious drama, the basochiens had confined themselves to the presentment of moralities and of farces (from Italian farsd, Latin farcita), in which political satire had as a matter of course when possible found a place. A third association, calling themselves the Enfans sans souci, had, apparently also early in the I 5th century, acquired celebrity by their performances of short comic plays called sotiesin which, as it would seem, at first allegorical figures ironically played the fool, but which were probably before long not very carefully kept distinct from the farces of the Basoche, and were like these on occasion made to serve the purposes of State or of Church. Other confraternities and associations readily took a leaf out of the book of these devil-maycare good-fellows, and interwove their religious and moral plays with comic scenes and characters from actual life, thus becoming more and more free and secular in their dramatic methods, and unconsciously Drenaring the transition to the regular drama.

The earliest example of a serious secular play known to have been written in the French tongue is the Estoire de Griseldis (s393), which is in the style of the miracles of the Virgin, but is largely indebted to Petrarcli. The Mystre du siege dOrlans, on the other hand, written about half a century later, in the epic tediousness of its manner comes near to a chronicle history, and interests us chiefly as the earliest of many efforts to bring Joan of Arc on the stage. Jacques Milets celebrated mystery of the Destruction de Troye k gralszt (1452) seems to have been addressed to readers and not to hearers only. The beginnings of the French regular comic drama are again more difficult to extract from the copious literature of farces and soties, which, after mingling actual types with abstract and allegorical figures, gradually came to exclude all but the concrete personages; moreover, the large majority of these productions in their extant form belong to a later period than that now under consideration. But there is ample evidence that the most famous of all medieval farces, the immortal Maistre Pierre Pathelin (otherwise LAvocat Pathelin), was written before 14,70 and acted by the basochiens; and we may conclude that this delightful story of the biter bit, and the profession outwitted, typifies a multitude of similar comic episodes of real life, dramatized for the delectation of clerks, lawyers and students, and of all lovers of laughter.

In. the neighboring Netherlands many Easter and Christmas mysteries are noted from the middle of the i5th century, attesting the enduring popularity of these religious plays; and with them the celebrated series of the Seven Joys of Mariaof which the first is the Annunciation and the Jl~fld~ seventh the Ascension. To about the same date belongs the small group of the so-called abele spelen (as who should say plays easily managed), chiefly on chivalrous themes. Though allegorical figures are already to be found in the Netherlands miracles of Mary, the species of the moralities was specially cultivated during the great Burgundian period of this century by the chambers or lodges of the Rederijkers (rhetoricians) the well-known civic associations which devoted themselves to the cultivation of learned poetry and took an active share in the festivals that formed one of the most characteristic features of the life of the Low Countries. Among these moralities was that of Elckerlijk (printed 1495 and presumably by Peter Dorlandus), which there is good reason for regarding as the original of one of the finest of English moralities, Every-man.

In Italy the liturgical drama must have run its course as elsewhere; but the traces of it are few, and confined to the north-east. The collective mystery, so common in other Western countries, is in Italian literature represented by a single example onlya Passione di Gesi~ Cristo, performed at Revello in Saluzzo in. the 15th century; though there are some traces of other cyclic dramas of the kind. The Italian religious plays, called figure when on Old, vangeli when on New, Testament subjects, and differing from those of northern Europe chiefly by the less degree of coarseness in their comic characters, seem largely to have sprung out of the development of the processional element in the festivals of the Church. Besides such processions as that of the Three Kings at Epiphany in Milan, there were the penitential processions and songs (laude), which at Assisi, Perugia and elsewhere already contained a dramatic element; and at Siena, Florence and other centres these again developed into the so-called (sacre) rap presenlazioni, which became the most usual name for this kind of entertainment, Such a piece was the San Giovanni e San Paolo (1489), by Lorenzo the Magnificentthe prince who afterwards sought to reform the Italian stage by paganizing it; another was the Santa Teodora, by Luigi Pulci (d. 1487); San Giovanni Gualberto (of Florence) treats the religious experience of a latter-day saint; Rosana e Ulimento is a love-story with a Christian moral. Passion plays were performed at Rome in the Coliseum by the Compagnia del Gonf alone; but there is no evidence on this head before the end of the 15th century. In general, the spectacular magnificence, of Italian theatrical displays accorded with the growing pomp of the processions both ecclesiastical and laycalled Wion already in the days of Dante; while the religious drama gradually acquired an artificial character and elaboration of form assimilating it to the classical attempts, to be noted below, which gave rise to the regular Italian drama. The poetry of the Troubadours, which had come from Provence into Italy, here frequently took a dramatic form, and may have suggested some of his earlier poetic experiments to Petrarch.

It was a matter of course that remnants of the ancient popular dramatic entertainments should have survived in particular abundance on Italian soil. They were to be recognized in the improvised farces performed at the courts, in the churches (farse spirituali), and among the people; the Roman carnival had preserved its wagon-plays, and various links remained to connect the modern comic drama of the Italians with the Alellanes and mimes of their ancestors. But the more notable later comic developments, which belong to the 16th century, will be more appropriately noticed below. Moralities proper had not flourished in Italy, where the love of the concrete has always been dominant in popular taste; more numerous are examples of scenes, largely mythological, in which the influence of the Renaissance is already perceptible, of eclogues, and of allegorical festival-plays of various sorts.

In Spain hardly a monument of the medieval religious drama has been preserved. There is manuscript evidence of the 11th s am century attesting the early addition of dramatic P elements to the Easter office; and a Spanish fragment of the Three Kings Epiphany play, dating from the 12th century, is, like the French Adam, one of the very earliest examples of the medieval drama in the vernacular. But that religious plays were performed in Spain. is clear from the permission granted by Alphon.so X. of Castile (d. 1284) to the clergy to represent them, while prohibiting the performance by them of juegos de escarnio (mocking plays). The earliest Spanish plays which we possess belong to the end of the 15th or beginning of the 16th century, and already show humanistic influence. In 1472 the couplets of Mingo Revulgo (i.e. Domingo Vulgus, the common people), and about the same time another dialogue by the same author, offer examples of a sort resembling the Italian contrasti (see below).

The German religious plays in the vernacular, the earliest of which date from the i4th and I5th centuries, and were produced at Trier, Wolfenbflttel, Innsbruck, Vienna, Berlin, &c., Germany. were of a simple kind; but in some of them, though they were written by clerks, there are traces of the minstrels hands. The earliest complete Christmas play in German, contained in a 14th-century St Gallen MS., has nothing in it to suggest a Latin original. On the other hand, the play of The Wise and the Foolish Virgins, in a Thuringian MS. thought to be as early as 1328, a piece of remarkable dignity, was evidently based on a Latin play. Other festivals besides Christmas were celebrated by plays; but down to the Reformation Easter enjoyed a preference. In the same century miracle-plays began to be performed, in honor of St Catherine, St Dorothea and other saints. But all these productions seem to belong to a period when the drama was still under ecclesiastical control. Gradually, as the liturgical drama returned to the simpler forms from which it had so surprisingly expanded, and ultimately died out, the religious plays performed outside the churches expanded more freely; and the type of mystery associated with the name of the Frankfort canon Baldemar von Peterweil communicated Itself, with other examples, to the receptive region of the southwest. The Corpus Christi plays, or (as they were here called) Frohnleichnamsspiele, are notable, since that of Innsbruck (1391) is probably the earliest extant example of its class. The number of non-scriptural religious plays in Germany was much smaller than that in France; but it may be noted that (in accordance with a long-enduring popular notion) the theme of the last judgment was common in Germany in the latter part of the middle ages. Of this theme Antichrist may be regarded as an episode, though in Antichrist appears to have occupied at Frankfort four days in its performance. The earlier (12th century) Antichrist is a production quite unique of its kind; this political protest breathes the Ghibelline spirit of the reign (Frederick Barbarossas) in which it was composed.

Though many of the early German plays contain an element of the moralities, there were few representative German examples of the species. The academical instinct, or some other influence, kept the more elaborate productions on the whole apart from the drolleries of the professional strollers (fahrende Leute), whose Shrove-Tuesday plays (Fastnachtsspiele) and cognate productions reproduced the practical fun of common life. Occasionally, no doubt, as in the LUbeck Fastnachtsspiel of the Five Virtues, the two species may have more or less closely approached to one another. When, in the course of the 15th century, Hans Rosenplt, called Schneppereror Hans Schnepperer, called Rosenpliit the predecessor of Hans Sachs, first gave a more enduring form to the popular Shrove-Tuesday plays, a connection was already establishing itself between the dramatic amusements of the people and the literary efforts of the master-singers of the towns. But, while the main productivity of the writers of moralities and cognate productionsa species particularly suited to German latitudesfalls into the periods of Renaissance and Reformation, the religious drama proper survived far beyond either in Catholic Germany, and, in. fact, was not suppressed in Bavaria and Tirol tifi the end of the 18th century.1

It may be added that the performance of miracle-plays is traceable in Sweden in the latter half of the 14th century; and that the German clerks and laymen who immigrated 5w~de~, into the Carpathian lands,and into Galicia inparticular, Carin the later middle ages, brought with them their pathian religious plays together with other elements of culture. 1at~~, &c. This fact is the more striking, inasmuch as, though Czech Easter plays were performed about the end of the 14th century, we hear of none among the Magyars, or among their neighbors of the Eastern empire.

Coming now to the English religious drama, we find that from its extant literature a fair general idea may be derived of the character of these medieval productions. The miracleplays, miracles or plays (these being the terms used in 11~bot~ England) of which we hear in London in the 12th century were probably written in Latin and acted by ecciesiastics; but already in. the following century mention is madein the way of prohibitionof plays acted by professional players. (Isolated moralities of the 12th century are not to be regarded as popular productions.) In England as elsewhere, the clergy either sought to retain their control over the religious plays, which continued to be occasionally acted in churches even after the Reformation, or else reprobated them with or without qualifications. In Cornwall miracles in the native Cymric dialect were performed at an early date; ~ but those which have been preserved are apparently 1grn. copies of English (with the occasional use of French) originals; they were represented, unlike the English plays, in the open country, in extensive amphitheatres constructed for the purposeone of which, at St Just near Penzance, has recently been restored.

The flourishing period of English miracle-plays begins with the practice of their performance by trading-companies in the towns, though these bodies were by no means possessed of Localities any special privileges for the purpose. Of this practice of the Chester is said to have set the example (1268-1276); performit was followed in the course of the 13th and 14th ance of centuries by many other towns, while in yet others miracletraces of such performances are not to be found till the P1~-YS 5th, or even the 16th. These towns with their neighborhoods include, starting from r~ast Anglia, where the religious drama was particularly at home, Wymondham, Norwich, Sleaford, Lincoln, Leeds, Wakefield, Beverley, York, Newcastle-on-Tyne, with a deviation across the border to Edinburgh and Aberdeen. In the north-west they are found at Kendal, Lancaster, Preston, Chester; whence they may be supposed to have migrated to Dublin. In the west they are noticeable at Shrewsbury, Worcester and Tewkesbury; in tne Midlands at Coventry and Leicester; in the east at Cambridge and Bassingbourne, Heybridge and Manningtree; to which places have to be added Reading, Winchester, Canterbury, Bethesda and London, in which last the performers were the parish-derks. Four collections, in addition to some single examples of such plays, The York have come down to us, the York plays, the so-called Towneley, Towneley plays, which were probably acted at the Chester fairs of Widkirk, near Wakefield, and those bearing the and names of Chester and of Coventry. Their dates, in the ~ forms in which they have come down to us, are more or less uncertain; that of the York may on the whole be concluded to be earlier than that of the Towneley, which were probably put together about the middle of the r4th century; the Chester may be ascribed to the close of the r4th or the earlier part of the 15th; the body of the Coventry probably belongs to the i5th or 16th. Many of the individual plays in these collections were doubtless founded on French originals; others are taken direct from Scripture, from the apocryphal gospels, or from the legends of the saints. Their characteristic feature is the combination of a whole series of plays into one collective whole, exhibiting the entire course of Bible history from the creation to the day of judgment. For this combination it is unnecessary to suppose that they were generally indebted to foreign examples, though there are several remarkable coincidences between the Chester plays and the French Mystre du vieil testament. Indeed, the oldest of the seriesthe York playsexhibits a fairly close parallel to the scheme of the Cursor mundi, an epic poem of Northumbrian origin, which early in the 14th century had set an example of treatment that unmistakably influenced the collective mysteries as a whole. Among the isolated plays of the same type which have come down to us may be mentioned The Harrowing of Hell (the Saviours descent into hell), an East-Midland production which professes to tell of a strif of Jesu and of Satan and is probably the earliest dramatic, or all but dramatic, work in English that has been preserved; and several belonging to a series known as the Digby Mysteries, including Parfres Candlemas Day (the massacre of the Innocents), and the very interesting miracle of Mary Magdalene. Of the so-called Paternoster and Creed plays (which exhibit the miraculous powers of portions of the Church service) no example remains, though of some we have an account; the Croxton Play of the Sacrament, the MS. of which is preserved at Dublin, and which seems to date from the latter half of the i5th century, exhibits the triumph of the holy wafer over wicked Jewish wiles.

To return to the collective mysteries, as they present themselves to us in the chief extant series. The manner of these plays, we read in a description of those at Chester, U~~ve dating from the close of the 16th century, were: mysteries. Every company had his pageant, which pageants were a high scaffold with two rooms, a higher and a lower, upon four wheels. In the lower they apparelled themselves, and in the higher room they played, being all open at the top, that all beholders might hear and see them. The places where they played them was in every street. They began first at the abbey gates, and when the first pageant was played, it was wheeled to the high cross before the mayor, and so to every street, and so every street had a pageant playing before them at one time till all the pageants appointed for the day were played; and when one pageant was near ended, word was brought from street to street, that so they might come in place thereof, exceedingly orderly, and all the streets have their pageants afore them all at one time playing together; to see which plays was great resort, and also scaffolds and stages made in the streets in those places where they determined to play their pageants.

Each play, then, was performed by the representative of a particular trade or company, after whom it was called the fishers, glovers, &c., pageant; while a general prologue was spoken by a herald. As a rule the movable stage sufficed for the action, though we find horsemen riding up to the scaffold, and Herod instructed to rage in the pagond and in the strete also. There is no probability that the stage was, as in France, divided into three platforms with a dark cavern at the side of the lowest, appropriated respectively to the Heavenly Father and his angels, to saints and glorified men, to mere men, and to souls in hell. But the last-named locality was frequently displayed in the English miracles, with or without fire in its mouth. The costumes were in part conventional,divine and saintly personages being distinguished by gilt hair and beards, Herod being clad as a Saracen, the demons wearing hideous heads, the souls black and white coats according to their kind, and the angels gold skins and wings.

Doubtless these performances abounded in what seem to us ludicrous features; and, though their main purpose was serious, they were not in England at least intended to be devoid of fun. But many of the features in question cfh7iraaer are in truth only homely and naf, and the simplicity plays.

of feeling which they exhibit is at times pathetic rather than laughable. The occasional grossness is due to an absence of refinement of taste rather than to an obliquity of moral sentiment. These features the four series have more or less in common, still there are certain obvious distinctions between them. The York plays (48), which were performed at Corpus Christi, are comparatively free from the tendency to jocularity and vulgarity observable in the Towneley; several of the plays concerned with the New Testament and early Christian story are, however, in substance common to both series. The Towneley Plays or Wakefield Mysteries (32) were undoubtedly composed by the friars of Widkirk or Nostel; but they are of a popular character; and, while somewhat over-free in tone, are superior in vivacity and humour to both the later collections. The Chester Plays (25) were undoubtedly indebted both to the Mystre du vieil testament and to earlier French mysteries; they are less popular in character than the earlier two cycles, and on the whole undistinguished by original power of pathos or humour. There is, on the other hand, a notable inner completeness in this series, which includes a play of Antichrist, devoid of course of any modern application. While these plays were performed at Whitsuntide, the Coventry Plays (42) were Corpus Christi performances. Though there is no proof that the extant series were composed by the Grey Friars, they reveal a considerable knowledge of ecclesiastical literature. For the rest, they are far more effectively written than the Chester Plays, and occasionally rise to real dramatic force. In the Coventry series there is already to be observed an element of abstract figures, which connects them with a different species of the medieval drama.

The moralities corresponded to the love for allegory which manifests itself in so many periods of English literature, and which,while dominating the whole field of medieval Moralities. literature, was nowhere more assiduously and effectively cultivated than in England. It is necessary to bear this in mind, in order to understand what to us seems so strange, the popularity of the moral-plays, which indeed never equalled that of the miracles, but sufficed to maintain the former species till it received a fresh impulse from the connection established between it and the new learning, together with the new political and religious ideas and questions, of the Reformation age. Moreover, a specially popular element was supplied to these plays, which in manner of representation differed in no essential point from the miracles, in a character borrowed from the latter, and, in the moralities, usually provided with a companion whose task it was to lighten the weight of such abstractions as Sapience and Justice. These were the Devil D

and his attendant the Vice, of whom the latter seems to ~ thy have been of native origin, and, as he was usually dressed vice.

in a fools habit, was probably suggested by the familiar custom of keeping an attendant fool at court or in great houses. The Vice had many aliases,, (Shift, Ambidexter, Sin, Fraud, Iniquity, &c.), but his usual duty is to torment and tease the Devil his master for the edification and diversion of the audience.

He was gradually blended with, the domestic fool, who survived in the regular drama. There are other concrete elements in the moralities; for typical figures are often fitted with concrete names, and thus all but converted into concrete human personages.

The earlier English moralities ifrom the reign of Henry VI. to that of Henry VII.usually allegorize the conflict between good and evil in the mind and life of man, without any Groups of side-intention of theological controversy. Such also ni~a~itles. is still essentially the purpose of the extant morality by Henry VIII.s poet, the witty Skelton.2 Ever yman (pr. C. 1529), perhaps the most perfect example of its class, with which the present generation has fortunately become familiar, contains passages certainly designed to enforce the specific teaching of Rome. But its Dutch original was written at least a generation earlier, and could have no controversial intention. On the other hand, R. Wevers Lusty Juventus breathes the spirit, of the dogmatic reformation of the reign of Edward VI. Theological controversy largely occupies the moralities of the earlier part of Elizabeths reign,1 and connects itself with political feeling in a famous morality, Sir David Lyndsays Satire of the Three Estaitis, written and acted (at Cupar, in I 539) On the other side of the border, where such efforts as the religious drama proper had made had been extinguished by the Reformation. Only a single English political morality proper remains to us, which belongs to the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth.4 Another series connects itself with the ideas of the Renaissance rather than the Reformation., treating of intellectual progress rather than of moral conduct;i this extends from the reign of Henry VIII. to that of his younger daughter. Besides these,, there remain some Elizabethan moralities which have no special theological or scientific purpose, and which are none the less lively in consequence.6

The transition. from the morality to the regular drama in England was effected, on the one hand, by the intermixture of historical personages with abstractionsas in Bishop Bales Kyng Johan (c. 1548)which easily led over to morality the chronicle history; on the other, by the introduction to the of types of real life by the side of abstract figures.

regular This latter tendency, of which instances occur in earlier plays, is observable in several of the 6thcentury moralities; ~ but before most of these were written, a further step in advance had been taken by a man of genius~ John Heywood (b. C. 1500, d. between 577 and 1587), Hey WOOd S whose interludes 8 were short farces in the French manner. The term interludes was by no means new, but had been applied by friend and foe to religious plays, and plays (including moralities) in general, already in the 14th century. But it conveniently serves to designate a species which marks a distinct stage in the history of the modern drama. Heywoods interludes dealt entirely with realvery realmen and women. Orthodox and conservative, he had at the same time a keen eye for the vices as well as the follies of his age, and not the least for those of the clerical profession. Other writers, such as T. Ingeland,9 took the same direction; and the allegory of abstractions was thus undermined on the stage, very much as in didactic literature the ground had been cut from under its feet by the Ship of Fooles. Thus the interludes facilitated the advent of comedy, without having superseded the earlier form. Both moralities and miracle-plays survived into the Elizabethan age after the regular drama had already begun its course.

1 To the earliest group belong The Castle of Perseverance; Wisdom who is Christ; Mankind; to the second, or early Tudor group, Medwell, Nature; The World and the Child; Hycke-Scorner, &c.

i Magnyfycence.

1 New Custome; N. Woodes, The Conflict of Conscience, &c.

Albyon Knight. -

i Rastell, Nature of the Four Elements; Redford, Wit and Science; The Trial of Treasure; The Marriage of Wit and Science.

6 The Marriage of Wit and Wisdom; The Contention bet ipeen Liberality and Prodigality.

Jack Juggler; Tom Tiler and his Wife, &c.

8 The Four Ps. &c. The Disobedient Child (c. 1.r6o).

Such, in barest outline, was the progress of dramatic entertainm~nts in the principal countries of Europe, before the revival of classical ,studies brought about a return to the examples Pa ants of the classical drama, or before this return had S~6

distinctly asserted itself. It must not, however, be forgotten that from an early period in England as elsewhere had flourished a species of entertainments, not properly speaking dramatic, but largely contributing to form and foster a taste for dramatic spectacles. The pageantsas they were called in England were the successors of those ridings from which, when they gladdened Chepe, Chaucers idle apprentice would not keep away; but they had advanced in splendour and ingenuity of device under the influence of Flemish and other foreign examples. Costumed figures represented before gaping citizens the heroes of mythology and history, and the abstractions of moral, patriotic, or municipal allegory; and the city of London clung with special fervour to these exhibitions, which the Elizabethan drama was neither able noras represented by most of its poets who composed devices and short texts for these and similar shows willing to oust from pcpular favor. Some of the greatest and some of the least of English dramatists were the ministers of pageantry; and perhaps it would have been. an advantage for the future of the theatre if the legitimate drama and the Triumphs of Old Drapery had been more jealously kept apart. With the reign of Henry VIII. there also set in a varied succession of entertainments at csurt and in the houses of the great nobles, which may be said to have lasted through the Tudor and early Stuart periods; but it would be an endless task to attempt to discriminate the dramatic elements contained in these productions. ~The mask, stated to ,have been. introduced from Italy into England as a new diversion in 1512-1513, at first merely added a fresh element of disguising to those already in use; as a quasi-dramatic species (mask or masque) capable of a great literary development it hardly asserted itself till quite the end of the 16th century.


The literary influence which finally transformed the growths noticed above into the national dramas of the several countries Of Europe, was that of the Renaissance. Among the Influence remains of classical antiquity which were studied, of the translated and itnitated, those of the drama necessarily Renalsheld a prominent place. Never altogether lost sight of, sance.

they now became subjects of devoted research and models for more or less exact imitation, first in Greek or Latin, then in modern tongues; and these essentially literary endeavours came into more or less direct contact with, and acquired more or less control over, dramatic performances and entertainments already in existence. This process it will be most convenient to pursue seriatim, in connection with the rise and progress of the several, dramatic literatures of the West. For no sooner had the stream of the modern drama, whose source and contributories have been described, been brought back into the ancient bed, than. its flow diverged into a number of national currents, unequal in impetus and strength, and varying in accordance with their manifold surroundings. And even of these it is only possible to survey the most productive or important.

(a) Italy.

The priority in this as in most of the other aspects of the Renaissance belongs to Italy. In ultimate achievement the Italian drama fell short of the fulness of the results The obtained elsewherea surprising fact when it is modern considered, not only that the Italian language had the Italian vantage-ground of closest relationship to the Latin, drama. but that the genius of the Italian people has at all times led it to love the drama. The cause is doubtless to be sought in the lack, noticeable in Italian national life during a long period, and more especially during the troubled days of division and strife coinciding with the rise and earlier promise of Italian dramatic literature, of thOse loftiest and most potent impulses of popular feeling to~ which a national drama owes so much of its strength. This deficiency was. due Dartlv to the Deculiarities of the Italian character, partly to the political and ecclesiastical experiences which Italy was fated to undergo. The Italians were alike strangers to the enthusiasm of patriotism, which was as the breath in the nostrils of the English Elizabethan age, and to the religious devotion which identified Spain with the spirit of the Catholic revival. The clear-sightedness of the Italians had something to do with this, for they were too intelligent to believe in their tyrants, and too free from illusions to deliver up their minds to their priests. Finally, the chilling and enervating effects of a pressure of foreign domination, such as no Western. people with a history and a civilization like those of Italy has ever experienced, contributed to paralyse for many generations the higher efforts of the dramatic art. No basis was permanen.tly found for a really national tragedy; while literary comedy, after turning from the direct imitation of Latin models to a more popular form, lost itself in an abandoned immorality of tone and in reckless insolence of invective against particular classes of society. Though its productivity long continued, the poetic drama more and more concentrated its efforts upon subordinate or subsidiary species, artificial in origin and decorative in purpose, and surrendered its substance to the overpowering aids of music, dancing and spectacle. Only a single form of the Italian drama, improvised comedy, remained truly national; and this was of its nnture dissociated from higher literary effort. The revival of Italian tragedy in later times is due partly to the imitation of French models, partly to the endeavour of a brilliant genius to infuse into his art the historical and political spirit. Comedy likewise attained to new growths of considerable significance, when it was sought to accommodate its popular forms to the representation of real life in a wider range, and again to render it more poetical in accordance with the tendencies of modern romanticism.

The regular Italian drama, in both its tragic and its comic branches, began. with a reproduction, in the Latin language, of classical modelsthe first step, as it was to prove, towards the transformation of the medieval into the modern drama, and, the birth of modern dramatic literature. But the process was both tentative and tedious, and must have died away but for the pomp and circumstance with which some of the patrons of the Renaissance at Florence, Rome an~d elsewhere surrounded these manifestations of a fashionable taste, and for the patriotic inspiration which from the first induced Italian writers to dramatize themes of national historic in.terest. Greek tragedy had been long forgotten, and one or two indications in the earlier part of the 16th century of Italian interest in the Greek drama, chiefly due to the printing presses, may be passed by.1 To the later middle ages classical tragedy meant Seneca, and even his plays remained unremembered till the studyof them was revived by the Paduan judge Lovato de Lovati (Lupatus, d. 1309). Of the comedies of Plautus three-fifths were not rediscovered till 1429; and though Terence was much read in the schools, he found no dramatic imitators, pour le bon motif or otherwise, since Hrosvitha.

Thus the first medieval follower of Seneca, Albertino Mussato (1261-1330) may in a sense be called the father of modern dramatic literature. Born at Padua, to which city all his services were given, he in 1315 brought out his Eccerinis, a Latin tragedy very near to the confines of epic poetry, intended to warn the Paduans against the designs of Can Grande della Scala by the example of the tyrant Ezzelino. Other tragedies of much the same type followed during the ensuing century; such as L. da Fabianos De casu Caesenae (1377) a sort of chronicle history in Latin prose on Cardinal Albornoz capture of Caesena.2 Purely The Xpun-ti1 lr&oXwe, an artificial Byzantine product, probably of the 11th century, glorifying the Virgin in Euripidean verse, was not known to the Western world till 1542.

i Of G. Manzini della Mottas Latin tragedy on the fall of Antonio della Scala only a chorus remains. He died after 1389. Probably to the earlier half of the century belongs the Latin prose drama Cotumpnarium, the story of which, though it ends happily, resembles that of The Cenci. Later plays in Latin of the historic type are the extant Landivio de Nobilis De captivitate Duc-is Jacobi (the condottiere Jacopo Piccinino, d. 1464); C. Verardis Historic Baetica classical themes were treated in the .,4chilleis of A. de Loschi ~f Vicenza (d. 1441), formerly attributed to Mussato, several passages of which are taken verbally from Seneca; in the celebrated Progne of the Venetian Gregorio Cornaro, which is dated I428I429, and in later Latin productions included among the translations and imitations of Greek and Latin tragedies and comedies by Bishop Martirano (d. 1557), the friend of Pope Leo X.,3 and the efforts of Pomponius Laetus and his followers, who, with theaid of Cardinal Raffaele Riario (1451-1521), sought to revive the ancient theatre, with all its classical associations, at Rome.

In this general movement Latin comedy had quickly followed suit, and, as just indicated, it is almost impossible, when we reach the height of the Italian Renaissance under the Medici at Florence and at Rome in particular, to review the progress of either species apart from that of the other. If we possessed the lost Pizilologia of Petrarch, of which, as of a juvenile work, he declared himself ashamed, this would be the earliest of extant humanistic comedies. As it is, this position is held by Paulus, a Latin comedy of life on the classic model, by the orthodox P. P. Vergerio (1370-1444); which was followed by many others.4

Early in the 16th century, tragedy began to be written in the native tongue; but it retained from the first, and never wholly lost, the impress of its origin. Whatever the source Italian of its subjectswhich, though mostly of classical tragedy in origin, were occasionally derived from native romance, the 16th or even due to inventionthey were all treated with century.

a predilection for the horrible, inspired by the example of Seneca, though no doubt encouraged by a perennial national taste. The chorus, stationary on the stage as in old Roman tragedy, was not reduced to a merely occasional appearance between the acts till the beginning of the 17th century, or ousted altogether from the tragic drama till the earlier half of the 18th. Thus the changes undergone by Italian tragedy were for a long series of generations chiefly confined to the form of versification and the choice of themes; nor was it, at all events till the last century of the course which it has hitherto run, more than the aftergrowth of an aftergrowth. The honor of having been the earliest tragedy in Italian seems to belong to A. da Pistoias Pamfila (1499), of which the subject was taken from Boccaccio, introduced by the ghost of Seneca, and marred in. the taking. Carrettos Sofon-isba, which hardly rises above the art of a chronicle history, though provided with a chorus, followed in 1502. But the play usually associated with the beginning of Italian tragedythat with which th Italian scene first learned to glow was another Sofonisba., acted before Leo X. ~fl 1515, and written. in blank hendecasyllables instead of the ottava and terza rime of the earlier tragedians (retaining, however, the lyric measures of the chorus), by G. G. Trissino, who was employed as nuncio by that pope. Other tragedies of the former half of the 16th century, largely inspired by Trissinos example, were the Rosmunda of Rucellai, a nephew of Lorenzo the Magnificent (1516); Martellis Tull-ia, Alamannis Ant-igone (1532); the Canace of Sperone Speroni, the envious Mopsus of Tasso, who, like Guarini, took Sperones elaborate style for his model; the (the expulsion of the Moors from Granada) (1492), and the same authors Ferdinandus (of Aragon) Servatus, which is called a tragicomedy because it is neither tragic nor comic. The Florentine L. Dalis H-iempsal (1441-1442) remains in MS. A few tragedies on sacred subjects were produced in Italy during the last quarter of the 15th century, an4 a little later. Such were the religious dramas written for his pupils by P. Domizio, on which Politian cast contempt; and the tragedies, following ancient models, of T. da Prato of Treviso, B. Campagna of Verona, De passione Redemptoris; and G. F. Conti, author of Theandroth.anatos and numerous vanished plays.

i Imber aureus (Dana), &c.

L. Brunis Poliscena (c. 13~5); Sicco Polentones (1370-1463) jovial Lusus ebriorum s. De lege bibia; the papal secretary P. Candido Decembrios (1399-1477) non-extant Aphrodisia; L. B. Albertis Philodoxios (1424); Ugolino Pisani of Parmas (d. before 1462) Philo genie and Confutatio coquinaria (a merry students play); the Fraudiphila of A. Tridentino, also of Parma, who died afi,er 1470 and perhaps served Pius II.; Eneo Silvio de Piccolominis own verse comedy, Chrisis, likewise in MS., written in 1444; P. Domizios Lucinia, acted in the palace of Lorenzo de Medici in 1478, &c.

Orazic, the earliest dramatic treatment of this famous subject by the notorious Aretino (1549); and the nine tragedies of G. B. ~iraldi (Cinthio) of Ferrara, among which LOrbecche (1541) is accounted the best and the bloodiest. Cinthio, the author of those Hecatommithi to which Shakespeare was indebted for so many of his subjects, was (supposing him to have invented these) the first Italian who was the author of the fables of his own dramas; he introduced some novelties into dramatic construction, separating the prologue and probably also the epilogue from the action, and has by some been regarded as the inventor of the pastoral drama. But his style was arid. In the latter half of the 16th century may be mentioned the Didone and the Marianna of L. Dolce, the translator of Euripides and Seneca (1565); A. Leonicos Ii Soldato (1550); the Adr-iana (acted before 1561 or 1586) of L. Groto, which treats the story of Romeo and Juliet; Tassos Torrismondo (1587); the Tancredi of Asinari (1588); and the Merope of Torelli (1593), the last who employed the stationary chorus (coro Jisso) on the Italian stage. Leonicos Soldato is noticeable as supposed to have given~ rise to the Ira gedia c-ittadina, or domestic tragedy, of which there are few examples in. the Italian drama, and De Velos Tamar (1586) as written in prose. Subjects of modern historical interest were in this period treated only in isolated instances.1

The tragedians of the I7th century continued to pursue the beaten track, marked out already in the 16th by rigid prescripItalian tion. In course of time, however, they sought by the tragedy introduction of musical airs to compromise with the in the 17th danger with which their art was threatened of being and 18th (in Voltaires phrase) extinguished by the beautiful centuries, monster, the opera, now rapidly gaining ground in the country of its origin. (See OPERA.) To Count P. Bonarelli (I 5891659), the author of Solimano, is on the other hand ascribed the first disuse of the chorus in Italian tragedy. The innovation of the use of rhyme attempted in. the learned Pallavicinos Erminigildo (1655), and defended by him in a discourse prefixed to the pMy, was unable to achieve a permanent success in Italy any more than in England; its chief representative was afterwards Martelli (d. 1727), whose rhymed Alexandrian verse (Martelliano), though on one occasion used in comedy by Goldoni, failed to commend itself to the popular taste. By the end of the I 7th century Italian tragedy seemed destined to expire, and the great tragic actor Cotta had withdrawn in disgust at the apathy of the public towards the higher forms of the drama. The 18th century was, however, to witness a change, the beginnings of which are attributed to the institution of the Academy of the Arcadians at Rome (1690). The principal efforts of the new school of writers and critics were directed to the abolition of the chorus, and to a general increase of freedom in treatment.

Maffel. Before long the marquis S. Maffei with his Merope (first printed 1713) achieved one of the most brilliant successes recorded in the history of dramaific literature. This play, ~hich is devoid of any love-story, long continued to be considered the masterpiece of Italian tragedy; Voltaire, who declared it worthy of the most glorious days of Athens, adapted it for the French stage, and it inspired a celebrated production of the English drama.2 It was followed by a tragedy full of horrors,I noticeable as having given rise to the first Italian dramatic parody; and by the highly esteemed productions of M Granelli (d .1769) and his contemporaryBettinelli. P.T.

sts~. Metastasio (1698-1782) ,who had earlybegun his career as a dramatist by a strict adherence to the precepts of Aristotle, gained celebrity by his contributions to the operatic drama at Naples, Venice and Vienna (where he held office as poeta cesareo, whose function was to arrange the court entertainments). But his libretti have a poetic value of their own;4 and Voltaire pronounced much of him worthy of Corneille and of Racine, when at their best. The influence of Voltaire had now come to predominate over the Italian drama; and, in accordance Mondella, Isifile (2582); Fuligni, Bragadino (1589).

i Home, Douglas. -

Lazzaroni, Ulisse ii giovane (1719). -

~ Didone abbcindonata, Siroe, Semiramide, Artaserse, Demetris, &c.

with the spirit of the times, greater freedom prevailed in. the choice of tragic themes. Thus the greatest of Italian tragic poets, Count V. Alfieri (1749-1803), found his path prepared Airier! for him. Alfieris grand and impassioned treatment of his subjects caused his faultiness of form, which he never altogether overcame, to be forgotten. His themes were partly classical;5 but the spirit of a love of freedom which his creations6 breathe was the herald of the national ideas of the future. Spurning the usages of French tragedy, his plays, which abound in soliloquies, owe~part of their effect to an impassioned force of declamation, part to those points by-which Italian acting seems pre-eminently capable of thrilling an audience. He has much besides the subjects of two of his dramas in. common with Schiller, but his amazon-muse (as Schlegel called her) was not schooled into serenity, like the muse of the German poet. Among his numerous plays (2,), Merope and Saul, and perhaps Mirra, are accounted his masterpieces.

The political coloring given by Alfieri to Italian tragedy reappears in the plays of U. Foscolo and A. Manzoni, both of whom are under the influence of the romantic school of modern literature; and to these names must be added those of S. Pellico and G. B. Niccolini (1785 Aifler!. 1861), Paolo Giacometti (b. 1816) and others, whose dramas8 treat largely national themes familiar to all students of modern history and literature. In their hands Italian tragedy upon the whole adhered to its love of strong situations and passionate declamation. Since the successful efforts of G. Modena (1804-1861) renovated the tragic stage in Italy, the art of tragic acting long stood at a higher level in this than in almost any other European country; in Adelaide Ristori (Marchesa del Grillo) the tragic stage lost one of the greatest of modern actresses; and Ernesto Rossi (1827-1896) and Tommaso Salvini long remained rivals in the noblest forms of tragedy.

In. comedy, the efforts of the scholars of the Italian Renaissance for a time went side by side with the progress of the popular entertainments noticed above. While the contrasti of Italian the close of the 15th and of the 16th century were comedy; disputations between pairs of abstract or allegorical popular figures, in the frottola humafi types take the place of forms. abstractions, and more than two characters appear. The farsa (a name used of a wide variety of entertainments) was still under medieval influences, and in this popular form Alione of Asti (soon after 1500) was specially productive. To these popular diversions a new literary as well as social significance was given by the Neapolitan court-poet Saniazaro (c. 1492); about the same time a capitano valoroso, Venturiio of Pesara, first brought on the modern stage the capitano glorioso or spavente, the military braggart, who owed his origin both to Plautus9 and to the Spanish officers who abounded in the Italy of those days. The popular character-comedy, a relic of the ancient A teilanae, likewise took a new lease of lifeand this in a double form. The improvised comedy (commedia a soggetto) was now as a rule performed by professional actors, members of a craft, and was thence called the commedia deli arte, which is said to ~ dl have been invented by Francesco (called Terenziano) ~e5 Cherea, the favorite player of Leo X. Its scenes, still unwritten except in skeleton (scenario), were connected together by the ligatures or links (lazzi) of the arlecchino, the descendant of the ancient Roman sannio (whence our zany). Harlequins summit of glory was probably reached early in the 17th century, when he was ennobled in the person of Cecchino by the emperor Matthias; of Cecchinos successors, Zaccagnino and Truffaldino, we read that they shut the door in Italy to good harle- Masked quins. Distinct from this growth is that of the masked comedy. comedy, the action of which was chiefly carried on by certain ~ Cleopatra, Antigone, Octavia, M-irope, &c.

6 e.g. Bruto I. and II. Filippo; Maria Stuarda. -

~ Pellico, Francesca da Rimini; Niccolini, GiovannI da Procida; Beatrice Cenci; Giacometti, Cola di Rienzi (Giacomettis masterpiece was La Marte civile).

Pyrogopolinices in the Miles Gloriosus typical figures in masks, speaking in local dialects,1 but which was not improvised, and indeed from the nature of the case hardly could have been. Its inventor was A. Beolco of Padua, who called himself Ruzzante (joker), and is memorable under that name as the first actor-playwrighta combination of extreme significance for the history of the modern stage. He published six comedies in various dialects, including the Greek of the day (1530). This was the masked comedy to which the Italians so tenaciously clung, and in which, as all their own and imitable by no other natinn, they took so great a pride that even Goldoni was unable to overthrow it. Improvisation and burlesque, alike abominable to comedy proper, were inseparable from the species.

Meanwhile, the Latin imitations of Roman, varied by occasional franslations of Greek, comedies early led to the production Early of Italian translations, several of which were performed Italian at Ferrara in the last quarter of the I5th century, regular whence they spread to Milan, Pavia and other towns comedy. of the north. Contemporaneously, imitations of Latin comedy made their appearance, for the most part in rhymed verse; most of them applying classical treatment to subjects derived from Boccaccios and other novelle, some still mere adaptations of ancient models. In these circumstances it is all but idle to assign the honor of having been the first Italian comedy and thus the first comedy in modern dramatic literatureto any particular play. Boiardos Timone (before 1494), for which this distinction was frequently claimed, is to a large extent founded on a dialogue of Lucians; and, since some of its personages are abstractions, and Olympus is domesticated on an upper stage, it cannot be regarded as more than a transition from the moralities. A. Riccis I Tre Tiranni (before 1530) seems still to belong to the same transitional species. Among the earlier imitators of Latin comedy in the vernacular may be noted G. Visconti, one of the poets patronized by Ludovico ii Moro at Milan; 2 the Florentines G. B. Araldo, J. Nardi, the historian,3 and D. Gianotti.4 The stepvery important had it been adopted consistently or with a view to consistencyof substituting prose for verse as the diction of comedy, is sometimes attributed to Ariosto; but, though his first two comedies were originally written in prose, the experiment was not new, nor did he persist in its adoption. Carettos I Sei Contenti dates from the end of the I 5th century, and Publio Filippos Formicone, taken from Apuleius, followed quite early in the 16th. Machiavelli, as will be seen, wrote comedies both in prose and in verse.

But, whoever wrote the first Italian comedy, Ludovico Ariosto was the first master of the species. All but the first two of his comedies, belonging as they do to the field of commedia erudita, or scholarly comedy, are in blank verse, to which he gave a singular mobility by the dactylic ending of the line (sdrucciolo). Ariostos models were the masterpieces of the palliata, and his morals those of his age, which emulated those of the worst days of ancient Rome or Byzantium in looseness, and surpassed them in effrontery. He chose his subjects accordingly; but his dramatic genius displayed itself in the effective drawing of character,i and more especially in the skilful management of complicated intrigues.6 Such, with an additional brilliancy of wit and lasciviousness of to~ie, are likewise the characteristics of Machiaveffis famous prose comedy, the Mandragola (The masks. -

i Pasitea. Amicizia.

6 La Lena Ii Negromanle. 6 La Cassaria; I Suppositi.

Magic Draught);1 and at the height of their success, of the plays of P. Aretino,6 especially the prose Marescalco (1526-1527) whose name, it has been said, ought to be written in asterisks. It may be added that the plays of Ariosto and his followers were represented with magnificent scenery and settings. Other dramatists of the 16th century were B. Accolti, whose Virginia (prob. before 1513) treats the story from Boccaccio which reappears in Alls Well that Ends Well; G. Cecchi, F. dAmbra, A. F. Grazzini, N. Secco or Secchi and L. Dolceall writers of romantic comedy of intrigue in verse or prose.

During the same century the pastoral drama flourished in Italy. The origin of this peculiar specieswhich was the bucolic idyll in a dramatic form, and which freely lent itself to the introduction of both mythological The and allegorical elementswas purely literary, and ~ arose directly out of the classical studies and tastes of the Renaissance. It was very far removed from the genuine peasant plays which flourished in Venetia and Tuscany early in the 16th century. The earliest example of the artificial, but in some of its productions exquisite, growth in question was the renowned scholar A. Politians Orfeo (1472), which begins like an idyll and ends like a tragedy. Intended to be performed with musicfor the pastoral drama is the parent of the operathis beautiful work tells its story simply. N. da Correggios (1450-1508) Cefalo, or Aurora, and others followed, before in 1554 A. Beccari produced, as totally new of,its kind, his Arcadian pastoral drama Il Sagrifizio, in which the comic element predominates. But an epoch in the history of the species is marked by the Aminta of Tasso (I573),in whose Arcadia is allegorically mirrored the Ferrara court. Adorned by choral lyrics of great beauty, it presents an allegorical treatment of a social and moral problem; and since the conception of the characters, all of whom think and speak of nothing but love, is artificial, the charm of the poem lies not in the interest of its action, but in the passion and sweetness of its sentiment. This work was the model of many others, and the pastoral drama reached its height of popularity in the famous Pastor fido (written before 1590) of G. B. Guarini, which, while founded on a tragic love-story, introduces into its complicated plot a comic element, partly with a satirical intention. It is one of those exceptional works which, by circumstance as well as by merit, have become the property of the worlds literature at large. Thus, both in Italian and in other literatures, the pastoral drama became a distinct species, characterized, like the great body of modern pastoral poetry in general, by a tendency either towards the artificial or towards the burlesque. Its artificiality affected the entire growth of Italian comedy, including the coinmedia deli arte, and impressed itself in an intensified form upon the opera. The for~most Italian masters of the lastnamed species, so far as it can claim to be included in the poetic drama, were A. Zeno (1668-1750) and P. Metastasio.

The comic dramatists of the 17th century are grouped as followers of the classical and of the romantic school, G. B. della Porta and G. A. Cicognini (whom Goldoni Comedy In describes as full of whining pathos and commonplace the 17th drollery, but as still possessing a great power to and 18th interest) being regarded as the leading representatives centuries. of the former. But neither of these largely intermixed groups of writers could, with all its fertility, prevail against the competition, on the one hand of the musical drama, and on the other of the popular farcical entertainments and those introduced in imitation of Spanish examples. Italian comedy had fallen into decay, when its reform was undertaken by the wonderful theatrical genius of C. Goldoni. One of the most ~ ,~ ~ fertile and rapid of playwrights (of his 150 comedies 16 were written and acted in a single year), be at the same time pursued definite aims as a dramatist. Disgusted with the conventional buffoonery, and ashamed of the rampant La Corligiana, La Talanta, Ii Ipocrito, Ii Filosof a.

immorality of the Italian comic stage, he drew his characters from real life, whether of his native city (Venice)1 or of society at large, and sought to enforce virtuous and pathetic sentiments without neglecting the essential objects of his art. Happy and various in his choice of themes, and dipping deep into a popular life with which he had a genuine sympathy, he produced, besides comedies of general human character,2 plays on subjects drawn from literary biography3 or from fiction.4 Goldoni, whose style was considered defective by the purists whom Italy has at no time lacked, met with a severe critic and a temporarily successful a zi rival in Count C. Gozzi (1722-1806), who sought to 01 rescue the comic drama from its association with the actual life of the middle classes, and to infuse a new spirit into the figures of the old masked comedy by the invention of a new species. His themes were taken from Neapolitan and Oriental 6 fairy tales, to which he accommodated some of the standing figures upon which Goldoni had made war. This attempt at mingling fancy and humouroccasionally of a directly satirical turn 7was in harmony with the tendencies of the modern romantic school; and Gozzis efforts, which though successful found hardly any imitators in Italy, have a family resemblance to those of Tieck and of some more recent writers whose art wings its ifight, through the windows, over the hills and far away.

During the latter part of the 18th and the early years of the i9th century comedy continued to follow the course marked out by its acknowledged master Goldoni, under the Comedians influence of the sentimental drama of France and other - countries. Abati Andrea Viii, the marquis Albergati Capacelli, Antonio Simone Sografi (1760-1825),

Federici, and Pietro Napoli Signorelli (1731-1815), the historian of the drama, are mentioned among the writers of this school; to the i9th century belong Count Giraud, Marchisio (who took his subjects especially from commercial life), and Nota, a fertile writer, among whose plays are three treating the lives of poets. Of still more recent date are L. B. Bon and A. Brofferio. At the same time, the comedy of dialect to which the example of Goldoni had given sanction. in Venice, flourished there as well as in the mutually remote spheres of Piedmont and Naples. Quite modern developments must remain unnoticed here; but the fact cannot be ignored that they signally illustrate the perennial vitality of the modern drama in the home of its beginnings. A new realistic style set fully in about the middle of the 18th century with P. Ferrari and A. Torelli; and though an historical reaction towards classical and medieval themes is associated with the names of P. Cossa and G. Giacosa, modernism reasserted itself through P. Bracco and other dramatists. It should be noted that the influence of great actors, more especially Ermete Novelli and Eleanora Duse, must be credited with a large share of th success with which the Italian stage has held its own even against the foreign influences to which it gave room. And it would seem as if even the paradoxical endeavour of the poet Gabrielle d Annunzio to lyricize the drama by ignoring action as its essence were a problem for the solution of which the stage can furnish unexpected conditions of its own. In any event, both Italian tragedy and Italian comedy have survived periods of a seemingly hopeless decline; and the fear has vanished that either the opera or the ballet might succeed in ousting from the national stage the legitimate forms of the national drama.

I Momolo Cortesan (Jerome the A ccomplished Man); La Bottega del caffe, &c.

2 La Vedova scaltra (The Cunning Widow); La Puita onorata (The Respectable Girl); La Buona Figlia; La B. Sposa; La B. Famigha; La B. Madre (the last of which was unsuccessful; goodness, says Goldoni, never displeases, but the public weary of ever thing), &c.; and Ii Burbero benefico, called in its original Frenc version Le Bourru bienfaisant.

i Moliere; Terenzio; Tasso.

Pamela; Pamela Maritata; Il Filosofo Inglese (Mr Spectator).

L A more delle try melarancie (The Three Lemons); Il Corvo.

6 Turandot; Zobeide.

L A more d-elle tre m. (against Goldoni); L Angellino Belverde (The Sinai! Green Bird), (against Helvetius, Rousseau and Voltaire).

(b) Greece.

The dramatic literature of the later Hellenes is a creation of the literary movement which preceded their noble struggle for independence, or which may be said to form part Modern of that struggle. After beginning with dramatic Greek and dialogues of a patriotic tendency, it took a step in Dalmailan advance with the tragedies of J. R. Nerulos8 (1778. drama, 1850), whose name belongs to the political as well as to the literary history of his country. His comediesespecially one directed against the excesses of journalism 9largely contributed to open a literary life for the modern Greek tongue. Among the earlier patriotic Greek dramatists of the I9th century are T. Alkaeos, J. Zampelios (whose tragic style was influenced by that Of Alfieri),i S. K. Karydis and A. Valaoritis. A. Zoiros1f is noteworthy as having introduced the use of prose into Greek tragedy, while preserving to it that association with sentiments and aspirations which will probably long colitinue to pervade the chief productions cii modern Greek literature. The love of the theatre is ineradicable from Attic as it is from Italian soil; and the tendencies of the young dramatic literature of Hellas which is not wholly absorbed in the effort to keep abreast of recent modern developments, seem to justify the hope that a worthy future awaits it.

Under Italian influence an interesting dramatic growth attained to some vitality in the Dalmatian lands about the beginning of the 16th century, where the religious drama, whose days were passing away in Italy, found favor with a people with a scant popular literature of its own. At Ragusa Italian literary influence had been spread by the followers of Petrarch from the later years of the I 5th century; here several ServoCroatian writers produced religious plays in the manner of the Italian rappresentazioni; and a gifted poet, Martin Dr~i, composed, besides religious plays and farces, a species of pastoral which enjoyed much favor.

(c) Spain.

Spain is the only country of modern Europe which shares with England the honor of having achieved, at a relatively early date, the creation of a genuinely national form of the regular drama. So proper to Spain was the form of the drama which she produced and perfected, that to it the term romantic has been specifically applied, though so restricted a use of the epithet is clearly unjustifiable. The influences which from the Romance peoplesin whom Christian and Germanic elements mingled with the legacy of Roman law, learning and culturespread to the Germanic nations were represented with the most signal force and fulness in the institutions of chivalry,to which, in the words of Scott, it was peculiar to blend military valour with the strongest passions which actuate the human mind, the feelings of devotion and those of love. These feelings, in their combined operation upon the national character, and in their reflection in the national literature, were not confined to Spain; but nowhere did they so long or so late continue to animate the moral life of a nation.

Outward causes contributed to this result. For centuries after the crusades had become a n~ere memory, Spain was a battle-ground between the Cross and the Crescent. And it was just at the time when the Renaissance was establishing new starting-points for the literary progress of Europe, that Christian Spain rose to the height of Catholic as well as national selfconsciousness by the expulsion of the Moors and the conquest of the New World. From their rulers or rivals of so many centuries the Spaniards derived that rich, if not very varied, glow of color which became permanently distinctive of their national life, and more especially of its literary and artistic 8 Aspasia;Polyxena.

~ Ephemeridophobos.

is Timoleon; Konstantinos Palaeologos; Rhigas of Pherae.

U The Three Hundred, or The Character of the Ancient Hellene (Leonidas); The Death of the Orator (Demosthenes); A Scion of Timoleon, &c.

expressions; they also perhaps derived from the same source a not less characteristically refined treatment of the passion of love. The ideas of Spanish chivalrymore especially religious devotion and a punctilious sense of personal honorasserted themselves (according to a process often observable in the history of civilization) with peculiar distinctness in literature and art, after the period of great achievements to which they had contributed in other fields had come to an end. The ripest glories of the Spanish drama belong to an age of national decay mindful, it is true, of the ideas of a greater past. The chivalrous enthusiasm pervading so many of the masterpieces of its literature is indeed a distinctive feature of the Spanish nation in all, even in the least hopeful, periods of its later history; and the religious ardour breathed by these works, though associating itself with what is called the Catholic Reaction, is in truth only a manifestation of the spirit which informed the noblest part of the Ref ormalion movement itself. The Spanish drama neither sought nor could seek to emancipate itself from views and forms of religious life more than ever sacred to the Spanish people since the glorious days of Ferdinand and Isabella; and it is not so much in the beginnings as in the great age of Spanish dramatic literature that it seems most difficult to distinguish between what is to be termed a religious and what a secular play. After Spain had thus, the first after England among modern European countries, fully unfolded that incomparably richest expression of national life and sentiment in an artistic forma truly national dramatic literature,the terrible decay of her greatness and prosperity gradually impaired the strength of a brilliant but, of its nature, dependent growth. In the absence of high original genius the Spanish dramatists began to turn to foreign models, though little supported in such attempts by popular sympathy; and it is only in more recent times that the Spanish drama has sought to reproduce the ancient forms from whose masterpieces the nation had never become estranged, while accommodating them to tastes and tendencies shared by later Spanish literature with that of Europe at large.

The earlier dramatic efforts of Spanish literature may without inconvenience be briefly dismissed. The reputed author of the Coplas de Mingo Revulgo (R.Cota the elder) likewise ~ composed the first act of a story of intrigue and character, purely dramatic but not intended for repre sentation. This tragic comedy of Calisto and Meliboea, which was completed (in 21 acts) by 1499, afterwards became famous under the name of Celestina; it was frequently imitated and translated, and was adapted for the Spanish stage by R. de Zepeda in 1582. But the father of the Spanish drama was J. de la Enzina, whose representaciones under the name of, eclogues were dramatic dialogues of a religious or pastoral character. His attempts were imitated more especially by the Portuguese Gil Vicente, whose writings for the stage appear to be vicente. included in the period 1502-1536, and who wrote both in Spanish and in his native tongue. A further impulse came, as was natural, from Spaniards resident in Italy, and especially from B. de Torres Naharro, who in 1517 published, as the chief among the firstlings of his genius (Propaladia), a series of eight comediasa term generally applied in. Spanish literature to any kind of drama. He claimed some knowledge of the theory of the ancient drama, divided his plays into ,jornad as1 (to correspond to acts), and opened them with an introyto (prologue). Very various in their subjects, and occasionally odd in form,2 they were gross as well as audacious in tone, and were soon prohibited by the Inquisition. The church remained unwilling to renounce her control over such dramatic exhibitions as she permitted, and sought to suppress the few plays on not strictly religious subjects which appeared in the early part of the reign of Charles I. Though the universities produced both translations from the classical drama and modern Latin plays, In some of his plays (Comedia Serafi-na; C. Tineli1ria) there is a mixture of languages even stranger than that of dialects in the Italian masked comedy.

these exercised very little general effect. Juan Perez (Petreius) posthumous Latin comedies were mainly versions of Ariosto.3

Thus the foundation of the Spanish national theatre was reserved for a man of the people. Cervantes has vividly sketched the humble resources which were at the command of Lope do Lope de Rueda, a mechanic of Seville, who with his Rueda friend the bookseller Timoneda, and two brother and his authors and actors in his strolling company, succeeded followers. in bringing dramatic entertainments out of the churches and palaces into the public places of the towns, where they were produced on temporary scaffolds. The manager carried about his properties in a corn-sack; and the comedies were still only dialogues, and a species of eclogues between two or three shepherds and a shepherdess, enlivened at times by intermezzos of favorite comic figures, such as the negress or the Biscayan, played with inconceivable talent and truthfulness by Lope. One of his plays at least,4 and one of Timonedas,6 seem to have been taken from an Italian source; others mingled modern themes with classical apparitions,6 one of Timonedas was (perhaps again through the Italian) from Plautus.7 Others of a slighter description were called pasos,a species afterwards termed entremeses and resembling the modern French proverbes. With these popular efforts of Lope de Rueda and his friends a considerable dramatic activity began in the years I 560I 590 in several Spanish cities, and before the close of this period permanent theatres began to be fitted up at Madrid. Yet Spanish dramatic literature might still have been led to follow Italian into an imitation of classical models. Two plays by G. Bermudez (1577), called by their learned author the first Spanish tragedies, treating the national subject of Inez de Castro, but divided into five acts, composed in various metres, and introducing a chorus; a Dido (c. 1580) by C. de Virues (who claimed to have first divided dramas into three jornadas); and the tragedies of L. L. de Argensola (acted 1585, and praised in Don Quixote) alike represent this tendency.

Such were the alternatives which had opened for the Spanish drama, when at last, about the same time as that of the English, its future was determined by writers of original genius.


The first of these was the immortal Cervantes, who, however, failed to anticipate by his earlier plays (1584-1588) the great (though to him unproductive) success of his famous romance. In his endeavour to give a poetic character to the drama he fell upon the expedient of introducing personified abstractions speaking a divine or elevated languagea device which was for a time favorably received. But these plays exhibit a neglect or ignorance of the laws of dramatic construction; their action is episodical; and it is from the realism of the~e episodes (especially in the Numancia, which is crowded with both figures and incidents), and from the power and flow of the declamation, that their effect must have been derived. When in his later years (1615) Cervantes returned to dramatic composition, the style and form of the national drama had been definitively settled by a large number of writers, the brilliant success of whose acknowledged chief may previously have diverted Cervantes from his labors for the theatre. His influence upon the general progress of dramatic literature is, however, to be sought, not only in his plays, but also in those novelas exemplaresincomparable alike in. their clearness and their terseness of narrativeto which more than one drama is indebted for its plot, and for much of its dialogue to boot.

Lope de Vega, one of the most astonishing geniuses the world has known, permanently established the national forms of the Spanish drama. Some of these were in their beginnings taken over by him from ruder predecessors; some LvaO.dO were cultivated with equal or even superior success by subsequent authors; but in variety, as in fertility of dramatic production, he has no rivals. His fertility, which was such that he wrote about I5oo plays, besides 300 dramatic works classed ~ Necromanticus, Lena, Decepti, Sup positi.

~ Los Enganos (Gli Ingannati). ~ Cornelia (Ii Negromanie).

6 Lope, Armelina (Medea and Neptune as deus ex machinasi modo machina adfuisset). 1 Menennos.

as autos sacrainentales and entremeses, and a vast series of other literary compositions, has indisputably prejudiced his reputation with those to whom he is but a name and a nurrfber. Yet as a dramatist Lope more fully exemplifies the capabilities of the Spanish theatre than any of his successors, though as a poet Calderon may deserve the palm. Nor would it be possible to imagine a truer representative of the Spain of his age than a poet who, after suffering the hardships of poverty and exile, and the pangs of passion, sailed against the foes of the faith in the. Invincible Armada, subsequently became a member of the Holy Inquisition and of the order of St Francis, and after having been decorated by the pope with the cross of Malta and a theological doctorate, honored by the nobility, and idolized by the nation, ended with the nanies of Jesus and Mary on his lips. From the plays of such a writer we may best learn the manners and the sentiments, the ideas of religion and honor, of the Spain of the Philippine age, the age when she was most prominent in the eyes of Europe and most glorious in her own. For, with all its inventiveness and vigour, the genius of Lope primarily set itself the task of pleasing his public,the very spirit of whose inner as well as outer life is accordingly mirrored in his dramatic works. In them we have, in the words of Lopes French transl~tor Baret, the movement, the clamour, the conflict of unforeseen intrigues suitable to unreflecting spectators; perpetual flatteries addressed to an unextinguishable national pride; the painting of passions dear to a people never tired of admiring itself; the absolute sway of the point of honor; the deification of revenge; the adoration of symbols; buffoonery and burlesque, everywhere beloved of the multitude, but here never defiled by obscenities, for this people has a sense of delicacy, and the foundation of its character is nobility; lastly, the flow of proverbs which at times escape from the gracioso (the comic servant domesticated in the Spanish drama by Lope) the commonplace literature of those who possess no other.

The plays of Lope, and those of the national Spanish drama in general, are divided into classes which it is naturally not always easy, and which there is no reason to suppose him Comedlas always to have intended, to keep distinct from one eCs~p~a another. After in his early youth composing eclogues, pastoral plays, and allegorical moralities in. the old style, he began his theatrical activity at Madrid about 1590, and the plays which he thenceforth produced have been distributed under the following heads. The comedias, all of which are in verse, include (I) the so-called c. de capa y espadanot comedies proper, but dramas in which the principal personages are taken from the class of society that wears cloak and sword. Gallantry is their main theme, an interesting and complicated, but well-constructed and perspicuous intrigue their chief feature; and this is usually accompanied by an underplot in which the gracioso plays his part. Their titles are frequently taken from the old proverbs or proverbial phrases of the people i upon the theme suggested, by which the plays often (as G. H. Lewes admirably expresses it) constitute a kind of gloss (glosa) in action. This is the favorite species of the national Spanish theatre; and to the plots of the plays belonging to it the drama of other nations owes a debt almost incalculable in extent.

Ifer6lcas: (2) The c. hericas are distinguished by some of their personages being of royal or very high rank, and by their themes being often historical and 1 (though not invariably 3) taken from the national annals, or founded on contemporary or recent events.4 Hence they exhibit a greater gravity of tone; but in other respects there is no difference between them and the cloak-and-sword comedies with which they share the element of comic underplots. Occasionally Lope condescended in the opposite direction, to (3) plays of which the scene is laid in common life, but for which no special name appears El Azero de Madrid (The Steel Water of Madrid); Dineros son Cal-idad (= The Dog in the Manger), &c.

2 La Estrella de Sevilla (The Sk~r of Seville, i.e. Sancho the Brave); El Nuevo Mundo (Columbus), &c.

~ Roma A brasada (R. in AshesNero).

Arauco domo4o (The Conquest of Arauco, 1560).

to have existed.s Meanwhile, both he and his successors were too devoted sons of the church not to acknowledge in some sort her claim to influence the national drama. This claim she had never relinquished, even when she could no longer retain an absolute control over the stage. For a time, indeed, she was able to reassert even this; for the exhibition of all secular plays was in 1598 prohibited by the dying Philip II., and remained so for two years; and Lope with his usual facility proceeded to supply religious plays of various kinds. After a few dramas on scriptural subjects he turned to the legends of the saints; and the comed-ias de santos, of which he wrote a great number, became an accepted later Spanish variety ~ of the miracle-play. True, however, to the popular instincts of his genius, he threw himself with special zeal and success into the composition of another kind of religious plays a development of the Corpus Christi pageants, in honor of which all the theatres had to close their doors for a month. These were the famous autos sacramentales (i.e. solemn acts or proceedings in honor of the Sacrament), sA:ctrOaSmen~ which were performed in the open air by actors who tales.

had filled the cars of the sacred procession. Of these Lope wrote about 400. These entertainments were, arranged on. a fixed scheme, comprising a prologue in dialogue between two or more actors in character (ba), a farce (entremes), and the auto proper, an allegorical scene of religious purport, as an example of which Ticknor cites the Bridge of the World,in which the Prince of Darkness in vain seeks to defend the bridge against the Knight of the Cross, who finally leads the Soul of Man in triumph across it. Not all the entremeses of Lope and others were, howevei, composed for insertion in these autos. This long-lived popular species, together with the old kind of dramatic dialogue called ecbogues, completes the list of the varieties of his dramatic works.

The example of Lope was followed by a large number of writers, and Spain. thus rapidly became possessed of a dramatic literature almost unparalleled in quantityfor in fertility also Lope was but the first among many.

Among the writers of Lopes school, his friend G. de P

Castro (1569-1631) must not be passed by, for his Cids was the basis of Corneilles; nor J. P. de Montalban, the first-born of Lopes $enius, the extravagance of whose imagination, like that of Lee, culminated in madness. Soon after him died (1639) Juan Ruiz de Alarcon, in whose plays, as contrasted with those of Lope, has been recognized the distinctive element of a moral purpose. To G. Tellez, called Tirso de Molina (d. 1648), no similar praise seems due; but the frivolous gaiety of the inventor of the complete character of Don Juan was accompanied by ingenuity in the construction of his excellent7 though at times sensational ~ plots. F. de Rojas Zorrilla (b. 1607), who was largely plundered by the French dramatists of the latter half of the century, survived Molina for about a generation. In vain scholars of strictly classical tastes protested in essays in prose and verse against the ascendancy of the popular drama; the prohibition of Philip II. had been recalled two years after his death and was never renewed; and the activity of the theatre spread through the towns and villages of the land, everywhere under the controlling influence of the school of writers who had established so complete a harmony between the drama and the tastes and tendencies of the people.

The glories of Spanish dramatic literature reached their height in P. Calderon de la Barca, though in the history of the Spanish theatre he holds only the second place. He elaborated Calderon. some of the forms of the national drama, but brought about no changes of moment in any of them. Even the brilliancy of his style, glittering with a constant reproduction of the same family of tropes, and the variety of his melodious versification, are mere intensifications of the poetic qualities of Lope, while La Mom de cantaro (The Water-maid).

Las Mocedades (The Youthful Adventures) del Cid.

Don Gil de las calzas vei-des (D. G. in the Green Breeches).

8 El Burlador de Sevilla y Convivado de piedra (The Deceiver of Seville, i.e. Don Juan, and the Stone Guest).

in their moral and religious sentiments, and their general views of history and society, there is no difference between the two. Like Lope, Calderon was a soldier in his youth and an ecclesiastic in his later years; like his senioi, he suited himself to the tastes of both court and people, and applieti his genius with equal facility to, the treatment of religious and of secular themes. In fertility Calderon was inferior to Lope (for he wrote not many more than 100 plays); but he surpasses the elder poet in richness of style, and more especially in fire of imagination. In his autos (of which he is said to have left not less than 73), Calderon probably attained to his most distinctive excellence; some of these appear to take a wide range of allegorical invention,i while they uniformly possess great beauty of poetical detail. Other of his most famous or interesting pieces are cornedias de santos.2 In his secular plays he treats as wide a variety of subjects as Lope, but it is not a dissimilar variety; nor would it be easy to decide whether a poet so uniformly admirable within his limits has achieved greater success in romantic historical tragedy,3 in the comedy of amorous intrigue,4 or in a dramatic work combining fancy and artificiality in such a degree that it has been diversely described as a romantic caprice and as a p~iilosophical poem.5

During the life of the second great master of the Spanish drama there was little apparent abatement in the productivity of its literature; while the autos continued to flourish Contem- in Madrid and elsewhere, till 111 1765 (shortly before ~ the expulsion of the Jesuits from Spain) their public representation was prohibited by royal decree. In the world of fashion, the opera had reached Spain already during Calderons lifetime, together with other French influences, and the great dramatist had himself written one or two of his plays for performance with music. But the regular national ifloreto drama continued to command popular favor, and and the with A. Moreto may be said to have actually taken a coniedia de step in advance. While he wrote in all the forms figuron. established by Lope and cultivated by Calderon, his manner seems most nearly to approach the masterpieces of French and later English comedy of character; he was the earliest writer of the comedies de figuron, in which the most prominent personage is (in Congreves phrase) a character of affectation, in other words, the Spanish fop of real life.6 His masterpiece, a favorite of many stages, is one of the most graceful and pleasing of modern comediessimple but interesting in plot, and true to nature, with something like Shakespearian truth.1 Other writers trod more closely in the footsteps of the masters without effecting any noticeable changes in the form of the Spanish drama; even the saynete (tit-bit), which owes its name to Benavente (fl. 1645), was only a kind of entremes. The Spanish drama in all its forms retained its command over the nation, because they were alike popular in origin and character; nor is there any other example of so complete an adaptation of a national art to the national taste and sentiment in its ethics and aesthetics, in the nature of the plots of the plays (whatever their origin), in the motives of their actions, in the conduct and tone and in the very costume of their characters.

National as it was, and because of this very quality, the Spanish drama was fated to share the lot of the people it so fully repreDecay sented. At the end of the I7th century, when the of the Spanish throne at last became the declared apple of national discord among the governments of Europe, the Spanish Spanish people lay, in the words of an historian of its later days, like a corpse, incapable of feeling its own impotence. That national art to which it had so faithfully clung had fallen into decline and decay with the spirit of Spain itself. By the time of the close of the great war, the theatre had sunk into a mere amusement of the populace, which during the greater part 2 El Magico prodigioso; El Purgatorio de San Patricio; La Devocion de la Cruz.

i El Principe constante (Don Ferdinand of Portugal).

4 Dama duende (The Fairy Lady). -

i Vida es sueo (Life is a Dream).

6 El Lindo Don Diego (Pretty Don Diego).

I Desden con el desden (Disdain aiainst Disdaini.

of the 18th century, while allowing the old masters the measure of favor which accords with traditional esteem, continued to uphold the representatives of the old drama in its degeneracyauthors on the level of their audiences. But the Spanish court was now French, and in the drama, even more than in any other The form of art, France was the arbiter of taste in Europe. Fiench With the restoration of peace accordingly began isolated school of attempts to impose the French canons of dramatic the 18th theory, and to follow the example of French dramatic century. practice; and in the middle of the century these endeavours assumed more definite form. Montianos bloodless tragedy of Virginia (1750), which was never acted, was accompanied by a discourse endeavouring to reconcile the doctrines of the author with the practice of the old Spanish dramatists; the play itself was in blank verse (a metre never used by Calderon, though occasionally by Lope), instead of the old national ballad-measures (the romance-measure with assonance and the rhymed redondilla quatrain) preferred by the old masters among the variety of metres employed by them. The earliest Spanish comedy in the French form (a translation only, though written in the national metre)8 (vlsi), and the first original Spanish comedy on the same model, Nicolas Moratins Petimetra (Petite-Maltresse), printed in 1726 with a critical dissertation, likewise remained unacted. In 1770, however, the same authors Hormesinda, an historic drama on a national theme and in the national metre, but adhering to the French rules, appeared on the stage; and similar attempts followed in tragedy by the same writer and others (including Ayala, who ventured in 1775 to compete with Cervantes on the theme of Numantia), and in comedy by Iriarte and Jovellanos (afterwards minister under Godoy), who produced a sentimental comedy in Diderots manner.9 But these endeavours failed to effect any change in the popular theatre, which was with more success raised et~1~ later from its deepest degradation by R. de la Cruz, a fertile ~,ra~ma~

author of light pieces of genuine humour, especially saynetes, depicting the manners of the middle and lower classes. In literary circles Garcia de Ia Huertas voluminous collection of the old plays (1785) gave a new impulse to dramatic productivity, and the conflict continued between representatives of the old school, such as Luciano Francisco Comella (1716-1779) and of the new, such as the younger Moratin, whose comedies of which the last and most successful 10 was in proseraised him to the foremost position among the dramatists of his age. In tragedy N. de Cienfuegos likewise showed some originality. After, however, the troubles of the French domination and the war had come to an end, the precepts and examples of the new school failed to reassert themselves.

Already in 1815 an active critical controversy was carried on by BOhl de Faber against the efforts of J. Faber ,and Alcal Galiano to uphold the principles of classicism; and with the aid of the eminent actor M~iquez the old romantic masterpieces were easily reinstated in the public favor, which as a matter of fact they had never forfeited. The Spanish dramatists of the 19th century, after passing, as in the instance of F. Martinez de la Rosa and Brton de los Herreros, from the system of French comedy to the manner of the national drama, appear either to have stood under the influence of the French romantic school, or to have returned once more to the old Spanish models. Among the former class A. Gil y Zarate, of the latter J. Zorrilla, are mentioned as specially prominent. The most renowned Spanish dramatist at the opening of the 20th century was the veteran politician and man of letters J. Echegaray.

Meanwhile, the old religious performances are not wholly extinct in Spain, ~nd the relics of the solemn pageantry with which they were associated may long continue to survive there, as in the case of the pasos, which claim to have been exhibited in Holy Week at Seville for at least three centuries. As to the theatre itself, there can be no fear either that the imitation 8 Luzan, La Razon contra to mode (La Chausse, Le Prijuge a la mode).

El Delinquente honrado (The Honored Culprit).

~ El Si de las nifias (The Youne Maidens Consenfl.

of foreign examples will satisfy Spanish dramatistsespecially when, like the author of Doa Per fecta (Perez Galdos), they have excellent home material of their own. for adaptation,or that the Spanish public itself, with fine actors and actresses still upholding the lofty traditions of the national drama, will remain too fatigued to consume the drama unless bit by bitin the shape of zarzuelas and similar one-act confections. Whatever may be the future of one of the noblest of modern. dramatic literatUres, it may confidently be predicted that, so long as Spain is Spain, her theatre will not be permanently either denationalized or degraded.

(d) Portugal.

The Portuguese drama in its earlier phases, especially before in the latter part of the 14th century the nation completely achieved its independence, seems to have followed ofis, much the same course as the Spanish; and the redrama. ligious drama in all its prevailing forms and direct outgrowths retained its popularity even by the side of the products of the Renaissance. In the later period of that movement translations of classcal dramas into the vernacular were stimulated by the cosmopolitan example of George Buchanan, who for a time held a post in the university of Coimbra; to this class of play Teives Johannes (1553) may be supposed to have belonged. In the next generation Antonio Ferreira and others still wrote comedies more or less on the classical model. But the rather vague title of the Plautus of Portugal is accorded to an earlier comic writer, the celebrated Gil Vicente, who died about 1536, after, it is stated, producing forty-two plays. He was the founder- of popular Portuguese comedy, and his plays were called autos, or by the common name of praticas.2 Among his most gifted successors are mentioned A. Ribeiro, called Chiado (the mocking-bird), who died in I590;~ his brother Jeronymo, B. Dias, A. Pires, J. Pinto, H. Lopes and others. The dramatic efforts of the illustrious poet Luis de CamOes (Camoens) are relatively of slight importance; they consist of one of the many modern versions of the Ainphitruo, and of two other comedies, of which the earlier (Filodemo) was acted at Goa in 1553, the subjects having a romantic color.4 Of greater importance were the contributions to dramatic literature of F. de S de Miranda, who, being well acquainted with both Spanish and Italian life, sought early in his career to domesticate the Italian comedy of intrigue on the Portuguese stage;i but he failed to carry with him the public taste, which preferred the autos of Gil Vicente. The followers of Miranda were, however, more successful than he had been. himself, among them the already-mentioned Antonio Ferreira; the prose plays of Jorge Ferreira de Vasconcellos, which bear some resemblance to the Spanish Celestina, are valuable as pictures of contemporary manners in city and court.s The later Portuguese dramatic literature seems also to have passed through phases corresponding to those of the Spanish, though with special features of its own. In the 18th century Alcino Mycenio (1728-1770), known as Domingos dos Reis Quito in everyday life, in which his avocation was that of Allan Ramsay, was remarkably successful with a series of plays,7 including of course an Inez de Castro, which in a subsequent adaptation by J. B. Gomes long held the national stage. Another dramatist, of both merit and higher aspirations, was Lycidas Cynthio (alias Manoel de Figueiredo, 172 5t8oi) ~1 But the romantic movement was very late in coming to Portugal. Curiously enough, one of its chief representatives, the viscount da Almeida Garrett, exhibited his sympathy with French, revolutionary and anti ~ Don Duardos, Amadis, &c.

Auto das Regateiras (The Market-women), Pratica de cam padres (The Gossips), &c.

~ Emphatries, Filodemo, Seleuco.

Os Estrangeiros, Os Vilhalpandos (The Impostors).

6 Eufrosina, Ulyssipo (Lisbon), Aulegrafia.

~ Astarte, Hermione, Megara.

8 These assumptions of names remind us that we are in the period of the Arcadias.

English ideas by a tragedy on the subject of Cato;9 but his later works were mainly on national subjects.f The expansive tendencies of later Portuguese dramatic literature are illustrated by the translations of A. F. de Castilho, who even ventured upon Goethes Faust (I~2). Among 19th-century dramatists are to be noted Pereira da Cunha, R. Cordeiro, E. Biester, L. Palmeirin, and Garretts disciple F. G. de Amorim, by whom both political and social themes have been freely treated. The reaction against romanticism observable in Portuguese poetic literature can hardly fail to affect (or perhaps has already affected) the growth of the national drama; for the receptive qualities of both are not less striking than the productive.

(e) France.

France was the only country, besides Italy, in which classical tragedy was naturalized. In 1531 the Benedictine Barthlemy of Loches printed a Christus Xylonicus; and a very me notable impulse was given both to the translation and French to the imitation of ancient models by a series of efforts regular made in the university of Paris and other French drama. places of learning. The most successful of these attempts was the Johannes Baptistes of George Buchanan, who taught in Paris for five years and at a rather later date resided at Bordeaux, where in 1540 he composed this celebrated tragedy (afterwards translated into four or five modern languages), in which it is now ascertained that he had in view the trial and condemnation of Sir Thomas More. He also wrote Jephtkah, and translated into Latin the Medea and Alcestis of Euripides. At a rather later date the great scholar M. A. Muret (Muretus) produced his Julius Caesar, a work perhaps superior in correctness to Buchanans tragic masterpiece, but inferior to it in likeness to life. About the same time the enthusiasm of the Paris classicists showed itself in several translations of Sophoclean and Euripidean tragedies into French verse.1i Thus the beginnings of the regular drama in France, which, without absolutely determining, potently swayed its entire course, came to connect themselves directly with the great literary movement of the Renaissance. Du Bellay sounded the note of attack which converted that movement in France into an endeavour to transform the national literature; and in Ronsard the classical school of poetry put forward its conquering hero and sovereign lawgiver. Among the disciples who gathered round Ronsard, and with him formed the Pleiad Jodelie of French literature, Etienne Jodelle, the reformer of the French theatre, soon held a distinguished place. The stage of this period left ample room for the enterprise of this youthful writer. The popularity of the old entertainments had reached its height when Louis XII., in his conflict with Pope Julius II., had not scrupled to call in the aid of Pierre Gringoire (Gringon), and when the Mere sUite had mockingly masqueraded in the petticoats of Holy Church. In the reign of Francis I. the Inquisition, and on occasion the king himself, had to some extent succeeded in repressing the audacity of the actors, whose follies were at the same time an utter abomination in the eyes of the Huguenots. For a time the very mysteries of the Brethren of the Passion had been prohibited; while the moralities and farces had sunk to an almost contemptible level. Yet to this reign belong the contributions to farce-literature of three writers so distinguished as Rabelais (non-extant), Clement Marot and Queen Margaret of Navarre. Meanwhile isolated translations of Italian as well as classical dramas had in literature begun the movement which Jodelle now transferred to the stage itself. His tragedy Clopatre captive was produced there on the same day as his comedy LEugne, in 1552, his Didon se sacrifiant following in 1558. Thus at a time when a national theatre was perhaps impossible in a country distracted by civil and religious Catao. is Manoel dv Sousa, &c.

A nhigone and Electra; Hecuba: and Iphigenia in A utis. The Andria was also translated, and in 1540 Ronsard translated the Plutus of Aristophanes.

if Trissino, Sofonisba, by de Saint-Gelais.

conificts, whose monarchy had not yet welded together a number of provinces attached each to its own traditions, and whose population, especially in the capital, was enervated by frivolity or enslaved by fanaticism, was born that long-lived artificial growth, the so-called classical tragedy of France. For French comedy, though subjected to the same influences as tragedy, had a national basis upon which to proceed, and its history is partly that of a modification of old popular forms.

The history of French tragedy begins with the Clop,tre captive, in the representation of which the author, together French with other members of the Pleiad, took part. It is tragedy in a tragedy in the manner of Seneca, devoid of action. the 16th and provided with a ghost and a chorus. Though cent uiy. mainly written in the five-foot Iambic couplet, it already contains passages in the Alexandrine metre, which soon afterwards J. de La Peruse by his M&le (pr. 1556) established in French tragedy, and which Jodelle employed in his Didon. Numerous tragedies followed in the same style by various authors, among whom Gabriel Bounyn produced the first French regular tragedy on a subjed neither Greek nor Roman, and the brothers de la Taille,1 and J. Grvin,3 distinguished themselves by their style. In the reign. of Charles IX. a vain attempt was made by Nicolas Filleul to introduce the pastoral style of the Italians into French tragedy;4 and the Brotherhood of the Passion was intermingling with pastoral plays its still continued reproductions of the old entertainments, and the religious drama making its expiring efforts, among which T. Le Coqs interesting mystery of Cain (1580) should be noted. Bezas Abraham sacrifiant (1550), J. de Coignacs Goliath (dedicated to Edward VI.), Rivandeaus Haman (1561), belong to a group of Biblical tragedies, inspired by Calvinist influences. But these more and more approached to the examples of the classical school, which, in spite of all difficulties and rivalries, prevailed. Among its followers Montchrtien exhibited unusual vigour of rhetoric,5 and in R. Gamier French tragedy reached the greatest height in nobility and dignity of style, as well as in the exhibition of dramatic passion, to which it attained before Corneille. In his tragedies6 choruses are still interspersed among the long Alexandrine tirades of the dialogue.

During this period comedy had likewise been influenced by classical models; but the distance was less between the national Comedy farces and Terence, than between the mysteries and under moralities, and Seneca and the Greeks. LEug-ne Italian differs little in style from the more elaborate of the old influence, farces; and while it satirizes the foibles of the clergy without any appreciable abatement of the old licence, its theme is the favorite burd~en. of the French comic theatre in all times le cocuage. The examples, however, which directly facilitated the productivity of the French comic dramatists of this period, among whom Jean de la Taille was the first to attempt a regular comedy in prose,7 were those of the Italian stage, which in 1576 established a permanent colony in France, destined to survive there till the close of the 17th century, by which time it had adopted the French language, and was ready to coalesce with French actors, without, however, relinquishing all remembrance of its origin. R. Belleau, a member of the Pleiad, produced a comedy in which the type (already approached by Jodelle) of the swaggering captain appears,8 J. Grvin copied Italian intrigue, characters and manners;9 0. de Turnbe (d. 1581) borrowed the title of one Italian play and perhaps parts of the plots of others; the Florentine F. dAmboise (d. 1558) produced versions of two Italian comedies;~i and the foremost French comic poet of the century, P. de Larivey, likewise an Italian born (of the name of Pietro Giunto), openly professed to imitate the poets of his native country. His plays are more or less literal -La Soltane (1561). 2 Dalre (Darius).

La Mon de Csar. - ~ Ach-ille (1563).

Les Lacnes; Marie Stuart or LEcossaise.

6 La Juive, &c. Les Conivaux (1573).

~ La Reconnue (Le Capitaine Rodomont).

~ Les Esbahis. -

~ Les Contens (S. Parabosco, I Contenti).

rI Les Niapolitcfines; Les Dsesprades de lamour.

translations of L. Dolce,i2 Secchi11 and other Italian dramatists; and this lively and witty author, to whom Moliere owes much, thus connects two of the most important and successful growths of the modern comic drama.

The close conjunction between the history of a living dramatic literature and that of the theatre can least of all be ignored in the case of France, where the actors art has gone through so ample an evolution, and where the theatre has so long and continuously formed an important part of the national life. By the middle of the 16th century not only had theatrical representations, now quite emancipated from clerical control, here and there already become matters of speculation and business, but the acting profession was beginning to organize itself as such; strolling companies of actors had become a more or les~ frequent experience; and the attitude of the church and of civic respectability were once more coming to be systematically hostile to the stage and its representatives.

Before, however, either tragedy or comedy in France entered into the period of their history when genius was to illuminate both of them with creations of undying merit, and F,~ench before the theatre had associated itself enduringly trageay with the artistic and literary divisions of court and and society and the people at large, the country had passed 7i~~Y through a new phase of the national life. When the 17th troubles and terrors of the great civil and religious century wars of the 16th century were over at last, they were before found to have produced a reaction towards culture and Cornelile. refinement which spread from certain spheres of society whose influence was for a time prevailing. The seal had been set upon the results of the Renaissance by Malherbe, the father of French style. The masses meanwhile continued to solace or distract their weariness and their sufferings with the help of the accredited ministers of that half-cynical gaiety which has always lighted up the darkest hours of French popular life. In the troublous days preceding Richelieus definitive accession to power (1624), the tabarinadesa kind of street dialogue recalling the earliest days of the popular dramahad made the Pont-Neuf the favorite theatre of the Parisian populace. Meanwhile the influence of Spain, which Henry IV. had overcome in politics, had throughout his reign and afterwards been predominant in other spheres, and not the least in that of literature. The stilo culto, of which Gongora was the native Spanish, Marino the Italian, and Lyly the English representative, asserted its dominion over the favorite authors of French society; the pastoral romance of Honor dUrfthe text-book of pseudo-pastoral gallantrywas the parent of the romances of the Scudrys, de La ~alprenede and Mme de La Fayette; the Hotel de Rambouillet was iii its glory; the true (not the false) prcieuses sat on the heights of intellectual society; and J. L. G. de Baizac (ridiculed in the earliest French dramatic parody)14 and Voiture were the dictators of its literature. Much of the French drama of this age is of the same kind as its romance-literature, iike which it fell under the polite castigation. of Boileaus satire. Heroic love (quite a technical passion), fertile in tender sentiments, seized hold of the theatre as well as of the romances; and La Calprende, G. de Scudry ii and his sister and others were equally fashionable in both species. The Gascon Cyrano de Bergerac, though not altogether insignificant as a dramatist,6 gained his chief literary reputation by a Rabelaisian fiction. Meanwhile, Spanish and Italian models continued to influence both branches of the drama. Everybody knew by heart Gongoras version of the story of young Pyramus and his love Thisbe, as dramatized by Th. Viaud (1590-1626); and the sentiment of Tristan7 (1601-1655) overpowered Herod on the stage, and drew tears from Cardinal Richelicu in the audience. J. Mairet was noted for superior vigour.i8 P. Du Ryers style is described as, while otherwise superior to that of his contemporaries, i~ Le Laquais (Ii Ragazzo).

13 Les Trompenies (Gil Inganni).

14 L. du Peschier (de Barry), La Comedie des comedies.

isLAmour tyrannique. i6 Agnippine, Le Pedant jou.

i7 Marianne. ~ Sophordsbe.

Italian in its defects. A mixture of the forms of classical comedy with elements of Spanish and of the Italian pastoral was attempted with great temporary success by A. Hardy, a playwright who thanked Heaven that he knew the precepts of his art while preferring to follow the demands of his trade. The mixture of styles begun by him was carried on by the marquis de Racan,1 J. de Rotrou and others; and among these comedies of intrigue in the Spanish manner the earliest efforts of Corneille himself1 are to be classed. Rotrous noteworthier productionsa are later in date than the event which marks an epoch in the history of the French drama, the appearance of Corneilles Cid (1636).

P. Corneille is justly revered as the first, and in some respects the unequalled, great master of French tragedy, whatever may have been unsound in his theories, or defective in his orne e. practice. The attempts of his, predecessors had been without life, because they lacked really tragic characters and the play of really tragic passions; while their style had been either pedantically imitative or a medley of plagiarisms. He conquered tragedy at once for the national theatre and for the national literatureand this, not by a long tentative process of production, but by a few masterpieces, which may be held to be comprehended within the ten years 1636 to 1646; for in his many later tragedies he never again proved fully equal to himself. The French tragedy, of which the great age begins with the Cid, Horace, Cinna, Polyeucte and Rodogune, was not, whatever it professed to be, a copy of the classical tragedy of Greeks or Romans, or an imitation of the Italian imitations of these; nor, though in his later tragedies Corneille depended less and less upon characters, and more and more, after the fashion of the Spaniards, upon situations, and even upon spectacle, were the forms of the Spanish drama able to assert their dominion over the French tragic stage. The mould of French tragedy was cast by Corneille; but the creative power of his genius was unable to fill it with more than a few examples. His range of passions and characters was limited; he preferred, he said, the reproach of having made his women too heroic to that of having made his men effeminate. His actions inclined too much to the exhibition of conflicts political rather than broadly ethical in their significance. The defects of his style are of less moment; but in this, as in other respects, he was, with all his strength and brilliancy, not one of those rarest of artists who are at the same time the example and the despair of their successors. The examens which he printed of all his plays up to 1660 show how much self-criticism (though it may not always be as in this case conscious) contributes to the true fertility of genius.

In comedy also Corneille begins the first great original epoch of French dramatic literature; for it was to him that Moliere owed the inspiration of the tone and style which he made those of the higher forms of French comedy. But Le Menleur (the parent, with its sequel, of a numerous dramatic progeny 4) was itself derived from a Spanish original,5 which it did not (as was the case with the Cid) transform into something new. French tragi-comedy Corneille can hardly be said to have invented;6 and of the mongrel growths of sentimental comedy and of domestic drama or drame, he rather suggested than exemplified the conditions.

The tragic art of Racine supplements rather than surpasses that of his older contemporary. His works reflect the serene Racine. and settled formality of an age in which the swi of monarchy shone with an effulgence no clouds seemed capable of obscuring, and in which the life of a nation seemed reducible to the surroundings of a court. The tone of the poetic literature of such an age is not necessarily unreal, because the range of its ideas is limited, and because its forms seem to exist by an immutable authority. That Racine should permanently hold the position which belongs to him in French dramatic Le Veritable Saint Genest; V,enceslas.

Steele, The Lying Lover; Foote, The Liar; Goldoni, II Bugiardo.

~ Ruiz de Alarcon, La Verdad sospechosa.

~ LIllusion comique is antithetically mixed.

literature is due to the fact that to him it was given to present these formsthe forms approved by his age-in what may reasonably be called perfection; and, from the point of view of workmanship, Sophocles could not have achieved more. What his plays contain is another question. They suit themselves so well to th~ successive phases in the life of Louis XIV., that Madame de Svign described Racine as having in his later years loved God as he had formerly loved his mistresses; and this sally at all events indicates the range of passions which inspired his tragic muse. His heroes are all of one type-that of a gracious gloriousness; his heroines vary in their fortunes, but they are all the trophies of love, 1 with the exception of the scriptural figures, which stand apart from the rest.8 T. Corneille, Campistron, Joseph Duch (1668I 704), Antoin de Lafosse (c. 1653-1708) and Quinault were mere followers of one or both of the great masters of tragedy, though the last named achieved a reputation of his own in the bastard species of the opera.

The type of French tragedy thus established, like everything else which formed part of the age of Louis XIV., proclaimed itself as the definitively settled model of its kind, and Characterwas accepted as such by a submissive world. Proud istics of of its self-imposed fetters, French tragedy dictatorially French denied the liberty of which it had deprived itself to the c1assk~I art of which it claimed to furnish the highest examples. Yet, though calling itself classical, it had not caught the essential spirit of the tragedy of the Greeks. The elevation of tone which characterizes the serious drama of the age of Louis XIV. is a true elevation, but its heights do not lose themselves in a sphere peopled by the myths of a national religion, still less in the region of great thoughts which ask Heaven to stoop to the aspirations and the failures of man. The personages of this drama are conventional like its themes, but the convention is with itself only; Orestes and Iphigenia have not brought with them the cries of the stern goddesses and the flame on the altar of Artemis; their passions like their speech are cadenced by a modern measure. In construction, the simplicity and regularity of the ancient models are stereotyped into a - rigid etiquette by the exigencies of the court-theatre, which is but an apartment of the palace. The unities of time and place,, with the Greeks mere rules of convenience, French tragedy imposes upon itself as a permanent yoke. The Euripidean prologue is judiciously exchanged for the exposition of the first act, and the lyrical element essential to Greek tragedy is easily suppressed in its would-be copy; lyrical passages still occur in some of Corneilles early masterpieces,9 but the chorus is consistently banished, to reappear only in Racines latest works 10 as a scholastic experiment appropriate to a conventual atmosphere. Its uses for explanation and comment are served by the expedient, which in its turn becomes conventional, of the conversations with confidants and confidantes, which more than sufficiently supply the foil of general sentiments. The epical element is allowed full play in narrative passages, more especially in those which relate parts of the catastrophe,u and, while preserving the stage intact from realisms, suit themselves to -the generally rhetorical character of this species of the tragic drama. This character impressed itself more and more upon the tragic art of a rhetorical nation in an age when the loftiest themes were in the pulpit receiving the most artistic oratorical treatment, and developed in the style of French classical tragedy the qualities which cause it to become something between prose and poetryor to appear (in the phrase of a French critic) like prose in full dress. The force of this description is borne out by the fact that the distinction. between the versification of French tragedy and that of French comedy seems at times imperceptible.

The universal genius of Voltaire found it necessary to shine in all branches of literature, and in tragedy to surpass predecessors whom his own authority declared to have surpassed ~ Andromaque; Ph~dre; Berfnice, &c.

Esther; Athalie.

Le Cid; Pot yeucte. a Esther; Athalie. u Corneille, Rodogune; Racine, Ph~dre.

the efforts of the Attic muse. He succeeded in impressing the world with the belief that his innovations had imparted a fresh VoI~i~. vitality to French tragedy; in truth, however, they represent no essential advance in art, but rather augmented the rhetorical tendency which paralyses true dramatic life. Such life as his plays possess lies in. their political and social sentiments, their invective against tyranny,1 and their exposure of fanaticism.2 In other respects his versatility was barren of enduring results. Hemight take his themes from French history,3 or from Chinese,4 or Egyptian,i or Syrian,6 from the days of the Epigoni7 or from those of the Crusades;s he might appreciate Shakespeare, with a more or less partial comprehension of his strength, and condescendingly borrow from and improve the barbarian.9 But he added nothing to French tragedy where it was weakestin character; and where it was strongestin dictionhe never equalled Corneille in fire or Racine in refinement. While the criticism to which French tragedy in this age at last began to be subjected has left unimpaired the real titles to immortality of its great masters, the French theatre itself has all but buried in respectful oblivion the dramatic works bearing the name of Voltairea name persistently belittled, but second to none in the history of modern progress and of modern civilization.

As it is of relatively little interest to note the ramifications of an art in its decline, the contrasts need not be pursued among French the contemporaries of Voltaire, between his imitator dasakal Bernard Joseph Saurin (1706-1781), Saurins royalist tragedy rival de Belloy, Racines imitator Lagrange-Chancel in its and Voltaires own would-be rival, the terrible decline. Crbillon the elder, who professed to vindicate to French tragedy, already mistress of the heavens through Corneille, and of the earth through Racine, Plutos supplementary realm, but who, though thus essaying to carry tragedy lower, failed to carry it farther. In. the latter part of the 18th century French classical tragedy as a literary growth was dying a slow death, however numerous might be the leaves which sprouted from the decaying tree. Its form had been permanently fixed; and even Shakespeare, as manipulated by Ducis is_an author whose tastes were better than his timesfailed to bring about a change. It is a Moor, not a Frenchman, who has written this play, cried a spectator of Ducis Othello (1791); but Talmas conviction was almost as strong as his capacity was great for convincing his public; and he certainly did much to prepare the influence which Shakespeare was gradually to assert over the French drama, and which was aided by translations, more especially that of Pierre Letourneur (1736-1788), which had attracted the sympathy of Diderot and the execrations of the aged Voltaire.n. Meanwhile, the command which classical French tragedy continued to assert over the stage was due in part, no doubt, to the love of Roman draperynot always abundant, but always in the grand style-which characterized the Revolution, and which was by the Revolution handed down to the Empire. It was likewise, and more signally, due to the great actors who freed the tragic stage from much of its artificiality and animated it by their genius. No great artist has ever more generously estimated the labors of a predecessor than Talma judged those of Le Kain; but it was Talma himself whose genius was preeminently fitted to reproduce the great figures of antiquity in the mimic world, which, like the world outside, both required and possessed its Caesar. He, like Rachel after him, reconciled French classical tragedy with nature; and it is upon the art of great original actors such as these that the theatrical future of this form of the drama in France depends. Mere whims of fashion i Brutus; La Mon de Cesar; Smiramis.

l fEdipe; Le Fanat-isme (Mahomet).

Adelaide du Guesclin. 4LOrphelin de la Chine.

Tanis et Zilide. Les Gubres. 1 Ol-im pie.

8 Tancrde. ~ La Mort de Cisar; Zaire (Othello).

a Hamlet; Le Rol Liar, &c.

n The lectures delivered by the late Professor A. Beljame at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1905-1906 may be mentioned as valuable contributions to our knowledge of the growth of Shakespeares influence in France.

even when inspired by political feelingwill not waft back to it a real popularity; nor will occasional literary aftergrowths, however meritorious, such as the admirable Lucrce,of F. Ponsard and the attempts of even more recent writers, suffice to reestablish a living union between it and the progress of the national literature.

The rival influences under which classical tragedy has after a long struggle virtually become a thing of the past in French literature are also to be traced in the history of French Come~~. comedy, which under the co-operation of other influences produced a wide variety of growths. The germs of most of these-though not of allare to be found in the works of the most versatile, the most sure-footed, and, in some respects, the most consummate master of the comic drama whom the world has knownMoliere. What Moliere found in Moilk~. existence was a comedy of intrigue, derived from Spanish or Italian examples, and the elements of a comedy of character, in French and more especially in Italian farce and ballet-pantomime. Corneilles Menteur had pointed the way to a fuller combination of character with intrigue, and in this direction Molieres genius exercised the height of its creative powers. After beginning with farces, he produced in the earliest of his plays (from 1652), of which more than fragments remain, comedies of intrigue which are at the same time marvellously lively pictures of manners, and then proceeded, with the Ecole des mans (1661), to begin a long series of masterpieces of comedy of character. Yet even these, the chief of which are altogether unrivalled in dramatic literature, do not exhaust the variety of his productions. To define the range of his art is as difficult as to express in words the essence of his genius. For though he has been copied ever since he wrote, neither his spirit nor his manner has descended in full to any of his copyists, whole schools of whom have missed elements of both. A Moliere can only be judged in his relations to the history of comedy at large. He was indeed the inheritor of many forms and stylesremaining a stranger to those of Old Attic comedy only, rooted as it was in the political life of a free imperial city; though even the rich extravagances of Aristophanes burlesque was not left wholly unreproduced by him. Moliere is both a satirist and a humorist; he displays at times the sentiments of a loyal courtier, at others that gay spirit of opposition which is all but indispensable to a popular French wit. His comedies offer elaborate and subtle even tenderpictures of human character in its eternal types, lively sketches of social follies and literary extravagances, and broad appeals to the ordinary sources of vulgar merriment~ Light and perspicuous in construction, he is master of the delicate play of irony, the penetrating force of wit, and the expansive gaiety of frolicsome fun. Faithful to the canons of artistic taste, and under the sure guidance of true natural humour, his style suits itself to every species attempted by him. His morality is the reverse of rigid, but its aberrations are not those of prurience, nor its laws those of pretence; and, wholly free as he was from the didactic aim which is foreign to all true dramatic representation, the services rendered by him to his art are not the less services rendered to society, concerning which the laughter of genuine comedy tells the truth. He raised the comedy of character out of the lower sphere of caricature, and in his greatest creations subordinated to the highest ends of all dramatic composition the plots he so skilfully built, and the pictures of the manners he so faithfully reproduced.

Even among the French comic dramatists of this age there must have been many who were not aware that Moliere was its greatest poet. For though he had made the true MoIi~res path luminous to them, their efforts were still often contensof a tentative kind, and one was reviving Pathelin poraries while another was translating the Andria. A more and suc. unique attempt was made in one of the very few really cessors. modern versions of an Aristophanic comedy, which deserves to be called an original copythe Plaideurs of Racine. The tragic poets Quinatilt and Campistron likewise wrote comedies, one11

n Quinault, LAmounindiscret (Newcastle and Drydens Sir Marlin Marall).

or more of which furnished materi~ls to contemporary English dramatists, as did one, of the felicitous plays in which Bouisault introduced Mercury and Aesop into the theatrical salon.i Antoine, Montfleury (1640-1685), Baron and Dancourt, who were actors like Moliere, likewise wrote comedies. But if the mantle~ of Moliere can be said to have fallen upon any of his contemporaries or successors, this honor must be ascribed to J. F. Regnard, who imitated the great master in both themes and characters,2 while the skilfulness of his plots, and his gaiety of the treatment even of subjects tempting into the by-path of sentimental comedy,1 entitle him to be regarded as a comic poet of original genius. With him C. R. Dufresny occasionally collaborated.

In the next generation (that of Voltaire) comedy gradually but only graduallysurrendered fur a time the very essence of its vitality to the seductions of a hybrid species, which disguised its identity under more than a single name. A. R. le Sage, who as a comic dramatist at first followed successfully in the footsteps of Moliere, proved himself on the stage as well as in picturesque fiction a keen observer and inimitable satirist of human life.4 The light texture of the playful and elegant art of J. B. L. Gresset was shown on the stage in a character comedy of merit;5 and in a comedy which reveals something of his pointed wit, A. Piron produced something like a new type of enduring ridiculousness.8 P. C. de Marivaux, the French Spectator, is usually supposed to have formed the connecting link between the old French.comedy and the new and bastard variety. Yet, though his minute analysis of the tendr passion excited the scorn of Voltaire, it should not b overlooked that in marivaudage proper the wit holds the balance to the sentiment, and that in some of this frequently misjudged writers earlier and most delightful plays the elegance and gaiety of diction are as irresistible as the pathetic sentiment, which is in fact rather an ingredient in his comedy than the pervading characteristic of it.1 Some of the comedies of P. H. Destouches no doubt have a serious basis, and in his later plays he comes near to a kind of drama in which the comic purpose has been virtually submerged.8 The writer who is actually to be credited with the transition to sentimental comedy, and who was fully conscious of the change which he was helping to effect, was Nivelle de La Chausse, in whose hands French comedy became a champion of the sanctity of marriage, and reproduced the sentimentsin one instance even the charactersof Richardson.9 To his play La Fausse Antipathie the author supplied a critique, amounting. to an apology for the new species of which it was designed as an example.

The new species known as comdie larmoyante was now fairly in the ascendant; and it would be easy to show how even Voltaire, who had deprecated the innovation, had to yield to a power greater than his own, and introduced th~ sentimental element into some of his comedies.1 The further step, by which comdie larmoyante was transformed into tragdie bourgeoise, from which the comic element was to all intents and purposes extruded, was taken by a great French writer, D. Diderot; to whose influence it was largely due that the species which had attained to this consummation for more than a generation ruled supreme in the dramatic literature of Europe. But the final impulse, as Diderot himself virtually acknowledged in the entreliens subjoined by him to his Fils naturel (Il5~), had been 1 Le Bat (M. de Pourceaugnac); Geronte in Le Lgataire universel (Argan in Le Malade ilnaginaire); La Critique du L. (La C. de lcole des femmes).

Le Joueur; Le Lgataire universel.

Cris pin rival de son ma fire; Turcaret.

~ Le Mechant. 6 La Metromanie.

1 Le Jeu de lamour et du hasard; Le Legs; La Surprise de lamour; Les Fausses Confidences; LEpreuve.

8 Le Philosophe mat-fe; Le Glorieux; Le Dissipateur.

La Fausse A niipaihie; Le Prijuge a la mode; LEcole des amis; Meluside; Pamela. LEcole des nsres was the play which Frederick the Great described as turning the stage into a bureau gnral de la fadeur.

iO See esnedallv Nanine. founded on the oririnal Pamela.

given by a far humbler citizen of the world of letters, the author of The London Merchant. Diderots own plays were a literary rather than a theatrical success. Le Fils naturel ou les prcuves de la vertu was not publicly performed till 1771, anc~ then only in deference to the determination of a single actor of the Francais (Mole); nor was the performance, of it repeated. Diderots second play, Le Pre de famille, printed in 1758 with a Discours sur la posie dramalique, went through a few public performances in 1761; and a later revival was unsuccessful. But at a distance, as was well said, the effect of Diderots endeavours, the earlier in particular, was extremely great, and Lessing, though very critical as to particular points, greatly helped to spread it. Diderot had for the first time consciously sought to proclaim the theatre an agency of social reform, and to entrust to it as its task the propagation of the gospel of philanthropy. Though the execution of his dramatic works fell far short of his aims; though Madame de Stal was not far wrong in denouncing them as exhibiting not nature itself, but the affectation of nature, yet they contained, in a measure almost unequalled in the history of the modern drama, the fermenting element which never seems to subside. Their author announced them as examples of a third dramatic formthe genre srieuxwhich he declared to be the consummation of the dramatic art. Making war upon the frigid artificiality of classical tragedy, he banished verse from the new species. The effect of these plays was intended to spring from their truth to naturea truth such as no spectator could mistake, and which should bring home its moral teachings to the business as well as the bosoms of all. The theatre was to become a real and realistic school of the principles of society and of the conduct of lifeit was, in other ~words, to usurp functions with which it has no concern, and to essay the diTect reformation. of mankind. The idea was neither new nor just; but its speciousness will probably continue to commend it to many enthusiastic minds, whensoever and in whatsoever shape it is revived.

From this point the history of the French drama becomes that of a conflict between an enfeebled artistic school and a tendency which is hardly to be dignified by the name The of a school at all. Among the successful dramatists ~,medy following on Diderot may be mentioned the critical of the and versatile J. F. Marmontel, and more especially Revolution M.J. Sedaiiie, who though chiefly working for the opera, producedtwo comedies of acknowledged merit.n P .A. C. eZg~ire. de Beaumarchais (1732-1799), who for his early sentimental plays,i2 in which he imitated Diderot, invented the appellation drameso convenient in its vagueness that it became the accepted name of the hybrid species to which they belonged in two works of a very different kind, the famous Barbier de Seville and the still more famous Manage de Figaro, boldly carried comedy back into its old Spanish atmosphere of intrigue; but, while surpassing all his predecessors in the skill with which he constructed his frivolous plots, he drew his characters with a lightness and sureness of touch peculiar to himself, animated his dialogue with an unparalleled brilliancy of wit, and seasoned action as well as dialogue with a political and social meaning. which caused his epigrams to become proverbs, and which marks his Figaro as a herald of the Revolution. Such plays as these were ill suited to the rule of the despot whose vigilance could not overlook their significance. The comedy of the empire is, in the hands of Collin dHarieville, Louis Picard (1769-1828), A. Duval, Etienne and others, mainly a harmless comedy of manners; nor was the attempted innovation of N. Lemercierwho was fain to invent a new species, that of historical comedymore than a flattering self-delusion. The theatre had its share in all the movements and changes which ensued in France; though the most important revolution which the drama itself was to undergo was not one of wholly native origin. Those branches of the drama which belong specifically to the history of the opera, or which associate themselves with it, are here passed by. Among them was the vaudeville (from Val de Vire in Calvados), which ii Le PhiosoMe sans le savoir; La Gageure im~rvue.

12 e.g. Euginfe (the original of Goethes Clavigo) and Les Deux Amss, or Le Neociant de Lyon.

began as an interspersion of pantomime with the airs of popular songs, and which, after the Italian masks had been removed d from, it, was cultivated by Ponsard and Marmontel, while Sedaine wrote a didactic poem on the subject (1756). Sedaine was the father of the opera-comique proper; i Marmontel,2 as well as Rousseau,1 likewise composed oprettesa smaller sort of opera, at first of the pastoral variety; and these flexible species easily entered into combination. The melodrama proper, of which the invention is also attributed to Rousseau,4 in its latter development became merely a drama accentuated by music, though usually in little need of any accentuation.

The chief home of the regular drama, however, demanded efforts of another kind. At the Thtre Francais, or Comdie The St Francaise, whose history as that of a single company aze~ of actors had begun. in 1680, the party-strife of the times made itself audible; and the most prominent tragic poet of the Revolution, M. J. de Chnier, a disciple of Voltaire in dramatic poetry as well as in political philosophy, wrote for the national stage the historical dramawith a political moral 1

in which in the memorable year 1789 the actor Talma achieved his first complete triumph. But the victorious Revolution proclaimed among other liberties that of the theatres in Paris, of which soon not less than 50 were open. In 1807 the empire restricted the number to 9, and reinstated the Thtre Francais in sole possession (or nearly such) of the right of performing the T~nSftion classic drama. No writer of note was, however, to the tempted or inspired by the rewards and other en- romantic couragements offered by Napoleon to produce such a school, classic tragedy as the emperor would have willingly stamped from out of the earth. The tragedies of C. Delavigne represent the transition from the expiring efforts of the classical to the ambitious beginnings of the romantic school of the French drama.

Of modern romantic drama in France it must suffice to say that it derives some of its characteristics from the general movement of romanticism which in various ways and The at various points of time transformed nearly every rO:a1~tic modern European literature, others from the rhetorical tendency which is a French national feature. Victor Hugo was the founder whom it followed in a spirit of high emprise to success upon success, his own being the most conspicuous of all;6 A. Dumas the elder its unshrinking middleman. The marvellous fire and grandeur of genius of the former, always in extremes but often most sublime at the height of danger, was nowhere more signally such than in the drama; Dumas was a Briareus, working, however, with many hands besides his own. Together with them may, with more or less precision, be classed in the romantic school of dramatists A. de 1 and Geerge Sand,8 neither of whom, however, attained to the highest rank in the drama, and Jules Sandeau;9 A. de Musset, whose originality pervades all his plays, but whose later works, more especially in his prose proverbs and pieces of a similar kind, have a flavour of, a delicacy altogether indescribable; 10 perhaps also P. Mrime (1803-1870), who invented not only Spanish dramas but a Spanish dramatist, and who was never more audacious than when he seemed most naIf. ii The romantic school was not destined to exercise a permanent control over French public taste; but it can hardly be said to have been overthrown by the brief classical revival begun by F. Ponsard, and continued, though in closer contact with modern ~ Zmire et Azor; Jeannot et Jeannette.

Les Muses galantes; Le Devin du village. Pygmalion.

Charles IX, ou licoie des rois.

6 Hernani (1839); Le Rol sa~muse; Ruy Bias; Les Burgraves, &c. Even in Torquemada, the fruit of its authors old age, and full of bombast, the original power has not altogether gone out.

7Chatterton. ~ Francois le champi; Claudie.

Le Gendre de M. Poirier.

ii On ne badine pas avec lamour, as interpreted by Delaunay, must always remain the most exquisite type of this inimitable genre.

ii Thdtre de Clara Gazul. La Famille Carvajal, one of these pieces, treats the same story as that of The Cen.ci.

ideas, both by him1 and by E. Augier, a dramatist who gradually attained to an extraordinary effectiveness in the selfrestrained treatment of social as well as of historical themes.11 While the theatrical fecundity and the remarkable constructive ability of E. Scribe i4 supplied a long series of productions attesting the rapid growth of the playwrights mastery over the secrets of his craft the name of his competitors is legion. Among them may be mentioned, if only as the authors of two of the most successful plays of the historical species produced in the century, two writers of great eminence C. Delavigne d and E. Legouv.i6 Later developments of the drama bore the impress of a period of social decay, prepared to probe its own sufferings, while glad at times to take refuge in the gaiety traditional in France in her more light-hearted days, but which even then had not yet deserted either French social life or the theatre which reflected it. After a fashion which would have startled even Diderot, while recalling his efforts in the earnestness of its endeavour to arouse moral interests to which the theatre had long been a stranger, A. Dumas the younger set himself to reform society by means of the stage. 17 But the technical skill which he and contemporary dramatists displayed in the execution of their self-imposed task was such as Ead been undreamt of by Diderot. 0. Feuillet, more eminent as a novelist than on the stage, applied himself, though with the aid of fewer prefaces, to the solution of the same or similar problems; while the extraordinary versatility of V. Sardou and his unfailing constructive skill was applied by him to almost every kind of serious, or serio-comic, dramaeven the most solid of all.18 In the same period, while E. Pailleron revived some of the most characteristic tendencies of the best French satirical comedy in ridiculing the pompous pretentiousness of learning ,for its own sake,f9 the light-hearted gaiety of E. Labiche changed into something not altogether similar in the productions of the comic muse of L. Halvy and H. Meilhac, ranging from the licence of the musical burlesque which was the congenial delight of the later days of the Second Empire to a species of comedy in which the ingredients of bitterness and even of sadness found a place.2

Dramatic criticism in France has had a material share in the maintenance of a deep as well as wide national interest in the preservation of a high standard of excellence both in the performance of plays and in the plays themselves. Among its modern representatives the foremost place drama and would probably be by common consent allowed to of the F. Sarcey, whose Monday theatrical feuilleton in the Tern ps was long awaited week by week as an oracle of dramaturgy. But he was only the first among equals, and the successor and the predecessor of writers who have at least sought to be equal to a function of real public importance. For it seems hardly within the range of probability to suppose that the theatre will for many a generation to come lose the hold which it has established over the intellectual and moral sympathies of nearly the whole of the educatedto say nothing of a great part of the half-educatedpopulation of France. This does not, of course, imply that the creative activity of French dramatic literature is certain to endure. Since the great changes set in which were consequent upon the disastrous war of 1870, French dramatic literature has reflected more than one phase of national sentiment and opinion, and has represented the aspirations, the sympathies and the philosophy of life of more than one class in the community. Thus it has had its episodes of reaction in the midst of an onward flow of which it would be difficult to predict the end. The tendency of what can only vaguely be described as the naturalistic school of writers has corresponded to that even more prominent in the dramatic literatures of Lucrce (1843); LHonneur et largent; Charlotte Corday.

13 La Cigue; LAvenlurire; Gabrielie; Le Fits de Giboyer, &c.

~ Valerie; Bertrand et Raton; Le Verre deau, &c.

h Louis XI. ii Adrienne Lecouvreur.

i7 La Dame aux camilias; Le Demi.-rnonde; Le Supplice dune femme; Les lilies de Mme Aubray; LEtrangere; Francillon.

18 Les PaStes de mouche; No.1 bons villageois; Patrie.

Le Monde o12 lon sennuie. Frou-frou.

certain other European nations; but it must be allowed that a new poetic will have to be constructed if, the freedom of development which the dramatic, like all other arts, is entitled to claim is to be reconciled to laws deducible from the whole previous history of the drama. The reaction towards earlier forms has asserted itself in various waysthrough the poetic plays of the later years of F. Coppe; in the success (notable for reasons other than artistic) of Vicomte H. de Borniers first tragedy; and of late more especially in the dramashighly original and truly romantic in both form and treatmentof E. Rostand.

The art of acting is not altogether dependent upon the measure of contemporary literary productivity, even in France, where the connection between dramatic literature and the stage has perhaps been more continuously intimate than in many other countries. Talma and Mile Mars flourished in one of the most barren ages of the French literary drama; and though this cannot be asserted of the two most brffliant stars of the French 19th century tragic stage, Rachel and Sarah Bernhardt, or of their comic contemporaries from Frdrick-Lemaitre down to types less unique than the Talma of the boulevards, the constantly accumulating experience of the successive schools of acting in France may here ensure to the art a future not less notable than its past. Moreover, the French theatre has long been, and is more than ever likely to continue, an affair of the state as well as of the nation; and the judicious policy of not leaving the chief theatres at the mercy of shifting fashion and the base demands of idleness and sensuality will remain the surest guarantee for the maintenance of a high standard both in principle and in practice. So long as France continues to maintain her ascendancy over other nations in matters of taste, and in much else that adorns, brightens and quickens social life, the predominant influence of the French theatre over the theatres of other nations is likewise assured. But dramatic literature is becoming international to a degree hardly dreamt of half a century ago; and the distinctive development of the French theatre cannot fail to be affected by the success or failure of the national drama in retaining and developing its own most characteristic qualities. Its history shows periods of marveilously rapid advance, of hardly less swift decline, and of frequent though at times fitful recovery. Its future may be equally varied; but it will remain not less dependent on the conditions which in every people, ancient or modern, have proved to be indispensable to national vigour and vitality. (A. W. W.)

- Recent French Drama.The last twenty-five years of the 19th century witnessed an important change in the constructive methods, as well as in the moral tendencies, of the French playwrights. Of the two leading dramatists who reigned supreme over the hau.te comdie in 1875, one, Emile Augier, had almost ended his career, but the other, Alexandre Dumas, was to maintain. his ascendancy for many years longer. Sardous fertility of invention, and extraordinary cleverness at manipulating a complicated intrigue, were also greatly admired, and much was expected from Edouard Paillerons brilliant andas it seemed inexhaustible wit in satirizing the whims and weaknesses of high-born and highly-cultured society. Alexandre Dumas had created and stifi monopolized the problem play, of which Le Demi-monde, Le Fils naturel, La Question dargen~, Les Ides de Madame Aubray, La Femme de Claude, Monsieur Alphonse, La Visite de noces, LEtrangre, Francillon and Denise may be mentioned as the most characteristic specimens. The problem play is the presentation of a particular case, with a view to a general conclusion on some important question of human conduct. This afforded the author, who was, in his way, a moralist and a reformer, excellent opportunities for humorous discussions and the display of that familiar eloquence which was his greatest gift and most effective faculty. Among other subjects, the social position of women had an all-powerful attraction for his mind, and many of his later plays were written with the object of placing in strong relief the remarkable inequality of the sexes, both as regards freedom of action and responsibility, in modern marriage. Like all the dramatists of his time, he adhered to Scribes mode of play-writinga mixture of the drame bourgeois, as initiated by Diderot, and the comedy of character and manners, long in voguefrom the days of Moliere, Regnard, Destouches and Marivaux, down to the beginning of the I9th century. In his prefaces Dumas often undertook the defence of the system which, in his estimation, was best calculated to serve the purpose of the artist, the humorist and the moralista dramatist being,, as he conceived, a combination of the three.

Though the majority of French playgoers continued to side with him, and to cling to the time-honored theatrical beliefs, a few young men. were beginning to murmur against the too elaborate mechanism and artificial logic. Scribe and his successors, whose plays were a combination of comedy and drama, were wont to devote the first act to a brilliant and witty presentation of personages, then to crowd the following scenes with incidents, until the action was brought to a climax about the end of the fourth act, invariably concluding, in the fifth, with an optimistic denouement, just before midnight, the time appointed by police regulations for the closing of playhouses. At the same time a more serious and far-reaching criticism was levelled at the very principles on which the conception of human life was then dependent. A new philosophy, based on scientific research, had been gradually gaining ground and penetrating the French mind. A host of bold writers had been trying, with considerable firmness and continuity of purpose, to start a new kind of fiction, writing in perfect accordance with the determinist theories of Auguste Cornte, Darwin and Tame. The long-dispute~.success of the Naturalistic School carried everything before it during the years 1875-1885, and its triumphant leaders were tempted to make the best of their advantage by annexing a new province and establishing a footing on the stage. In. this they failed signally, either when they were assisted by professional dramatists or when left to their own resources. It became evident that Naturalism, to be made acceptable on the stage, would have to undergo a special process of transformation and be hanfiled in a peculiar way. Henry Becque succeeded in embodying the new theories in two plays, which at first met with very indifferent success, but were revived at a later period, and finally obtained permanent recognition in the French theatreeven with the acquiescence of the most learned critics, when. they discovered; or fancied they discovered, that Becques comedies agreed, in the main, with Molieres conception of dramatic art. In Les Corbeaux and La Parisienne the plot is yery simple; the episodes are incidents taken from ordinary life. No extraneous character is introduced to discuss moral and social theories, or to acquaint us with the psychology of the real dramatis personae, or to suggest humorous observations about the progress of the dramatic action. The characters are left to tell their own tale in their own words, which are sometimes very comical, sometimes very repulsive, but purport to be always true to nature. Human will, which was the soul and mainspring of French tragedy in the 17th century, and played such a paramount part in the drame bourgeois and the haute comdie of the I9th, appears in M. Becques plays to have fallen from its former exalted position and to have ceased to be a free agent. It is a mere passive instrument to our inner desires and instincts and appetites, which, in their turn, obey natural laws. Thus, in Becques comedies, as in the old Greek drama, destiny, not man, is the chief actor, the real but unseen protagonist.

Becque was not a prolific writer, and when he died, in 1899, it was remarked that he had spent the last ten years of his life in comparative inactivity. But during these years his young and ardent disciples had spared no effort in putting their masters theories to the test. It had occurred to a gifted and enterprising actor-manager, named Andr Antoine, that the time had come for trying dramatic experiments in a continued and methodical manner. For this purpose he gathered around him a number of young authors, and produced their plays before a select audience of subscribers, who had paid in advance for their seasontickets. The entertainment was a strictly private one. In this way Antoine made himself independent of the censors, and at the same time was no longer obliged to consider the requirements of the average playgoer, as is the case with ordinary managers, anxious, above all things, to secure long runs. At the Thtre Libre the most successful play was not to be performed for more than three nights.

The reform attempted was to consist in the elimination of what was contrary to nature in Dumass and Augiers comedies: of the intrigue paralile or underplot, of the over-numerous and improbable incidents which followed the first act and taxed the spectators memory to the verge of fatigue; and, lastly, of the conventional denouement for which there was no justification. A true study of character was to take the place of Sardous complicated fabrications, and Dumass problem plays. The authors would present the spectator with a fragment of life, but would force no conclusion upon him at the termination of the play. The reformation in histrionic art was to proceed apace. The actors and actresses of the preceding period had striven to give full effect to certain witty utterances of the author, or to preserve and to develop their own personal peculiarities or oddities. Antoine and his fellow-artists did their best to make the public realize, in every word and every gesture, the character- istic features and ruling passions of the men and women they were supposed to represent.

It was in the early autumn of 1887 that the Thtre Libre opened its doors for the first time. It struggled on for eight years amidst unfailing curiosity, but not without encountering some adverse, or even derisive, criticism from a considerable portion of the public and the press. The Th~tre Libre brought under public notice such men as George Courteline and George Ancey, who gave respectively, in Bonbouroche and La Dupe, specimens of a comic vein called the comique cruel. Fabre, in LArgent, approached if not surpassed his master, Henry Becque. Brieux, in Bianchette, gave promise of talent, which he has since in a great measure justifiecL In Les Fossiles and LEnvers dune sainte, by Francois de Curel, were found evidences of dramatic, vigour and concentrated energy, affied with a remarkable gift for the minute analysis of feeling. Antoines activity was not exclusively confined to the efforts of the French Naturalistic School; he included the Norwegian drama in his programme, and successively produced several of Ibsens plays. They received a large amount of attention from the critics, the views then expressed ranging from the wildest enthusiasm to the bitterest irony. Francisque Sarcey was decidedly hostile, and Jules Lemaitre, who ranked next to him in authority, ventured to suggest that Ibsens ideas were nothing better than longdiscarded social and literary paradoxes, borrowed from Pierre Leroux through George Sand, and returned to the French market as novelties. Ibsen was not understood by the French public at large, though his influence could be clearly traced on thoughtful men like Paul Hervieu and Franois de Curd.

The authors of the Thtre Libre were sadly wanting in tact and patience. They went at once to extremes, and, while trying to free themselves from an obsolete form of drama, fell into a state of anarchy. If a too elaborate plot is a fault, no plot at all is an absurdity. The old school had been severely taken to task for devoting the first act to the delineation of character, and the delineation of character was now found to have extended over the whole play; and worse still, most of these young men seemed to find pleasure in importing a low vocabulary on to the stage; they made it their special object to place before the spectator revolting pictures of the grossest immorality. In this they were supported by a knot of noisy and unwise admirers, whose misplaced approval largely contributed towards bringing an otherwise useful and interesting undertaking into disrepute. The result was that after the lapse of eight years the little group collected round Antoine had lost in cohesion and spirit, that it was both less hopeful and less compact than it had been at the outset of the campaign. But some authors who had kept aloof from the movement were not slow in reaping the moral and intellectual profit of these tentative experiments. Among them must be cited George de Porto-Riche, Henri Lavedan, Paul Hervieu, Maurice Donnay and Jule~ Lemaitre. Alone among the authors of the Thtre Libre, E. Brieux secured an assured position on the regular stage. Instead ofattacking the vices and follies of his times, be has made a name by satirizing the weak points or the wrong application of certain fundamental principles by which modern institutions are~ supported. He mocked at universal suffrage in LEngrenage, at art in Menages dartisles, at popular instruction in Bianchette, at charity in Les Bienfaiteurs, at icience in LEvasion, and then at law in La Robe rouge. Df Les Trois Filles de M. Dupont, one is an old maid with a strong bent towards mysticism, another is a star in the demi-monde, and the third is married. Neither religion, nor free love, nor marriage has made one of the three happy. The strange fact about Brieux is that he propounds his uncomfortable ideas with an incredible amount of dash and spirit.

All the plays written by the above-mentioned authors, and by those who follow in their ~teps, have been said to constitute the new comedy. But one may question the advisability of applying the same name to literary works which present so tittle, if any, family likeness. It was tacitly agreed to remove the intricacies of the plot and the forced dEnouement. But no one will trace in those plays the uniformity of moral purpose which would justify us in comprising them under the same head, as products of the same school. Then, before the Naturalistic, or half-Naturalistic, School had attained to a practical result or taken a definite shape, a wave of Romanticism swept over the French public, and in a measure brought back the old artistic and literary dogmas propounded by Victor Hugo and the generation of 1830. Signs of a revival in French dramatic poetry were not lacking. The success of La Fille de Roland, by the Vicomte de Bornier, was restricted to the more cultivated classes, but the vogue of Jean Richepins C/iemineau was at once general and lasting. Cyrano de Bergerac, produced in the last days of 1897; brought a world-wide reputation to its young author, Edmond Rostand. This play combines sparkling wit and brilliancy of imagination with delightful touches of pathos and delicate tenderness. It was assumed that Rostand was endowed to an extraordinary degree both with theatrical genius and the poetic faculty. LAigion fell short of this too favorable judgment. It is more a dramatic poem .than a real drama, and the author handles history with the same childish incompetence and inaccuracy as Hugo did in Crbmwell, in Ruy Bias and Hernani. The persistent approbation of the public seemed, however, to indicate a growing taste for poetry, even when unsupported by dramatic interesta curious symptom among the least poetical of modern European races.

To sum up, the French, ~as regards the present condition of their drama, were confronted with two alternative movements. Naturalism, furthered by science and philosophy, was contending against traditions three centuries old, and seemed unable to crystallize into masterly works; while romantic drama, founded on vague and exploded theories, had become embodied in productions of real artistic beauty, which have been warmly welcomed by the general playgoer. It should nevertheless be noted that in Cyrano and LAigion human will, which was the mainspring of Corneilles tragedy and Hugos drama, tried to reassert itself, but was baffled by circumstance, and had to submit to inexorable laws. This showed that the victorious school would have to reckon with the doctrines of the defeated party, and suggested that a determinist theatre might be the ultimate outcome of a compromise. (A. F1.)

(f) English Drama.

Among the nations of Germanic descent the English alone succeeded, mainly through the influence of the Renaissance movement, in transforming the later growths of the medieval drama into the beginnings of a great and enduring national dramatic literature, second neither in volume nor in splendour to any other in the records of the world. And, although in England, as elsewhere, the preparatory process had been continuing for some generations, its consummation coincided wit,h one of the greatest epochs of English national history, and indeed forms one of the chief glories of that epoch itself; so that, in thinking or speaking of the Elizabethan age and the Elizabethan drama, the one can scarcely be thought or spoken of without the other.

It is of course conceivable that the regular drama, or drama proper, might in England have been called into life without the Beginnings direct influence of classical examples. Already in the of the reign of Edward VI. the spirit of the Reformation had regular (with the aid of a newly awakened desire for the study drama. of history, which was no doubt largely due to Italian examples) quickened the relatively inanimate species of the morality into the beginning of a new development.i But though the Kyng Johan of Bale (much as this author abhorred the chronicles as written by ecciesiastics) came very near to the chronicle histories, there is no proof whatever that the work, long hidden away for very good reasons, actually served as a transition to the new species; and Bales production was entirely unknown to the particular chronicle history which treated the same subject. Before the earliest example of this transitional species was produced, English tragedy had directly connected its beginnings with classical models.

Much in the same way, nothing could have been more natural and in accordance with the previous sluggish evolution of the English drama than that a gradual transition, however complete in the end, should have been effected from the moralities to comedy. It was not, however, John Heywood himself who was to accomplish any such transition;, possibly, he was himself the author of the morality Genus humanum performed at the coronation feast of Queen Mary, whose council speedily forbade the performance of interludes without the queens licence. Nor are we able to conjecture the nature of the pieces bearing this name composed by Richard Farrant, afterwards the master of the Children of St Georges at Windsor, or of Wiffiam Hunnis, master under Queen Elizabeth of the Children of the Chapel Royal. But the process of transition is visible in productions, also called interludes, but charged with serious purpose, such as T. Ingelands noteworthy Disobedient Child (before 1560), and plays in which the element of abstractions is perceptibly yielding to that of real personages, or in which the characters are for the most part historical or the main element in the action belongs to the sphere of romantic narrative. The demonstration would, however, be alien to the purpose of indicating the main conditions of the growth of the English drama. The immediate origin of the earliest extant English comedy must, like that of the first English tragedy, be sought, not in the develop.ment of any popular literary or theatrical antecedents, examples. but in the imitation, more 0k less direct, of classical models. This cardinal fact, unmistakable though it is, has frequently been ignored or obscured by writers intent upon investigating the origines of our drama, and to this day remains without adequate acknowledgment in most of the literary histories accessible to the great body of students.

It is true that in tracing the entrance of the drama into the national literature there is no reason for seeking to distinguish very narrowly between the several tributaries to the main stream which fertilized this as well as other fields under Renaissance culture. The universities then still remained, and for a time became more prominently than ever, the leading agents of, education in all its existent stages; and it is a patent fact that no influence could have been so strong upon the Elizabethan dramatists as that to which they had been subjected during the university life through which the large majority of them had passed. The corporate life of the universities, and the enthusiasms (habitually unanimous) of their undergraduates and younger graduates, communicated this influence, as it were~ automatically, to the students, and to the learned societies themselves, of the Inns of Court. In the Tudor, as afterwards in the early Stuart, times, these Inns were at once the seminaries 2 Tom Tiler and his Wife (1578); A Knack to know a Knave (c.

1594); Sir Clyomon and Sir Ckimydes (misattributed to G. Peele), (printed 1599).

of loyalty, and the obvious resort for the supply of young men of spirit desirous ,of honoring a learned court by contributing to its choicer amusements. Thus, whether we trace them in the universities, in the bowers or halls of the lawyers, or in the palaces of the sovereign, the beginnings of the English academical drama, which in. later Elizabethan and Jacobean literature cannot claim to be more than a subordinate species of the national drama, in an earlier period served as the actual link between classical tragedy and comedy and the surviving native growths, and supplied the actual impulse towards the beginnings of English tragedy and comedy.

The academical drama of the early years of Elizabeths reign and of the preceding part of the Tudor periodincluding the school-drama in the narrower sense of the term and other performances of academical originconsisted, The earlier apart from actual reproductions of classical plays in the original Latin or in Latin versions of the Greek, in adaptations of Latin originals, or of Latin or English plays directly modelled on classical examples. A notable series of plays of this kind was performed in the hail of Christ Church, Oxford, from the first year of Edward VI. onward, when N. Grimalds Archipropheta, treating in classic form the story of St John the Baptist, but introducing the Vice and comic scenes, was brought out.3 Others were J. Calfhiils Pro gne and R. Edwardes Palaemon and Arcyte (both 1566), and, from about 1580 onwards, a succession of Latin plays by William Gager, beginning with the tragedy Meleager, and including, with other tragedies,4 a comedy Rivales. Yet another comedy, acted at Christ Church, and extolled in 1591 by Harington for harmless mirth, was the Bellum grammaticale, or Civil War between Nouns and Verbs, which may have been a revision of a comedy written by Bales friend, R. Radciff, in 1538, but of which in any case the ultimate origin was a celebrated Italian allegorical treatise.5 In Cambridge, as is not surprising, the activity of the early academical friends and favorers of the drama was even more marked. At St Johns College, where Bishop Watsons Latin tragedy called Absolom was produced within the years 5534 and 1544, plays were, according to Ascham, repeatedly performed about the middle of the century; at Christs a controversial drama in the Lutheran interest called Pammachius, of which Gardiner complained to the privy council, and which seems afterwards to have been translated by Bale, was acted in I 544; and at Trinity there was a long series of performances which began with Christophersons Jephtha about 1546, and consisted partly of reproductions of classical works,6 partly of plays and shows unnamed; while on one occasion at all events, in 1559, two English plays were produced. In 1560 was acted, doubtless in the original Latin, and not in Palsgraves English translation (1540) for schoolboys, the celebrated comedy of Acolastus, by W. Gnaphaeus, on the story of the Prodigal Son. The long series of Trinity plays interspersed with occasional plays at Kings (where Udalls Ezechias was produced in English in 1564), at St Johns (where T. Legges Richard us III. was first acted in 1573), and, as will be seen below, at Christs, continued, with few noticeable breaks, up to the time when the Elizabethan drama was in full activity.7 Among the academical plays not traceable to any particular university source may be mentioned, as acted at court so early as the end of 1565 or the beginning of 1566, the Latin Sapientia Solomonis, which generally follows the biblical narrative, but introduces a comic element in the sayings of the popular Marcolph, who here appears as a court fool.

An earlier drama by him, Christus redivivus, is said to have been printed at Cologne.

Oedipus; Dido; Ulysses redux. By A. Guarna.

Fax; Troas; Menaechmi; Oedipus; Mostellaria; Hecuba; A mphy. lruo; Medea. These fall between 1546 and 1560. The date and place of the production of William Goldingham of Trinity Halls Herodes, some time after 1567, are unknown.

The date and place of performance of the Latin Fatum Vortigerni are unknown; but it was not improbably produced at a later time than Shakespeares Richard II., which it seems in certain points to resemble.

It was under the direct influence of the Renaissance, viewed primarily, in England as elsewhere, as a revival of classical studies, and in connection with the growing taste in Influence .

of Seneca. university and cognate circles of society, and at a court which prided itself on its love and patronage of learning, that English tragedy and comedy took their acjual beginnings. Those of comedy, as it would seem, preceded those of tragedy by a few years. Already in Queen Marys reign, translation was found the readiest form of expression offering itself to literary scholarship; and Italian examples helped to commend Seneca, the most modern of the ancient tragedians, and the imitator of the most human among the masters of Attic tragedy, as a favorite subject for such exercises. In the very year of Elizabeths accessionseven years after Jodelle had brought out the earliest French tragedya group of English university scholars began to put forth a series of translations of the ten tragedies of Seneca, which one of them, T. Newton, in 1581 collected into a single volume. The earliest of these versions was that of the Troades (1559) by Jasper Heywood, a son of the author of the Interludes. He also published the Thyestes (1560) and the Hercules Furens (1561); the names of his fellow-translators were A. Neville, T. Nuce, J. Studiley and the T. Newton aforesaid. These translations, which occasionally include original interpolations (additions, a term which was to become a technical one in English dramaturgy), are in no instance in blank verse, the favorite metre of the dialogue being the couplets of fourteen-syllable lines best known through Chapmans Homer.

The authority of Seneca, once established in the English literary world, maintained itself there long after English drama had emancipated itself from the task of imitating this pallid ~ model, and, occasionally, Senecas own prototype, tr~e~les. Euripides.i Nor can it be doubted that some translation of the Latin tragic poet had at one time or another passed through Shakespeares own hands. But what is of present importance is that to the direct influence of Seneca is to be ascribed the composition of the first English tragedy which we possess. Of Gorboduc (afterwards re-named Ferrex and Porrex), first acted on the 18th of January 1562 by the members of the Inner Temple before Queen Elizabeth, the first three acts are stated to have been written by T. Norton; the rest of the play (if not more) was the work of T. Sackville, afterwards Lord Buckhurst and earl of Dorset, whom Jasper Heywood praised for his sonnets, but who is better known for his leading share in The Mirror for Magistrates. Though the subject of Gorboduc is a British legend, and though the action is neither copied nor adapted from any treated by Seneca, yet the resemblance between this tragedy and the Thebais is too strong to be fortuitous. In all formal matterschorus, messengers, &c.Gorboduc adheres to the usage of classical tragedy; but the authors show no respect for the unities of time or place. Strong in construction, the tragedy islike its model, Senecaweak in characterization. The dialogue, it should be noticed, is in blank verse; and the device of the dumb-show, in which the contents of each act are in succession set forth in pantomime only, is employed at once to instruct and to stimulate the spectator.

The nearly contemporary A pius and Virginia (c. 1563), though it takes its subjectdestined to become a perennial one on the modern stagefrom Roman story; the Historie of Horestes (pr. 1567); and T. Prestons Canibises King of Percia (1569-1570), are somewhat rougher in form, and, the first and last of them at all events, more violent in diction, than Gorboduc. They still contain elements of the moralities (above all the Vice) and none of the formal features of classical tragedy. But a Julyus Sesyar seems to have been performed, in precisely the same circumstances as Gorboduc, so early as 1562; and, four years later, G. Gascoigne, the author of the satire The Steele Glass, produced with the aid, of two associates (F. Kinwelmersh and Sir Christopher Yelverton, who wrote an epilogue), Jocasta, a virtual translation of L. Dolces Giocasta, which was an adaptation, probably, of R. Winters Latin translation of the Phoenissae of Euripides.2 Between the years 1567 and 1580 a large proportion of the plays presented at court by choir- or school-boys, and by various companies of actors, were taken from Greek legend or Roman history; as was R. Edwardes Damon and Pit hias (perhaps as early as 1564-1565), which already shades off from tragedy into what soon came to be called tragi-comedy.3 Simultaneously with the influence, exercised directly or indirectly, of classical literature, that of Italian, both dramatic and narrative, with its marked tendency to treat native themes, asserted itself, and, while diversifying the current of early English tragedy, infused into it a longabiding element of passion. There are sufficient grounds for concluding that a play on the subject of Romeo and Juliet, which L. da Porto and M. Bandello had treated in prose narrative that of the latter having through a French version formed itself into an English poemwas seen on an English stage in or before 1562. Gisnionde of Salerne, a play founded on Boccaccio, was acted before Queen Elizabeth at the Inner Temple in 1568, nearly a generation before it was published, rewritten in blank verse by R. Wilmot, one of the performers, then in holy orders; G. Whetstones Promos and Cassandra, founded on G. Cinthio (from which came the plot of Measure for Measure), followed, printed in 1578; and there were other casts of Italian devices belonging to this age, in which the choice of a striking them~s still seemed the chief preoccupation of English tragic poets.

From the double danger which threatened English tragedy in the days of its infancythat it would congeal on the wintry heights of classical themes, or dissolve its vigour in the glow~ a~ heat of a passion fiercer than that of the ItaliansInglesu Italianato e un diavolo incarnatoit was preserved more than by any other cause by its happy association with the traditions oi the national history. An exceptional position might seem to be in this respect occupied by T. Hughes interesting tragedy Th0 Misfortunes of Arthur (1587). But the author of this playui certain portions of whose framework there were associated with him seven other members of Grays Inn, including Francis Bacon and which was presented before Queen Elizabeth like Gorboduc in truth followed the example of the authors of that work botl,i in choice of theme, in details of form, and in a general though far from servile imitation of the manner of Seneca; nor does hI represent any very material advance upon the first English tragedy.

Fortunately, at the very time when from such beginning~ as those just described the English tragic drama was to set forLh upon a course in which It was to achieve so much, a new sphere of activity suggested itself. And in this, ~ after a few more or less tentative efforts, English dramatists very speedily came to feel at home. In their direct dramatization of passages or portions of English history (in which the doings and sufferings of King Arthur could only by courtesy or poetic licence be included) c]assical models would bs~ of scant service, while Italian examples of the treatment o~ national historical subjects, having to deal with material si, wholly different, could not be followed with advantage. The native species of the chronicle history, which designedly assumed this name in order to make clear its origin and purpose, essayed nothing more or less than a dramatic version of an existing chronicle. Obviously, while the transition from half historical, half epical narrative often implied carrying over into the new form some of the features of the old, it was only when the subject matter had been remoulded and recast that a true dramatic action could result. Put the histories to be found among the plays of Shakespeare and one or two other Elizabethans are true dramas, and it would be inconvenient to include these in the transitional species of those known as chronicle histories. Among these ruder His Palamon and Arcyte (produced in Christ Church hall, Oxford, in 1566) is not preserved; or we should be able to compare with The Two Noble Kinsmen this early dramatic treatment of a singularly fine theme.

compositions, which intermixed the blank verse introduced on the stage by Gorboduc with prose, and freely combined or placed side by side tragic and comic ingredients, we have but few distinct examples. One of these is The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth, known to have been acted before 1588; In which both the verse and the prose are frequently of a very rude sort, while it is neither divided into acts or scenes nor, in general, constructed with any measure of dramatic skill. But its vigour and freshness are considerable, and in many passages we recognize familiar situations and favorite figures in later masterpieces of the English historical drama. The second is The Troublesome Raigne of King John, in two parts (printed in 1591), an epical narrative transferred to the stage, neither a didactic effort like Bales, nor a living drama like Shakespeares, but a far from contemptible treatment of its historical theme. The True Chronicle History of King Leir (acted in 1593) in form resembles the above, though it is not properly on a national subject (its story is taken from Geoffrey of Monmouth); but, with all its defects, it seems only to await the touch of the masters hand to become a tragedy of supreme effectiveness. A yet further step was taken in the Tragedy of Sir Thomas More (c. I 59o)in which Shakespeares hand has been thought traceable, and which deserves its designation of tragedy not so much on account of the relative nearness of the historical subject to the date of its dramatic treatment, as because of the tragic responsibility of character here already clearly worked out.

Such had been the beginnings of tragedy in England up to the time when the genius of English dramatists was impelled t, by the spirit that dominates a great creative epoch ~i~,ei~es. of literature to seize the form ready to their hands.

The birth of English comedy, at all times a process of less labor and eased by an always ready popular responsiveness to the most tentative efforts of art, had slightly preceded that of her serious sister. As has been seen from the brief review given above of the early history of the English academical drama, isolated Latin comedies had been performed in the original or in English versions as early as the reign of Henry VIII. perhaps even earlier; while the morality and its direct descendant, the interlude, pointed the way towards popular treatment in the vernacular of actions and characters equally well suited for the diversion of Roman, Italian. and English audiences. Thus there was no innovation in the adaptation by N. Udal of the Miles Gloriosus of Plautus under the title of Ralph Roister Doister, which may claim to be the earliest extant English comedy. It has a genuinely popular vein of humour, and the names fit the characters after a fashion. familiar to the moralities. The second English comedyin the opinion of at least one high authority our firstis Misogonus, which was certainly written as early as 1560. Its scene is laid in Italy; but the Vice, commonly called Cacurgus, is both by himself and others frequently designated as Will Summer, in allusion to Henry VIII.s celebrated jester. Gammer Gurtons Needle, long regarded as the earliest of all English comedies, was printed in 575, as acted not long ago in. Christs College, Cambridge. Its authorship was till recently attributed to John Still (afterwards bishop of Bath and Wells), who was a resident M.A. at Christs, when a play was performed there in 1566. But the evidence of his authorship is inconclusive, and the play made by Mr. S., Master of Arts, may be by William Stevenson, or by some other contemporary. This comedy is slighter in plot and coarser in diction than Ralph Roister Doister, but by no means unamusing.

In the main, however, early English comedy, while occasionally introducing characters and scenes of thoroughly native origin and complexion (e.g. Grim, the Collier of Croydon) ,i was content to borrow its themes from classical or Italian sources.2 G. Gascoignes Supposes (acted at Grays Inn in 1566) is a translation of I Sup posili of Ariosto, remarkable for the flowing facility of 2 A Historie of Error (1577), one of the many imitations of the Menaechmi, may have been the foundation of the Comedy of Errors.

In the previous year was printed the old Taming of a Shrew founded on a novel of G. F. Straparola. Part of the plot of Shakespeares Tam me of the Shrew may have been siievested by The Sui~,hoses.

its prose. While, on the one hand, the mixture of tragic with comic motives, which was to become so distinctive a feature of the Elizabethan drama, was already leading in the direction of tragicomedy, the precedent of the Italian pastoral drama encouraged the introduction of figures and stories derived from classical mythology; and the rapid and diversified influence of Italian comedy, in close touch with Italian prose fiction, seemed likely to affect and quicken continuously the growth of the lighter branch of the English drama.

Out of such promises as these the glories of English drama were ripened by the warmth and light of the great Elizabethan ageof which the beginnings may fairly be reckoned Condifrom the third decennium of the reign to which it owes tIOJIS of its name. The queens steady love of dramatic entertainments could not of itself have led, though it un- bet han doubtedly contributed, to such a result. Against the drama. attacks which a nascent puritanism was already directing against the stage by the hands of J. Northbrooke,1 the repentant playwright S. Gosson,4 P. Stubbes,5 and others,6 were to be set not only the frugal favor of royalty and the more liberal patronage of great nobles,1 but the fact that literary authorities were already weighing the endeavours of the English drama in the balance of respectful criticism, and that in the abstract at least the claims of both tragedy and comedy were upheld by those who shrank from the desipience of idle pastimes. It is noticeable that this period in the history of the English theatre coincides with the beginning of the remarkable series of visits made to Germany by companies of English comedians, which did not come to an end till the period immediately before the Thirty Years War, and were occasionally resumed after its close. As at home the popularity of the stage increased, the functions of playwright and actor, whether combined or not, began to hold out a reasonable promise of personal gain. Nor, above all, was that higher impulse which leads men of talent and genius to attempt forms of art in harmony with the tastes and tendencies of their times wanting to the group of writers who can be remembered by no nobler name than that of Shakespeares predecessors.

The lives of all of these are, of course, in part contemporary with the life of Shakespeare himself; nor was there any substantial difference in the circumstances under which The peemost of them, and he, led their lives as dramatic decessors authors. A distinction was manifestly kept up of Shakebetween poets and playwrights. Of the contempt speam.

entertained for the actors profession some fell to the share of the dramatist; even Lodge, says C. M. Ingleby, who had indeed never trod the stage, but had written several plays, and had no reason to be ashamed of his antecedents, speaks of the vocation of the play-maker as sharing the odium attaching to the actor. Among the dramatists themselves good fellowship and literary partnership only at times asserted themselves as stronger than the tendency to mutual jealousy and abuse; of all chapters of dramatic history, the annals of the early Elizabethan stage perhaps least resemble those of Arcadia.

Moreover, the theatre had hardly found its strength as a powerful element in. the national life, when it was involved in a bitter controversy, with which it had originally no H!sto~ of connection, on behalf of an ally whose sympathy with the Bliza. it can only have been of a very limited kind. The bethan Marprelate controversy, into which, among leading Stage.

playwrights, Lyly and Nashe were drawn, in 1589 led to a stoppage Treatise wherein Dicing, Dauncing, Vaine Playes or Enlerluds are reproved, &c. (1577).

The School of Abuse. The Anatomy of Abuses.

6 H. Denham, G. Whetstone (the author of Promos and Cassandra), W. Rankine.

I It may be mentioned that the practice of companies of players, of one kind or another, being taken into the service of members of the royal family, or of great nobles, dates from much earlier times than the reign of Elizabeth. So far back as I 400/I the corporation of Shrewsbury paid rewards to the histrmones of Prince Henry and of the earl of Stafford, and in 1408/9 reference is made to the players of the earl and countess of Arundel, of Lord Powys, of Lord Talbot and of lord Fi,rnivsl.

of stage-plays which proved only temporary; but the general result of the attempt to make the stage a vehicle of political abuse and invective was beyond a doubt to coarsen and degrade both plays and players. Scurrilous attempts and rough repression continued during the years 1590-1593; and the true remedy was at last applied, when from about 594, the chief London actors became divided into two great rival companiesthe lord chamberlains and the lord admiralswhich alone received licences. Instead of half a dozen or more companies whose jealousies communicated themselves to the playwrights belonging to them, there were now, besides the Children of the Chapel, two established bodies of actors, directed by steady and, in the full sense of the word, respectable men. To the lord chamberlains company, which, after being settled at the Theater (opened as early as 1576 or 1577), moved to Blackfriars, purchased by James Burbage, in 1596, and to the Globe on the Bankside in 1599, Shakespeare and Richard Burbage, the greatest of the Elizabethan actors, belonged; the lord admirals was managed by Philip Henslowe, the author of the Diary, and Edward Alleyn, the founder of Duiwich College, and was ultimately, in 1600, settled at the Fortune. In these and other houses were performed the plays of the Elizabethan dramatists, with few adventitious aids, the performance being crowded into a brief afternoon, when it is obvious that only the idler sections of the population could attend. No woman might appear at a playhouse, unless masked; on the stage, down to the Restoration, womens parts continued to be acted by boys.

It is futile to take no account of such outward circumstances as these and many which cannot here be noted in surveying the progress of the literature of the Elizabethan drama. Like that of the Restorationand like that of the present dayit was necessarily influenced in its method and spirit of treatment by the conditions and restrictions which governed the place and circumstances of the performance of plays, including the construction of theatre and stage, as well as by the social composition of its audiences, which the local accommodation, not less than the entertainment, provided for them had to take into account. But to these things a mere allusion must suffice. It may safely be said, at the same time, that no dramatic literature which has any claim to rank beside the Elizabethannot that of Athens nor those of modern Italy and Spain, nor those of France and Germany in their classic periodshad to contend against such odds; a mighty inherent strength alone ensured to it the vitality which it so triumphantly asserted, and which enabled it to run so unequalled a course.

Among Shakespeares predecessors, John Lyly, whose plays were all written for the Children of the Chapel and the Children L.~ of St Pauls, holds a position apart in English dramatic literature. The euphuism, to which his famous romance gave its name, likewise distinguishes his mythological ,i quasi-historical,2 allegorical,3 and satirical4 comedies. But his real service to the progress of English drama is to be sought neither in his choice of subjects nor in his imagerythough to his fondness for fairylore and for the whole phantasmagoria of legend, classical as well as romantic, his contemporaries, and Shakespeare in particular, were indebted for a stimulative precedent, and though in his Endimion at all events he excites curiosity by an a]legorical treatment of contemporary characters and events. It does not even lie in the songs inter~persed in his plays, though none of his predecessor~ had in the slightest degree anticipated the lyric grace which distinguishes some of these incidental efforts. It consists in his adoption of Gascoignes innovation of writing plays in prose; and in his having, though under the fetters of an affected and pretentious style, given the first example of brisk and vivacious dialoguean example to Kyd which even such successors as Shakespeare and Jonson were indebted. Thomas Kyd, the author of the Spanish Tragedy (preceded or followed by the first part of Jeronimo), and probably of several plays whose author was i The Woman in the Moone; Sapho and Phao.

Alexander and Cam paspe.

Endimson; Mydas. 4Gallathea.

unnamed, possesses some of the characteristics, but none of the genius, of the greatest tragic dramatist who preceded Shakespeare. No slighter tribute than this is assuredly the Madowe due of Christopher Marlowe, whose violent end prematurely closed a poetic career of dazzling brilliancy. His earliest play, Tamburlaine the Great, in which the use of blank verse was introduced upon the English public stage, while full of the high astounding terms of an extravagant and often bombastic diction, is already marked by the passion which was the poets most characteristic feature, and which was to find expression so luxuriantly beautiful in his Doctor Faustus, and so surpassingly violent in his Jew of Malta. His masterpiece, Edward II., is a tragedy of singular pathos and of a dramatic power unapproached by any of his contemporaries. Peele George Peele was a far more versatile writer even as a dramatist; but, though his plays contain passages of exquisite beauty, not one of them is worthy to be ranked by the side of Marlowes Edward II., compared with which, if indeed not absolutely, Peeles Chronicle of Edward I. still stands on the level of the species to which its title and character alike assign it. His finest play is undoubtedly David and Bethsabe, which resembles Edward I. in construction, but far surpasses it in beauty of language and versification, besides treating its subject with greatly superior dignity. If the difference between Peele and Shakespeare is still, in many respects besides that of genius, an immeasurable one, we seem to come into something like a Shakespearian atmosphere in more than one passage of the plays of the unfortunate Robert Greene-unfortunate perhaps in nothing more enduringly than in the proof which he left behind him of his supercilious jealousy of Shakespeare. Greenes genius, most conspicuous in plays treating English life and scenes, could, notwithstanding his academic self-sufficiency, at times free itself from the pedantry apt to beset the flight of Peeles and at times even of Marlowes muse; and his most delightful l seems to breathe something of the air, sweet and fresh like no other, which blows over an English countryside. Thomas Lodge, whose dramatic, and much less of course his literary activity, is measured by the only play that we know to have been wholly 6 Thomas Nashe, the redoubtable pamphleteer and the father of the English picaresque novel; Henry Chettle, who worked the chords of both pitys and terror with equal vigour, and Anthony Munday, better remembered for his city pageants than for his plays, are among the other more important writers of the early Elizabethan. drama, though not all of them can strictly speaking be called predecessors of Shakespeare. It is not possible here to enumerate the more interesting of the anonymous plays which belong to this preShakespearian period of the Elizabethan drama; but many of them are by intrinsic merit as well as for special causes deservipg of the attention of the student.

The common characteristics of nearly all these dramatists and plays were in accordance with those of the great age to which they belonged. Stirring times called for stirring Common themes, such as those of Mahomet, Scipio and characterTamerlane; and these again for a corresponding Istlcsof vigour of treatment. Neatness and symmetry of the early construction were neglected for fulness and variety ~

of matter. Novelty and grandeur of subject seemed e ails. well matched by a swelling amplitude and often reckless extravagance of diction. As if from an inner necessity, the balance of rhymed couplets gave way to the impetuous march of blank verse; strong lines were as inevitably called for as strong situations and strong characters. Although the chief of these poets are marked off from one another by the individual genius which impressed itself upon both the form and the matter of their works, yet the stamp of the age is upon them all. Writing 6 The Wounds of Civil War. With Greene he wrote A LookingGlass for London.

Summers Last Will and Testament is his sole entire extant play. Dido, Queen of Carthage, is by him and Marlowe.

Patient Grissil (with Dekker and Haughton).

Hoffman. or A Revenge for a Father.

for the stage only, of which some of them possessed a personal experience and from which none of them held aloof, they acquired an instinctive insight into the laws of dramatic cause and effect, and infused a warm vitality into the dramatic literature which they produced, so to speak, for immediate consumption. On the other hand, the same cause made rapidity of workmanship indispensable to a successful playwright. How a play was produced, how many hands had been at work upon it, what loans and what spoliations had been made in the process, were considerations of less moment than the question whether it was produced, and whether it succeeded. His harnessfrequently double or triplewas inseparable from the lusty Pegasus of the early English drama, and its genius toiled, to borrow the phrase of the Attic comedian, like an Arcadian mercenary.

This period of the English drama, though it is far from being one of crude effort, could not therefore yet be one of full consummation. In tragedy the advance which had been Pg,es made in the choice of great themes, in knitting closer and ge the connection between the theatre and the national comedy history, in vindicating to passion. its right to adequate before expression, was already enormous. In comedy the Shak- advance had been less decisive and less independent; speare. much had been gained in reaching greater freedom of form and something in enlarging the range of subjects; but artificiality had proved a snare in the one direction, while the licence of the comic stage, upheld by favorite clowns, such as Kemp or Tarlton, had not succumbed before less elastic demands. The way of escaping from the dilemma had, however, been already recognized to lie in the construction of suitable plots, for which a full storehouse was open in the popular traditions preserved in national ballads, and in the growing literature of translated foreign fiction, or of native imitations of it. Meanwhile, the aberration of the comic stage to political and religious controversy, which it could never hope to treat with Attic freedom in a country provided with a strong monarchy and a dogmatic religion, seemed likely to extinguish the promise of the beginnings of English romantic comedy.

These were the circumstances under which the greatest of dramatists began to devote his genius to the theatre. Shakespeares career as a writer of plays can have differed little in its beginnings from those of his contemporaries and rivals. Before or while he was proceeding from the re-touching and re-writing of the plays of others to original dramatic composition, the most gifted of those whom we have termed his predecessors had passed away. He had been decried as an actor before he was known as an author; and after living through days of darkness for the theatre, if not for himself, attained, before the close of the century, to the beginnings of his prosperity and the beginnings of his fame. But if we call him fortunate, it is not because of such rewards as these. As a poet, Shakespeare was no doubt happy in his times, which intensified the strength of the national character, expanded the activities of the national mind, and were able to add their stimulus even to such a creative power as his. He was happy in the antecedents of the form of literature which commended itself to his choice, and in the opportunities which it offered in so many directions for an advance to heights yet undiscovered and unknown. What he actually accomplished was due to his genius, whose achievements are immeasurable like itself. His influence upon the progress of English drama divides itself in very unequal proportions into a direct and an indirect influence. To the former alone reference can here be made.

Already the first editors of Shakespeares works in a collected form recognized so marked a distinction between his plays Sh,A... taken from English history and those treating other ueare historical subjects (whether ancient or modern) that, and the while they included the latter among the tragedies at national large, they grouped the former as histories by them hMtorlcal selves. These histories are in their literary genesis a rama, development of the chronicle hislories of Shakespeares predecessors and contemporaries, the taste for which had greatly increased towards the beginning of his own car~er as a dramatist, in accordance with the general progress of national life and sentiment in this epoch. Though it cannot be assumed that Shakespeare composed his several dramas from English history in the sequence of the chronology of their themes, his genius gate to the entire series an inner harmony, and a continuity corresponding to that which is distinctive of the national life, such as not unnaturally inspired certain commentators with the wish to prove it a symmetrically constructed whole. He thus brought this peculiarly national species to a perfection which made it difficult, if not impossible, for his later contemporaries and successors to make more than an occasional addition to his series. None of them was, however, found able or ready to take up the thread where Shakespeare had left it, after perfunctorily attaching the present to the past by a work (probably not all his own) which must be regarded as the end rather than the crown of the series of his histories.1 But to furnish such supplements accorded little with the tastes and tendencies of the later Elizabethans; and with the exception of an isolated work,1 the national historical drama in Shakespeare reached at once its perfection and its close. Ihe ruder form of the old chronicle history for a time survived the advance made upon it; but the efforts in this field ofT. Heywood,3 S. Rowley,4 and others are, from a literary point of view, anachronisms.

Of Shakespeares other plays the several groups exercised a more direct influence upon the general progress of our dramatic literature. His Roman tragedies, though following their authorities with much the same fidelity as that of the English histories, even more effectively taught the great lesson of free dramatic treatment of historic themes, and thus pre-eminently became the perennial models of the modem historic drama. His tragedies on other subjects, which necessarily admitted of a more absolute freedom of treatment, established themselves as the examples for all time of the highest kind of tragedy. Where else is exhibited with the same fulness the struggle between will and obstacle, character and circumstance? Where is mirrored with equal power and variety the working of those passions in the mastery of which over man lies his doom? Here, above all, Shakespeare as compared with his predecessors, as well as with his successors, is that nature which they paint and draw. He threw open to modern tragedy a range of hitherto unknown breadth and depth and height, and emancipated the national drama in its noblest forms from limits to which it could never again restrict itself without a consciousness of having renounced its enfranchisement. Happily for the variety of his creative genius on the English stage, no divorce had been proclaimed between the serious and the comic, and no division of species had been established such as he himself ridicules as pedantic when it professes to be exhaustive. The comedies of Shakespeare accordingly refuse to be tabulated in deference to any method of classification deserving to be called precise; and several of them are comedies only according to a purely technical use of the term. In those in which the instinct of reader or spectator recognizes the comic interest to be supreme, it is still of its nature incidental to the progress of the action; for the criticism seems just, as well as in agreement with what we can. conclude as to Shakespeares process of construction, that among all his comedies not more than a single 1 is in both design and effect a comedy of character proper. Thus in this direction, while the unparalleled wealth of his invention renewed or created a whole gallery of types, he left much to be done by his successors; while the truest secrets of his comic art, which interweaves fancy with observation, draws wisdom from the lips of fools, and imbues with character what all other hands would have left shadowy, monstrous or trivial, are among the things inimitable belonging to the individuality of his poetic genius.

The influences of Shakespeares diction and versification. upon those of the English drama in general can hardly be overrated, though it would be next to impossible to state them definitely. In these points, Shakespeares manner as a writer was progressive; Edward IV.; If You Know Not Me, &c.

Henry VIII. The Merr~ Wives of Windsor.

and this progress has been deemed sufficiently well traceable in his plays to be used as an aid in seeking to determine their chronological sequence. The general laws of this If is yle progress accord with those of the natural advance of influence, creative genius; artificiality gives way to freedom, and freedom in its turn submits to a greater degree of regularity and care. In versification as in diction the earliest and the latest period of Shakespeares dramatic writing are more easily recognizable than what lies between and may be called the normal period, the plays belonging to which in form most resemble one another, and are least affected by distinguishablepeculiaritiessuch astherhymesandintentionally euphuistic coloring of style which characterize the earliest, or the feminine endings of the lines and the more condensed manner of expression common to the latest of his plays. But, such distinctions apart, there can be no doubt but that in verse and in prose alike, Shake- speares style, so far as it admitted of reproduction, is itself to be. regarded as the norm of that of the Elizabethan drama; that in it the prose form of English comedy possesses its first accepted model; and that in it the chosen metre of the English versified drama established itself as irremovable unless at the risk of an artificial experiment.

The assertion may seem paradoxical, that it is by their construction that Shakespeares plays e,~erted the most palpable Influence influence upon the English drama, as well as upon the of his modern drama of the Germanic nations in general, method of and upon such forms of the Romance drama as have been in more recent times based upon it. For it was not in construction that his greatest strength lay, or that the individuality of his genius could raise him above the conditions under which he worked in common with his immediate~ predecessors and contemporaries. Yet the fact that he accepted these conditions, while producing works of matchless strength and of unequalled fidelity to the demands of nature and art, established them as inseparable from the Shakespearian drama to use a term which is perhaps unavoidable but has been often misapplied. The great and irresistible demand on the part of Shakespeares public was for incidenta demand which of itself necessitated a method of construction different from that of the Greek drama, or of those modelled more or less closely upon it. To no other reason is to be ascribed the circumstance that Shakespeare so constantly combined two actions in the course of a single play, not merely supplementing the one by means of the other as a bye- or under-plot. In no respect is the progress of his technical skill as a dramatist more apparent,a proposition which a comparison of plays clearly ascribable to successive periods of his life must be left to prove.

Should it, however, be sought to express in one word the greatest debt of the drama to Shakespeare, this word must be the same as that which expresses his supreme gift as ~char- a dramatist. It is in characterizationin the drawing of characters ranging through almost every type of humanity which furnishes a fit subject for the tragic or the comic artthat he remains absolutely unapproached; and it was in this direction that he pointed the way which the English drama could not henceforth desert without becoming untrue to itself. It may have been a mere error of judgment which afterwards held him to have been surpassed by others in particular fields of characterization (setting him down, forsooth, as supremely excellent in male, but not in female, characters). But it was a sure sign of decay when English writers began to shrink from following him in the endeavour to make the drama a mirror of humanity, and when, in self-condemned arrogance, they thrust unreality back upon a stage which he had animated with the warm breath of life, where Juliet had blossomed like a flower of spring, and where Othellos noble nature had suffered and sinned.

By the numerous body of poets who, contemporary with Shakespeare or in the next generation, cultivated the wide field of the national drama, every form commending itself to the tastes and sympathies of the national genius was essayed. None were neglected except those from which the spirit of English literature had been estranged by the Reformation, and those which had from the first been artificial importations of the Renaissance. The mystery could not in England, as in FOI,iIS oS Spain, produce such an aftergrowth as the auto, and the the later confines of the religious drama were only now and then Ehiza.

tentatively touched.i The direct imitations of classical bet han examples were, except perhaps in the continued efforts drama. of the academical drama, few and feeble. Chapman, while resorting to use of narrative in tragedy and perhaps otherwise indebted to ancient models, was no follower of them in essentials. S. Daniel (1562-1619) may be regarded as a belated disciple of Seneca,2 while experiments like W. Alexanders (afterwards earl of Stirling) Monarc/zicke Tragediesi (1603-1605) are the mere isolated efforts of a student, and more exclusively so than Miltons imposing Samson Agonistes, which belongs to a later date (1677). At the opposite end of the dramatic scale, the light gaiety of the Italian and French farce could not establish itself on the English popular stage without more substantial adjuncts; the Engli~imans festive digestion long continued robust, and he liked his amusements solid. In the pastoral drama and the mask, however, many English dramatists The found special opportunities for the exercise of their lyrical gifts and of their in~entive powers. The former could never become other than an exotic, so long as it retained the artificial character of its origin. Shakespeare had accordingly only blended elements derived from it into the action of his romantic comedies. In more or less isolated works Jonson, Fletcher, Daniel, Randolph, and others sought to rival Tasso and GuariniJonson4 coming nearest to nationalizing an essentially foreign growth by the fresh simplicity of his treatment, Fletcher5 bearing away the palm for beauty of poetic execution; Daniel being distinguished by simpler beauties of style in both verse and prose.6

The mask (or masque) was a more elastic kind of composition, mixing in varying proportions its constituent elements of declamation and dialogue, music and dancing, decora- Th ~ tion and scenery. In its least elaborate literary form e mas which, of course, externally was the most elaborateit closely approached the pageant; in other instances the distinctness of its characters or the fulness of the action introduced into its scheme, brought it nearer to the regular drama. A frequent ornament of Queen Elizabeths progresses, it was cultivatedwith increased assiduity in the reign of James I., and in that of his successor outshone, by the favor it enjoyed with court and nobility, the attractions of the regular drama itself. Most of the later Elizabethan dramatists contributed to this species, upon which Shakespeare expended the resources of his fancy only incidentally in the course of his dramas; but by far the most successful writer of masks was Ben Jonson, of whose numerous compositions of this kind many hold a permanent place in English poetic literature, and next whom, in his own judgment, only Fletcher and Chapman could write a mask. From a poetic point of view, however, they were at least rivalled by Dekker and Ford; in productivity and favor T. Campion, who was equally eminent as poet and as musician, seems for a time to have excelled. Inasmuch, however, as the history of the mask in England is to a great extent that of painting and carpentry and of Inigo Jones, and as, moreover, this kind of piece, while admitting dramatic elements, is of its nature occasional, it need not further be pursued here. The Microcosmus of T. Nabbes (printed 1637), which is very Like a morality, seems to have been the first mask brought upon the public stage. It was the performance of a mask by Queen Henrietta Maria and her ladies at Whitehall which had some years previously (1632) been thought to have supplied to the invective of Histrio-Mastix against the stage the occasion for disloyal innuendo; and it was for the performance of a Darius; Croesus; Julius Caesar; The Alexandraean Tragedy.

The Sad Shepherd: The Faithful Shepherdess.

6 The Oueens Arcadia.

mask in a great noblemans castle that Miltona Puritan of a very different castnot long afterwards (1634) wrote one o,f the loftiest and loveliest of English poems. Comus has been judged and condemned as a dramaunjustly, for the dramatic qualities of a mask are not essential to it as a species. Yet its history - in England remains inseparably connected with that of the Elizabethan drama. In later times the mask merged into the opera, or continued a humble life of its own apart from contact with higher literary effort. It is strange that later English poets should have done so little to restore to its nobler uses, and to invest with a new significance, a form so capable of further development as the poetic mask.

The annals of English drama proper in the period reaching from the closing years of Elizabeth to the outbreak of the The later great Revolution include, together with numerous Eliza- names relatively insignificant, many illustrious in the ~ history of our poetic literature. Among Shakespeares contemporaries and successors there is, however, but one who by the energy of his genius, not less than by the circumstances of his literary career, reached undisputed primacy among his fellows. Ben Jonson, to whom in his latter days a whole generation of younger writers did filial homage as to their veteran chief, was alone in full truth the founder of a school or family of dramatists. Yet his pre-eminence did not (whatever he or his followers may have thought) extend to both branches of the regular drama. In tragedy he fell short of the highest success; the weight of his learning lay too heavily upon his efforts to draw from deeper sources than those which had sufficed for Shakespeare. Such as they are, his tragic worksi stand almost, though not quite, alone in this period as examples of sustained effort in historic tragedy proper. G. Chapman treated stirring themes, more especially from modern French history,2 always with vigour, and at times with genuine effectiveness; but, though rich in beauties of detail, he failed in this branch of the drama to follow Shakespeare even at a distance in the supreme art of fully developing a character by means of the action. Mention has been made above of Fords isolated effort in the direction of historic tragedy, as well as of excursions into the still popular domain of the chronicle history by T. Heywood, Dekker and others, which cannot be regarded as anything more than retrogressions. With the great body of the English dramatists of this and of the next period, tragedy had passed into a phase where its interest depended mainly upon plot and incident. The romantic tragedies and tragi-comedies which crowd English literature in this period constitute together a~ growth of at first sight astonishing exuberance, and in mere externals of themeranging as these plays do from Byzantium to ancient Britain, and from the Caesars of ancient Rome to the tyrants of the Renaissanceof equally astonishing variety. The sources from which these subjects were derived had been perennially augmenting. Besides Italian, Spanish and French fiction, original or translated, besides British legend in its Romance dress, and English fiction in its humbler or in its more ambitious and artificial forms, the contemporary foreign drama, especially the Spanish, offered opportunities for resort. To the English, as to the -French and Italian drama, of both this and the following century, the prolific dramatists clustering round Lope de Vega and Calderon, and the native or naturalized fictions from which they drew their materials supplied a whole arsenal of plots, incidents and situationsamong others to Middleton, to Webster, and most signally to Beaumont and Fletcher. And, in addition to these resources, a new field of supply was at hand since English dramatists had begun to regard events and episodes of domestic life as fit subjects for tragic treatment. Domestic tragedy of this description was indeed no novelty on the English stage; Shakespeare himself may have retouched with his masterhand more than one effort of this kind;3 but T. Heywood may be set down as the first who achieved any work of considerable 1 Bussy dAmbois; The Revenge of B. dA.; The Conspiracy of Byro~t; The Tragedy of B.; Chabot, Admiral of France (with Shirley).

A rden of Faversham; A Yorkshire Tragedy.

literary value of this class,4 to which some of the plays of T. Dekker, T. Middleton, and others likewise more or less belong. Yet, in contrast to this wide variety of sources, and consequent apparent variety of themes, the number of motives employed at least as a rulein the tragic drama of this period was comparatively small and limited. Hence it is that, notwithstanding the diversity of subjects among the tragic dramas of such writers as Marston, Webster, Fletcher, Ford and Shirley, an impression of sameness is left upon us by a connected perusal of these works. Scheming ambition, conjugal jealousy, absolute female devotion, unbridled masculine passionsuch are the motives which constantly recur in the Decameron of our later Elizabethan drama. And this impression is heightened by the want of moderation, by the extravagance of passion, which these dramatists so habitually exhibit in the treatment of their favorite themes. All the tragic poets of this period are not equally amenable to this charge; in J. Webster,1 master as he is of the effects of the horrible, and in J. Ford,s surpassingly seductive in his sweetness, the monotony of exaggerated passion is broken by those marvellously sudden and subtle touches through which their tragic genius creates its most thrilling effects. Nor will the tendency to excess of passion which F. Beaumont and J. Fletcher undoubtedly exhibit be confounded with their distinctive power of sustaining tenderly pathetic characters and irresistibly moving situations in a degree unequalled by any of their contemporariesa power seconded by a beauty of diction and softness of versification which for a time raised them to the highest pinnacle of popular esteem, and which entitles them in their conjunction, and Eletcher as an independent worker, to an enduring pre-eminence among their fellows. In their morals Beaumont and Fletcher are not above the level of their age. The manliness of sentiment and occasionally greater width of outlook which ennoble the rhetorical genius of P. Massinger, and the gift of poetic illustration which entitles J. Shirley to be remembered not merely as the latest and the most fertile of this group of dramatists, have less direct bearing upon the general character of the tragic art of the period. The common features of the romantic tragedy of this age are sufficiently marked; but they leave unobscured the distinctive features in its individual writers of which a discerning criticism has been able to take note.

In comedy, on the other hand, the genius and the insight of Jonson pointed the way to a steady and legitimate advance. His theory of humours (which found the most palpable expression in two of his earliest plays 7), if translated into the ordinary language of dramatic art, signifies the paramount importance in the comic drama of the presentation of distinctive human types. As such it survived by name into the Restoration age8 and cannot be said to have ever died out. In the actual reproduction of humanity in its infinite but never, in his hands, alien variety, it was impossible that Shakespeare should be excelled by Jonson; but in the consciousness with which he recognized and indicated the highest sphere of a comic dramatists labors, he rendered to the drama a direct service which the greater master had left unperformed. By the rest of his contemporaries and his successors, some of whom, such as R. Brome, were content avowedly to follow in his footsteps, Jonson was only occasionally rivalled in individual instances of comic creations; in the entirety of its achievements his genius as a comic dramatist remained unapproached. The favorite types of Jonsonian comedy, to which Dekker, J. Marston and Chapman had, though to no large extent, added others of their own, were elaborated with incessant zeal and remarkable effect by their contemporaries and successors. It was after a very different fashion from that in which the Roman comedians reiterated the ordinary types of the New Attic comedy, that the inexhaustible verve of T. Middleton, the buoyant productivity of Fletcher, the observant humour of N. Field, and the artistic A Woman killed with Kindness; The English Traveller.

Vittoria Coromboni; The Duchess of Malfi.

Tis Pity Shes a Wlwre; The Broken heart.

every Man in Fiis Humour; Every Man out of his Humour.

8 Shadwell, The Humoriscs.

versatility of Shirleynot to mention many later and not necessarily minor names 1mirrored in innumerable pictures of contemporary life the undying follies and foibles of mankind. As comedians of manners more than one of these surpassed the old master, not indeed in distinctness and correctnessthe fruits of the most painstaking genius that ever fitted a learned sock to the representation of the living realities of lifebut in a lightness not incompatible with sureness of touch; while in the construction of plots the access of abundant new materials, and the greater elasticity in treatment resulting from accumulated experience, enabled them to advance from success to success. Thus the comic dramatic literature from Jonson to Shirley is unsurpassed as a comedy of manners, while as a comedy of character it at least defies comparison with any other national literary growth preceding or contemporaneous with it. Though the younger generation, of which W. Cartwright may be taken as an example, was unequal in originality or force to its predecessors, yet so little exhausted was the vitality of the species, that its traditions survived the interregnum of the Revolution, and connected themselves more closely than is sometimes assumed, with later growths of English comedy.

Such was also the case with a special growth which had continued side by side, but in growing frequency of contact, with the progress of the national drama. The The later academical drama of the later Elizabethan period and iI~ of the first two Stuart reigns by no means fell off either in activity or in variety from that of the preceding generations. At Oxford, after an apparent break of several yearsthough in the course of these one or two new plays, including a Tancred by Sir Henry Wotton at Queens, seem to have been produceda long succession of English plays, some in Latin doubtless from time to tim~ intervening, were performed, from the early years of the 17th century onwards to the dark days of the national theatre and beyond. The production of these plays was distributed among several colleges, among which the most conspicuously active were Christ Church and St Johns, where a whole series of festal performances took place under the collective title of The Christmas Prince (i.e. master of the Christmas revels). They included a wide variety of pieces, from the treatment by an author unnamed of the story of Ovids owne Narcissus (1602) and S. Daniels Queens Arcadia (1606) to Barten Holidays Technogamia (1618), a complicated allegory on the relations between the arts and sciences quite in the manner of the moralities; interspersed by, romantic dramas of the ordinary contemporary type by T. Goffe, (1591-1629), W. Cartwright, J. Maine (1604-1672) and others. At Cambridge the list of Latin and English academical plays, performed in the latter half of Elizabeths reign at Trinity, St Johns, Queens and a few other dolleges, contains several examples in each language which for one reason or another possess a special interest. Thus E. Forsetts Fed ant-i us, probably acted at Trinity in 1581, ridicules a personage who lived very near the rosethe redoubtable Gabriel Harvey;2 a Laelia, acted at Queens in 1590 and again in 1598, resembles Twelfth Night in part of its plot; while in Silvanus, performed in I 596, probably at St Johns, there are certain striking similarities to As You Like It. These are in Latin, as are the comedies His panus (containing some curious allusions to the Armada, Drake and Dr Lopez) and Machiavellus, acted at St Johns in 1597.1 By far the most interesting of the English plays of the later Cambridge series, and, it may be averred, of the remains of the English academical drama as a whole, are the Parnassus Plays, successively produced at St Johns in 1598-1602, which illustrate 2 The Latin comedy Victoria by Abraham Fraunce of St Johns was written some time before 1583, and dedicated to Sir Philip Sidney; but there is no evidence to show that it was ever acted.

Z (rci,nr~i -s1-,, T,,,,,.1, ,.4-s,l .~+ ~

with much truthfulness as well as fancy the relations between university life and the outside world, including the world of letters and of the stage. Upon a different, but also a very notable, aspect of English university lifethe relations between town and gowna partisan light is thrown by Club-Law, acted at Clare in 1599and in. G. Ruggles celebrated Latin comedy of Ignoramus, twice acted by members of Clare at Trinity in 1615 before King James I. On one of these occasions were also produced in English T. Tomkis comedy Albumazar (a play absurdly attributed to Shakespeare), and Phineas Fletchers Sicel-ides, a piscatory (i.e. a pastoral drama in which the place of the shepherds is taken by fishermen). Latin and English plays continued to be brought out in Cambridge till the year of the outbreak of the Civil War, T. Randolph and A. Cowley4 being among the authors of some of the latest so produced; and with the Restoration the usage recommenced, the Adeiphi of Terence and other Latin comedies being performed as they had been a century earlier. A complete survey and classification of the English academical drama, for which the materials are at last being collected and compared, will prove of an importance which is only beginning to be recognized to the future historian of the English drama.

To return to the general current of that drama. The rivals against which it had to contend in the times with which its greatest epoch came to an end have in their turn been The stage noticed. From the masks and triumphs at court and at the houses of the nobility, with their Olympuses and Parnassuses built by Inigo Jones, and filled with goddesses and nymphs clad in the gorgeous costumes designed by his inventive hand, to the city pageants and shows by land and waterfrom the tilts and tournaments at Whitehall to the more philosophical devices at the Inns of Court and the academical plays at the universitiesdown even to the brief but thrilling theatrical excitements of Bartholomew Fair and the Ninevitical motions of the puppetsin all these ways the various sections of the theatrical public were tempted aside. Foreign performers French and Spanish actors, and even French actressespaid visits to London. But the national drama held its ground. The art of acting maintained itself at least on the level to which it had been brought by Shakespeares associatesandcontemporaries, Burbage and Heminge, Alleyn, Lewin, Taylor, and others of the older sort. The profession of actor came to be more generally than of old separated from that of playwright, though they were still (as in the case of Field) occasionally combined. But this rather led to an increased appreciation of the artistic merit of actors who valued the dignity of their own profession and whose co-operation the authors learnt to esteem as of independent significance. The stage was purged from the barbarism of the old school of clowns. Womens parts were still acted by boys, many of whom attained to considerable celebrity; and a practice was thus continued which must assuredly have placed the English theatre at a considerable disadvantage as compared with the Spanish (where it never obtained), and which may, while it has been held to have facilitated freedom of fancy, more certainly encouraged the extreme licence of expression cherished by the dramatists. The arrangement of the stage, which facilitated a rapid succession of scenes without any necessity for their being organically connected with one another, remained essentially what it had been in Shakespeares days; though the primitive expedients for indicating locality had begun to be occasionally exchanged for scenery more or less appropriate to the place of action. Costume was apparently cultivated with much greater care; and the English stage of this period had probably gone a not inconsiderable way in a direction to which it is obviously in the interests of the dramatic art to set some bounds, if it is to depend for its popular success upon its qualities as such, and upon the interpretation of its agents upon the stage. At the same time, the drama had begun largely to avail itself of adventitious aids to favor. The system of prologues and epilogues, and of dedications to published plays, was more ~ Naufragium joculareThe Guardian (rewritten later as The ,,, i~.s,,.. ,.#\

uniformly employed than it had been by Shakespeare as the conventional method of recommending authors and actors to the favor of individual patrons, and to that of their chief patron, the public.

Up to the outbreak of the Civil War the drama in all its forms continued to enjoy the favor or good-will of the court, although a close supervision was exercised over all The drama attempts to make the stage the vehicle of political tanism. references or allusions. The regular offidial agent of this supervision was the master of the revels; but under James I. a special ordinance, in harmony with the kings ideas concerning the dignity of the throne, was passed against representing any modern Christian king in plays on the stage. The theatre could hardly expect to be allowed a liberty of speech in reference to matters of state denied to the public at large; and occasional attempts to indulge in the freedom of criticism dear to the spirit of comedy met with more or less decisive repression and punishment. But the sympathies of the dramatists were so entirely on the side of the court that the real difficulties against which the theatre had to contend came from a directly opposite quarter. With the growth of Puritanism the feeling of hostility to the stage increased in a large part of the population, well represented by the civic authorities of the capital. This hostility found many ways of expressing itself. The attempts to suppress the Blackfriars theatre (1619, 1631, 1633) proved abortive; but the representation of stage-plays continued to be prohibited on Sundays, and during the prevalence of the plague in. London in 1637 was temporarily suspended altogether. The desire of the Puritans of the more pronounced type openly aimed at a permanent closing of the theatres. The war between them and the dramatists was accordingly of a life-and-death kind. On the one hand, the drama heaped its bitterest and often coarsest attacks upon whatever savoured of the Puritan spirit; gibes, taunts, caricatures in ridicule and aspersion of Puritans and Puritanism make up a great part of the comic literature of the later Elizabethan drama and of its aftergrowth in the reigns of the first two Stuarts. This feeling of hostility, to which Shakespeare was no stranger,2 though he cannot be connected with the authorship of one of its earliest and coarsest expressions,3 rose into a spirit of open defiance in some of the masterpieces of Ben Jonson;4 and the comedies of his contemporaries and successorsl abound in caricatured reproductions of the more common or more extravagant types of Puritan life. On the other hand, the moral defects, the looseness of tone, the mockery of ties sanctioned by law and consecrated by religion, the tendency to treat middle-class life as the huntingground for the diversions of the upper classes, which degraded so much of the dramatic literature of the age, intensified the Puritan opposition to all and any stage plays. A patient endeavour to reform instead of suppressing the drama was not to be looked for from such adversaries, should they ever possess the means of carrying out their views; and whenever Puritanism should victoriously assert itself in the state, the stage was doomed. Among the attacks directed against it in its careless heyday of prosperity Prynnes H-istrio-Mastix (1632), while it involved its author in shamefully cruel persecution, did not remain wholly without effect upon the tone of the dramatic literature of the subsequent period; but the quarrel between Puritanism and the theatre was too old and too deep to end in any but one way, so soon as the latter was deprived of its protectors. The Civil War begaii in August 1642; and early in the following month was published the theatres, ordinance of the Lords and Commons, which, after a brief and solemn preamble, commanded that while these sad causes and set-times of humiliztion. do continue, public stage plays shall cease and be forborne. Many actors i Chapman, Marston (and Jonson), Eastward Hoe (1605); Middleton, A Game at Chess (1624); Shirley and Chapman, The Ball (1632);

Massinger(?), The Spanish Viceroy (1634). 2 Twelfth Night.

The Puritan, or the Widow of Watling Street, by W. S. (Went.

worth Smith?). The Alchemist; Bartholomew Fair.

i Chapman, An Humorous Days Mirth; Marston, The Dutch M;lr--,., TI, ,,s,ll-o ,,f 1,.,~

and playwrights followed the fortunes of the royal cause in the field; some may have gone into a more or less voluntary exile; upon those who lingered on in the familiar haunts the hand of power lay heavy; and, though there seems reason to believe that dramatic entertainments of on.e kind or another continued to be occasionally presented, stringent ordinances gave summary powers to magistrates against any players found engaged in such proceedings (1647), and bade them treat all stage-players as rogues, and pull down all stage galleries, seats and boxes (1648). A few dramatic works were published in this period;6 while at fairs about the country,were acted farces called drolls, consisting of the most vulgar scenes to be found in. popular plays. Thus, the life of the drama was not absolutely extinguished; and its darkest day proved briefer than perhaps either its friends or its foes could have supposed.

Already in Olivers time private performances took place from time to time at noblemens houses and (though not undisturbed) in the old haunt of the drama, the Red Bull. In 5656 the ingenuity of Sir William Davenant whose name (though not really so significant in the drama. dramatic as in another field of English literature) is memorable as connecting together two distinct periods in it, ventured on a bolder step in the production of a quasi-dramatic entertainment of declamation and music; and in the following year he brought out with scenery and music a piece which was afterwards in an enlarged form acted and printed as the first part of his opera, The Siege of Rhodes. This~entertainment he afterwards removed from the private house where it had been produced to the Cockpit, where he soon ventured upon the performance of regular plays written by himself. Thus, under the cover of two sister arts, whose aid was in the sequel to prove by no means altogether beneficial to its progress, the English drama had boldly anticipated the Restoration, and was no longer hiding its head when that much-desired event was actually brought about. Soon after Charles II.s entry into London, two theatrical companies are known to have been acting in the capital. For these companies patents were soon granted, under the names of the Duke (of York)s and the Kings Servants, to Davenan.t and one of the brothers Killigrew respectively the former from 1662 acting at Lincolns Inn Fields, then at Dorset Garden in Salisbury Court, the latter from 1663 at the Theatre Royal near Drury Lane. These companies were united from 1682, a royal licence being granted in 5695 to a rival company which performed in Lincolns Inn Fields, and which migrated to Covent Garden in 1733. Meanwhile, Vanbrugh had in 1705 built the theatre in the Haymarket; and a theatre in Goodmans Fieldsafterwards rendered famous by the first appearance of Garrickled a fitful existence from 1729 to 1733. The act of 1737 deprived the crown of the power of licensing any more theatres; so that the history of-the English stage for a long period was confined to a restricted area. The rule which prevailed after the Restoration, that neither of the rival companies should ever attempt a play produced by the other, operated beneficially both upon the activity of dramatic authorship and upon the progress of the art of acting, which was not exposed to the full effects of that deplorable spirit of personal rivalry which too often leads even most intelligent actors to attempt parts for which they have no special qualification. There can be little doubt that the actors art has rarely flourished more in England than in the days ofT. Betterton and his contemporaries, among whose names those of Hart, Mohun, Kynaston, Nokes, Mrs Barry, Mrs Betterton, Mrs Bracegirdle and Mrs Eleanor Gwyn have, together with many others, survived in various connections among the memories of the Restoration age. No higher praise has ever been given to an actor than that which Addison bestowed upon Betterton, in describing his performance of Othello as a proof that Shakespeare could not have written the most striking passages of the character otherwise than he has done.

6Among these was Sir Richard Fanshawes English version of the Pastor fido (1646); after his death were published his translations of two olavs by A. de Mendoza.

It may here be noticed that the fortunes of the Irish theatre in general followed those of the English, of which df course it was merely a branch. Of native dramatic compositions in The Irish earlier times not a trace remains in Ireland; and the drama was introc1uced into that country as an English exoticapparently already in the reign of Henry VIII., and more largely in that of Elizabeth. The first theatre in. Dublin was built in 1635; but in 1641 it was closed, and even after the Restoration the Irish stage continued in a precarious condition till near the end of the century. About that time an extraordinarily strong taste for the theatre took possession of Irish society, and during the greater part of the 18th century the Dublin stage rivalled the English in the brilliancy of its stars. Bettertons rival, R. Wilks, Garricks predecessor in the homage paid to Shakespeare, Macklin, and his competitor for favor, the silver-tongued Barry, were alike products of the Irish stage, as were Mrs Woffington and other well-known actresses. Nor should it be forgotten that three of the foremost English writers of comedy in its later days, Congreve, Farquhar and Sheridan, were Irish, the first by education, and the latter two by birth also.

Already in the period preceding the outbreak of the Civil War the English drama had perceptibly sunk from the height to which it had been raised by the great Elizabethans.

nThC later When it had once more recovered possession of that drama. arena with which no living drama can dispense, it would have been futile to demand that the dramatists should return altogether into the ancient paths, unaffected by the influences, native or foreign, in operation around them. But there was no reason why the new drama should not, like the Elizabethan, have been true in spirit to the higher purposes of the dramatic art, to the nobler tendencies of the national life, and to the demands of moral law. Because the later Stuart drama as a whole proved untrue to these, and, while following its own courses, never more than partially returned from the aberrations to which it condemned itself, its history is that of a decay which the indisputable brilliancy, borrowed or original, of many of its productions is incapable of concealing.

Owing in part to the influence of the French theatre, which by this time had taken the place of the Spanish as the ruling T d drama of Europe, the separation between tragedy and rage Y~ comedy is clearly marked in post-Restoration plays.

Comic scenes are still occasionally introduced into tragedies by some dramatists who adhered more closely to the Elizabethan models (such as Otway and Crowne), but the practice fell into disuse; while the endeavour to elevate comedy by pathetic scenes and motives is one of the characteristic marks of the beginning of another period in English dramatic literature. The successive phases through which English tragedy passed in the later Stuart times cannot be always kept distinct from one another; and the guidance offered by the theories put forth by some of the dramatists in support of their practice is often delusive. Following the example of Corneille, Dryden and his contemporaries and successors were fond of proclaiming their adherence to this or that principle of dramatic construction or form, and of upholding, with much show of dialectical acumen, maxims derived by them from French or other sources, or elaborated with modifications and variations of their own, but usually amounting to little more than what Scott calls certain romantic whimsical imitations of the dramatic art. Students of the drama will find much entertainment and much instruction in these prefaces, apologies, dialogues and treatises. They will acknowledge that Drydens incomparable vigour does not desert him either in the exposing or in the upholding of fallacies, while le bon sens, which he hardly ever fails to exhibit, and which is a more eclectic gift than common-sense, serves as a sure guide to the best intelligence of his age. Even Rymer,i usually regarded as having touched the nadir of dramatic criticism, will be found to be not wholly without grains of salt. But Restoration tragedy itself must not be studied by the light of Restoration criticism. So long as any dramatic power remained in the tragic poets and it is absent from none of the chief among them from Dryden to Rowethe struggle between fashion (disguised as theory) and instinct (tending in the direction of the Elizabethan traditions) could never wholly determine itself in favor of the former.

Lord Orrery, in deference, as he declares, to the expresse.d tastes of his sovereign King Charles II. himself, was the first to set up the standard of heroic plays.2 This new species of tragedy (for such it professed to be) commended itself by its novel choice of themes, to a large extent supplied by recent French romance the romans de longue haleine of the Scudrys and their contemporariesand by French plays treating similar themes. It likewise borrowed from France that garb of rhyme which the English drama had so long abandoned, and which now reappeared in the heroic couplet. But the themes which to readers of novels might seem of their nature inexhaustible could not long suffice to satisfy the more capricious appetite of theatrical audiences; and the form, in the application which it was more or less sought to enforce for it, was doomed to remain an exotic. In conjunction with his brother-in-law Sir R. Howard,3 and afterwards more confidently by himself,4 Dryden threw the incomparable vigour and brilliancy of his genius into the scale, which soon rose to the full height of fashionable popularity. At first he claimed for English tragedy the right to combine her native inheritance of freedom with these valuable foreign acquisitions.f Nor was he dismayed by the ridicule which the celebrated burlesque (by the duke of Buckingham and others) of The Rehearsal (1671) cast upon heroic plays, without discriminating between them and such other materials for ridicule as the contemporary drama supplied to its facetious authors, but returned 6 to the defence of a species which he was himself in the end to abandon.7 The desire for change proved stronger than the love of consistencywhich in Dryden was never more than theoretical. After summoning tragedy to rival the freedom (without disdaining the machinery) of operawith whose birth its own revival was as a matter of fact simultaneoushe came to recognize in characterization the truest secret of the masterspirit of the Elizabethan drama,8 and after audaciously, but in one instance not altogether unhappily, essaying to rival Shakespeare on his own ground,9 produced under the influence of the same views at least one work of striking merit.i But he was already growing weary of the stage itself as well as of the rhymed heroic drama; and, though he put an end to the species to which he had given temporary vitality, he failed effectively to point the way to a more legitimate development of English tragedy. Among the other tragic poets of this period, N. Lee, in the outward form of his dramas, accommodated his practice to that of Dryden, with whom he occasionally co-operated as a dramatist, and like whom he allowed political partisanship to intrude upon the stage.n His rhetorical genius was not devoid of genuine energy, nor is he to be regarded as a mere imitator. T. Otway, the most gifted tragic poet of the younger generation contemporary with Dryden, inherited something of the spirit of the Elizabethan drama; he possessed a real gift of tragic pathos and melting tenderness; but his genitis had a worse alloy than stageyness, and, though he was often happy in his novel choice of themes, his most successful efforts fail to satisfy tests supplementary to that of the stage.12 Among dramatists who contributed to the vogue of the heroic play may be mentioned J. Bankes, J. Weston, C. Hopkins, E. Cooke, R. Gould, S. Pordage, T. Rymer and Elkanah Settle. The productivity of J. Crowne (d. C. 1703)23 covers part of the earlier period as well as of the later, to which properly belong T. Southerne, a writer gifted with much The Black Prince; Tryphon; Herod the Great; Altem-ira. -

i The Indian Queen.

The Indian Emperor; Tyrannic Love; The Conquest of Grrinalta.

Essay of Dramatic Poesy. 6 Essay of Heroic Plays.

A direct satirical invective against rhymed tragedy of the heroic type is to be found in Arrowsmiths comedy Reformation (1673). The Grounds of Criticism in Tragedy.

All for Love (Antony and Cleopatra). 10 Don Sebastian.

n The Rival Queens; Lucius Junius Brulus; The Massacre of Paris. ii Don Carlos; The Orphan; Venice Preserved.

d Oroonoko; The Fatal Marriage.

pathetic power, but probably chiefly indebted for his long-lived popularity to his skill in the discovery of sensational plots; and Lord Lansdowne (Granville the polite) (c. 1667173 5). Congreve, by virtue of a single long celebrated but not really remarkable tragedy,t and N. Rowe, may be further singled out from the list of the tragic dramatists of this period, many of whom were, like their comic contemporaries, mere translators or adapters from the French. The tragedies of Rowe, whose direct services to the study of Shakespeare deserve remembrance, indicate with singular distinctness the transition from the fuller declamatory style of Dryden to the calmer and thinner manner of Addison.2 In tragedy (as to a more marked degree in comedy) the excesses (both of style and subject) of the past period of the English drama had produced an inevitable reaction; decorum was asserting its claims on the stage as in society; and French tragedy had set the example of sacrificing what passionand what vigourit retained in favor of qualities more acceptable to the reformed court of Louis XIV. Addison, in allowing his Cato to take its chance upon the stage, when a moment of political excitement (April 1713) ensured to it an. extraordinary success, to which no feature in it corresponds, except an unusual number of lines predestined to become familiar quotations, unconsciously sealed the doom of English national tragedy. The first reasonable English tragedy, as Voltaire called it, had been produced, and the oscillations of the tragic drama of the Restoration were at an end.

English comedy in this period displayed no similar desire to cut itself off from the native soil, though it freely borrowed Co d the materials for its plots and many of its figures from me ~ Spanish, and afterwards more generally from French, originais. The spirit of the old romantic comedy had long since fled; the graceful artificialities of the pastoral drama, even the light texture of the mask, ill suited the demands of an age which made no secret to itself of the grossness of its sensuality. With a few unimportant exceptions, such poetic elements as admitted of being combined with the poetic drama were absorbed by the opera and the ballet. No new species of the comic drama formed itself, though towards the close of the period may be noticed the beginnings of modern English farce. Political and religious partisanship, generally in accordance with the dominant reaction against Puritanism, were allowed to find expression in the directest and coarsest forms upon the stage, and to hasten the necessity for a more systematic control than even the times before the Revolution had found requisite. At the same time the unblushing indecency which the Restoration had spread through court and capital had established its dominion over the comic stage, corrupting the manners, and with them the morals, of its dramatists, and forbidding them, at the risk of seeming dull, to be anything but improper. Much of this found its way even into the epilogues, which, together with the prologues, proved so important an. adjunct of the Restoration drama. These influences determine the general character of what is with a more than chronological meaning termed the comedy of the Restoration. In construction, the national love of fulness and solidity of dramatic treatment induced its authors to alter what they borrowed from foreign sources, adding to complicated Spanish plots characters of native English directness, and supplementing single French plots by the addition of others.3 At the same time, the higher efforts of French comedy of character, as well as the refinement of expression in the list of their models, notably in Moliere, were alike seasoned to suit the coarser appetites and grosser palates of English patrons. The English comic writers often succeeded in strengthening the borrowed texture of their plays, but they never added comic The Mourning Bride.

1 The Fair Penitent; Jane Shore.

A notable influence was exercised upon English comedy as well as upon other branches of literature by C. de Saint-Evremond, a soldier and man of fashion who was possessed of great intellectual ability and of a charming style. Though during his long exile in Englandfrom 1670 to his deathhe never learned English, his critical works included Remarks on English Comedy (1677), and one of his own comedies, the celebrated Sir Politick Would-be, professed to be composed a la manire angloise.

humour without at the same time adding coarseness of their own. Such were the productions of Sir George Etheredge, Sir Charles Sedley, and the mob of gentlemen who wrote with ease; nor was there any signal difference between their productions and those of a playwright-actor such as J. Lacy (d. 1681), and a professional dramatist of undoubted ability such as J. Crowne. Such, though often displaying the brilliancy of a genius which even where it sank could never wholly abandon its prerogative, were, it must be confessed, the comedies of Dryden himself. On the other hand, the lowest literary deeps of the Restoration drama were sounded by T. DUrfey, while of its moral degradation the divine Astraea, the unspeakable MrsAphra Behn, has an indefeasible title to be considered the most faithful representative. T. Shadwell, fated, like the tragic poet Elkanah Settle, to be chiefly remembered as a victim of Drydens satire, deserves more honorable mention. Like J. Wilson, whose plays seem to class him with the pre-Restoration dramatists, Shadwell had caught something not only of the art, but also of the spirit, of Ben Jonson; but in most of his works he was, like the rest of his earlier contemporaries, and like the brilliant group which succeeded them, content to take his moral tone from the reckless society for which, or in deference to the tastes of which, he wrote.4 The absence of a moral sense, which, together with a grossness of expression often defying exaggeration, characterizes English comic dramatists from the days of Dryden to those of Congreve, is the main cause of their failure to satisfy the demands which are legitimately to be made upon their art. They essayed to draw character as well as to paint manners, but they rarely proved equal to the former and higher task; and, while choosing the means which most readily commended their plays to the favor of their immediate public, they achieved but little as interpreters of those essential distinctions which their art is capable of illustrating.1 Within these limits, though occasionally passing beyond them, and always with the same deference to the immoral tone which seemed to have become an indispensable adjunct of the comic style, even the greatest comic authors of this age moved. W. Wycherley was a comic dramatist of real power, who drew his characters with vigour and distinctness, and constructed his plots and chose his language with natural case. He lacks gaiety of spirit, and his wit is of a cynical turn. But, while he ruthlessly uncloaks the vices of his age, his own moral tone is affected by their influence in as marked a degree as that of the most light-hearted of his contemporaries.6 The most brilliant of these was indisputably W. Congreve, who is not only one of the very wittiest of English writers, but equally excels in the graceful ease of his dialogue, and draws his characters and constructs his plots with the same masterly skill. His chief fault as a dramatist is one of excessthe brilliancy of the dialogue, whoever be the speaker, overpowers the distinction between the humours of his personages. Though he is less brutal in expression than manly Wycherley, and less coarse than the lively Sir J. Vanbrugh, licentiousness in him as in them corrupts the spirit of his comic art; but of his best though not most successful play7 it must be allowed that the issue of the main plot is on the side of virtue. G. Farquhar, whose morality is on a par with that of the other members of this group, is inferior to them in brilliancy; but as pictures of manners in a wider sphere of life than that which contemporary comedy usually chose to illustrate, two of his plays deserve to be noticed, in which we already seem to be entering the atmosphere of the 18th-century novel. His influence upon Lessing is a remarkable fact in the international history of dramatic literature.

The improvement which now begins to manifest itself in the moral tone and spirit of English comedy is partly due to the reaction against the reaction of the Restoration, partly to the punishment which the excesses of the comic stage had brought ~ Epsom Wells; The Squire of Aisat-ia; The Volunteers. -

A dramatic curiosity of a rare kind would be The Female Rebellion (1682), which has been, on evidence rather striking at first sight, attributed to Sir Thomas ]3rowne. It is more likely to have been by his son.

6 The Country Wife; The Plain-Dealer. The Double Dealer.

8 The Recruiting Officer; The Beaux Stratagem.

upon it in the invective of Jeremy Collier (1698), of all the assaults the theatre in England has had to undergo the best- founded, and that which produced the most perceptible Senti. results. The comic poets, who had always been more or less conscious of their sins, and had at all events not defended them by the ingenious sophistries which it has pleased later literary criticism to suggest on. their behalf, now began with uneasy merriment to allude in their prologues to the reformation which had come over the spirit of the town. Writers like Mrs Centlivre became anxious to reclaim their offenders with much emphasis in the fifth act; and Colley Cibber whose Apology for his Life furnishes a useful view of this and the subsequent period of the history of the stage, with which he was connected as author, manager and actor (excelling in this capacity as representative of those fools with which he peopled the comic stage) may be credited with having first deliberately made the pathetic treatment of a moral sentiment the basis of the action of a comic drama. But he cannot be said to have consistently pursued the vein which in his Careless Husband (1704) he had essayed. His Non-Juror is a political adaptation of TartuJfe; and his almost equally celebrated Provoked Husband only supplied a happy ending to Vanbrughs unfinished play. Sir R. Steele, in accordance with his general tendencies as a writer, pursued a still more definite moral purpose in his comedies; but his genius perhaps lacked the sustained vigour necessary for a dramatist, and his humour naturally sought the aid of pathos. From partial3 he passed to more complete4 experiment; and thus these two writers, who transplanted to the comic stage a tendency towards the treatment of domestic themes noticeable in such writers of Restoration tragedy as Southerne and Rowe, became the founders of sentimental comedy, a species which exercised a most depressing influence upon the progress of English drama, and helped to hasten the decline of its comic branch. With Cato English tragedy committed suicide, though its pale ghost survived; with The Conscious Lovers English comedy sank for long into the tearful embraces of artificiality and weakness.

During the 18th century the productions of dramatic literature were still as a rule legitimately designed to meet the demands of the stage, from which its higher efforts afterwards The drama and stage to so large an extent became dissociated. The goodwill In the of most sections of the public continued to be steadily Period accorded to a theatre which had ceased to defy the eiarrick accepted laws and traditions of morality; and the opposition still aroused by it was confined to a small minority of thinkers, though these included some who were far from being puritans. John Dennis was not thought to have the worst of the controversy, when he defended the stage against the attack of an opponent far above him in staturethe great mystic William Lawi and to John Wesley himself it seemed that a great deal more might be said in defence of seeing a serious tragedy than of taking part in the amusements of bear-baiting and cock-fighting. On the other hand, the demands of the stage and those of its patrons and of the public of the Augustan age, and of that which succeeded it, were, in general, fast bound by the trammels of a taste with which a revival of the poetic drama long remained irreconcilable. There is every reason to conclude that the art of acting progressed in the same direction of artificiality, and became stereotyped in forms corresponding to the chant which represented tragic declamation in a series of actors ending with Quin and Macklin. In the latter must be recognized features of a precursor, but it was reserved to the genius of Garrick, whose o ~ theatrical career extended from 1741 to 1776, to open a C a new era in his art. His unparalleled success was due in the first instance to his incomparable natural gifts; yet these were indisputably enhanced by a careful and continued A Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage. Sir Novelty Fashion (Lord Foppington), &c.

The Lying Lover; The Tender Husband.

The Conscious Lovers.

The Absolute Unlawfulness of Stage Entertainments fully Demonstrated; The Stage defended, &c. (1726).

literary training, and ennobled by a purpose which prompted him to essay the noblest, as he was capable of performing the most various, range of English theatrical characters. By devoting himself as actor and manager with special zeal to the production of Shakespeare, Garrick permanently popularized on the national stage the greatest creations of English drama, and indirectly helped to seal the doom of what survived of the tendency to maintain in the most ambitious walks of dramatic literature the nerveless traditions of the pseudo-classical school. A generation of celebrated actors and actresses, many of whom live for us in the drastic epigrams of Churchills Rosciad (1761), were his helpmates or his rivals; but their fame has paled, while his is destined to endure as that of one of the typical masters of his art. -

The contrast between the tragedy of the 18th century and those plays of Shakespeare and one or two other Elizabethans which already before Garrick were known to the Decline of English stage, was weakened by the mutilated form in which the old masterpieces generally, if not always, made their appearance there. Even so, however, there are perhaps few instances in theatrical history in which so unequal a competition was so long sustained. In the hands of the tragic poets of the age of Pope, as well as that of Johnson, tragedy had hopelessly stiffened into the forms of its accepted French models. Direct reproductions of these continued, as in Ambrose Philipss and Charles Johnsons (1679-1748) translations from Racine, and Aaron Hills from Voltaire. Among other tragic dramatists of the earlier part of the century may be mentioned J. Hughes, who, after assisting Addison in his Cab, produced at least one praiseworthy tragedy of his own; 6

E. Fenton, a joint translator of Popes Homer and the author of one extremely successful drama on a theme of singularly enduring interest,7 and L. Theobald the first hero of the Dunciad, who, besides translations of Greek dramas, produced a few more or less original plays, one of which he was daring enough to father upon Shakespeare.8 A more distinguished name is that of J. Thomson, whose unlucky Sophonisba and subsequent tragedies are, however, barely remembered by the side of his poems (The Seasons, &c.). The literary genius of E. Young, on the other hand, possessed vigour and variety enough to distinguish his tragedies from the ordinary level of Augustan plays; in one of them he seems to challenge comparison in the treatment of his theme with a very different rival,9 but by his main characteristics as a dramatist he belongs to the school of his contemporaries. The endeavour of G. Lillo, in his London Merchant, or George Barnwell (1731), to bring the tragic lessons of terror and pity directly home to his fellow-citizens exercised an extraordinarily widespread as well as enduring effect on the history of the 18th-century drama. At home, they gave birth to the new, or, more properly speaking, to the revived, species of domestic tragedy, which connects itself more or less closely with a notable epoch in the history of English prose-fiction as well as of English painting. Abroad, this playwhose success was of the kind which nothing can killsupplied the text to the teachings o! Diderot, as well as an example to his own dramatic attempts; and through Diderot the impulse communicated itself to Lessing, and long exercised a great effect upon the literature of the German stage. At the same time, it must be allowed that Lillos pedestrian muse failed in the end to satisfy higher artistic demands than those met in his most popular play, while in another ii she was less consciously guilty of an aberration towards that tragedy of destiny, which, in the modern drama at least, obscures the ethical character of all tragic actions.

Classical tragedy in the generation of Dr Johnson pursued the even tenor of its way, the dictator himself treading with solemn footfall in the accustomed path,n and W. Mason making the futile attempt to produce a close imitation of Greek The Siege of Damascus. 1 Mariamne.

The Double Falsehood. The Revenge (Othello).

ii Fatal Curiosity.

Irene (1749); The Patriot attributed to Johnsosi~ is by Joseph Simpson.

of English comedy. Something in Sheridans style, but quite without his brilliancy, is the most successful playf of the unfortunate General Burgoyne. R. Cumberland, who too consciously endeavoured to excel both in sentimental morality and in comic characterization, in which he was devoid of depth, closes the list of authors of higher pretensions who wrote for the theatre.1 Like him, Mrs Cowleyf (Anna Matilda), T. Holcroft,4 and G. Colman the younger,5 all writers of popular comedies, as well as the prolific J. OKeefe (1746-1833), who contributed to nearly every species of the comic drama, survived into the i9th century. To an earlier date belong the favorite burlesques of OKeefes countryman K. OHara (d. 1782), good examples of a species the further history of which may be left aside. In the hands of at least one later writer, J. R. Planch, it proved capable of satisfying a more refined taste than his successors have habitually consulted.

The decline of dramatic composition of the higher class, perceptible in the history of the English theatre about the The beginning of the j9th century, was justly attributed English by Sir Walter Scott to the wearing out of the French drama of model that had been so long wrought upon; but when. the 19th he asserted that the new impulse which was sought in century. the dramatic literature of Germany was derived from some of its worst, instead of from its noblest, productions-from Kotzebue rather than from Lessing, Schiller and Goethe he showed a very imperfect acquaintance with a complicated literary movement which was obliquely reflected in the stageplays of Iffland and his contemporaries. The change which was coming over English literature was in truth of a wider and deeper nature than. it was possible for even one of its chief representatives to perceive. As that literature freed itself from the fetters so long worn by it as indispensable ornaments, and threw aside the veil which had so long obscured both the full glory of its past and the lofty capabilities of its future, it could not resort except tentatively to a form which like the dramatic is bound by a hundred bonds to the life of the age itself. Soon, the poems with which Scott and Byron,and theunrivalledprosefictions with which Scott, both satisfied and stimulated the imaginative demands of the public, diverted the attention of the cultivated classes from dramatic literature, which was unable to escape, with the light foot of verse or prose fiction, into the new, the romantic land. New themes, new ideas, new forms occupied a new generation of writers and readers; nor did the drama readily lend itself as a vessel into which to pour so many fermenting elements. In Byron the impressions produced upon a mind not less open to impulses from without than subjective in its way of recasting them, called forth a series of dramatic attempts betraying a more or less wilful ignorance of the demands of dramatic compositions; his beautiful Manfred, partly suggested by Goethes Fazist, and his powerful Cain, have but the form of plays; his tragedies on Italian historical subjects show some resemblance in their political rhetoric to the contemporary works of Alfieri; his Sardanapalus, autobiographically interesting, fails to meet the demands of the stage; his Werner (of which the authorship has been ascribed to the duchess of Devonshire) is a hastily dramatized sensation novel. To Coleridge (1772-1834), who gave to English literature a splendidly loose translation of Schillers Wallenstein, the same poets Robbers (to which Wordsworths only dramatic attempt, the Borderers, is likewise indebted) had probably suggested the subject of his tragedy of Osorio, afterwards acted under the title of Remorse. Far superior to this is his later drama of Zapolya, a genuine homage to Shakespeare, out of the themes of two of whose plays it is gracefully woven. Scott, who in his earlier days had translated Goethes Golz von Berljchingen, gained no reputation by his own dramatic compositions. W. S. Landor, apart from those Imaginary Conversations upon which he best loved to expend powers of observation and characterization such as have been given to 3 The Belles Stratagem; A Bold Stroke for a Husband, &c.

The Road to Ruin, &c. 5 Bull; The Heir at Law, &c. Midas; The Golden Pippin.

few playwrights, cast in a formally dramatic mould studies of character of which the value is far from being confined to their wealth in beauties of detail, Of these the magnificent, but in construction altogether undramatic, Count Jul-ian, is the most noteworthy. Shelleys The Cenci, on the other hand~ is not only a poem of great beauty, but a drama of true power, abnormally revolting indeed in theme, but singularly pure and delicate in treatment. A humbler niche in the temple of dramatic literature belongs to some of the plays of C. R. Maturin,7 Sir T. N. Talfourd, and Dean Milman.9

Divorced, except for passing moments, from the stage, English dramatic literature could during much the greater part of the I 9th century hardly be regarded as a connected national growth; though, already in the last decades of the Victorian age, the revival of public interest in. the theatre co-operated with a gradual change in poetic taste to awaken the hope of a future living reunion. Among English poets who lived in this period, Sir Henry Taylor probably approached nearest to the objective treatment and the amplitude of style characteristic of the Elizabethan drama.8 R. H. Home, long an almost solitary survivor of the romantic school, was able in at least one memorable dramatic attempt to revive something of the early Elizabethan spirit.ii Of the chief poets of the age, Tennyson only in his later years addressed himself to a form of composition little suited to his genius, though the very fact of the homage paid by him to the national forms of the historic drama and of romantic comedy could not fail to ennoble the contemporary stage.fi Matthew Arnolds stately revival of the traditions of classical tragedy proper, on the other hand, deliberately excluded itself from any such contact;12 while Longfellows refined literary culture and graceful facility of form made ready use of a quasi-dramatic medieval vesture.ii William Morriss single morality, too, cannot be regarded as a contribution. to dramatic literature proper.ii Of very different importance are the excursions into dramatic composition of Robert Browning, whose place in the living inheritance of the English drama has in one instance at least been. not unsuccessfully vindicated by a later age, and some of whose greatest gifts are beyond a doubt displayed in his dramatic work;16 and the sustained endeavours of A. C. Swin-. burne, after adding a flower of exquisite beauty to the wreath which the lovers of the Attic muse have laid at her feet, to enrich the national historic drama by a trilogy instinct with the ardent eloquence of passion.i7 Until a date too near the times in which we live to admit of its being fixed with precision, most of the English writers who sought to preserve a connection between their dramatic productions and the demands of the stage addressed themselves to the theatrical rather than the literary publicfor the distinction, in those times at all events, was by no means without a difference. The modestly simple and judiciously concentrated efforts of Joanna Baillie deserve a respectful remembrance in the records of literature as well as of the stage, though the day has passed when the theory which suggested her Plays on the Passions could find acceptance among critics, or her exemplifications of it satisfy the demands of playgoers. Sheridan Knowles, on. the other hand, composed his conventional semblances of genuine tragedy and comedy with a thorough knowledge of stage effect, and some of them can hardly yet be said to have vanished from the stage.i8 The first Lord Lytton, though his plays were for the most part of a lighter texture, showed even more artificiality of sentiment in their conception and execution; but the romantic touch which he imparted to at least one of them accounts for its long-lived popularity. Among later Victorian. playwrights T. W. Robertson brought back a breath of naturalness into the acted comic drama; Tom Taylor, rivalling Lope in fertility, made little pretence to original invention, but adapted with an instinct that rarely failed him, and materially helped to keep the theatrical diversions of his ii The Death of Marlowe. ii Becket; The Cup. d Merope.

The Golden Legend. ii Love is Enough.

i6 Strafford; The Blot on the Scutcheon.

i Akzlantci in Calydon; Bothwell; Chastelard Mary Stuart.

~ Vir~inius: The Hunchback.

age sound and pure; an endeavour in which he had the cooperation of Charles Reade and that of most of those who competed with them for the favor of generations of playgoers more easiLy contented than their successors. The one deplorable aspect of tWa age of the English drama was to be found neither in the sphere of tragedy nor in that of comedynor even in that of farce. It was presented in the low depths of cbntemporary burlesque, which had degenerated from the graceful extravaganza of J. R. Planch into witless and tasteless emptiness.

Curiously enough, it was at this point that something like real originalitydiscovering a new sub-species of its own first began, with the aid of a sister-art, to renovate the English popular comic stage. At the beginning of the 19th century the greatest tragic actress of the English theatre, Mrs Siddons, had passed her prime; and before its second decade had closed, not only she (1812) but her brother John Kemble (1817), the representative of a grand style of acting which later generations might conceivably find overpowering, had withdrawn from the ,boards. Mrs Siddons was soon followed into retirement by her successor Miss ONeill (1819); while Kembles brilliant later rival, Edmund Kean, an actor the intuitions of whose genius seem to have supplied, so far as intuition ever can supply, the absence of a consecutive self-culture, remained on the stage till his death in 1833. Young, Macready, and others handed down some of the traditions of the older school of acting to the very few artists who remained to suggest its semblance to a later generation. Even theseamong them S. Phelps, whose special merit it was to present to a later age, accustomed to elaborate theatrical environments, dramatic masterpieces as dependent upon themselves and adequate interpretation; and the foremost English actress of the earlier Victorian age, Helen Faucit (Lady Martin) were unable to leave a school of acting behind them. Still less was this possible to Charles Kean the younger, with whom the decorative production of Shakespearian plays really had its beginning; or even to Sir Henry Irving, an actor of genius, but also an irrepressible and almost eccentric theatrical personality, whose great service to the English drama was his faith in its masterpieces. The comic stage was fortunate in an ampler aftergrowth, from generation to generation, of the successors of the old actors who live for us all in the reminiscences of Charles Lamb; nor were the links suddenly snapped which bound the humours of the present to those of the past. In the first decade of the 20th century a generation still survived which could recall, with many other similar joys, the brilliant levity of Charles Mathews the younger; the not less irresistible stolidity of J. B. Buckstone; the solemn fooling of H. Compton (I 805 1877); the subtle humours of J. L. Toole, and the frolic charm of Marie Wilton (Lady Bancroft), the most original comic actress of her time. (A. W. W.)

Recent English Drama.In England the whole mechanism of theatrical life had undergone a radical change in the middle decades of the 19th century. At the root of this change lay the immense growth of population and the enormously increased facilities of communication between London and the provinces. Similar causes came into operation, of course, in France, Germany and Austria, but were much less distinctly felt, because the numerous and important subventioned theatres of these countries remained more or less unaffected by economic influences. Free trade in theatricals (subject only to certain licensing regulations and to a court censorship of new plays) was established in England by an act of 1843, which abolished the long moribund monopoly of the legitimate drama claimed by the Patent Theatres of Drury Lane and Covent Garden. The drama was thus formally subjected to the operation of the law of supply and demand, like any other article of commerce, and managers were left, unaided and unhampered by any subvention or privilege, to cater to the tastes of a huge and growing community. Theatres very soon multiplied, competition grew ever keener, and the long run, with its accompaniments of ostentatious decoration and lavish advertisement, became the one object of managerial effort. This process of evolution may be said to have begun in the second quarter of the igth century and completed itself in the 3rd. The system which obtains to-day, almost unforeseen in 1825, was in full operation in 1875. The repertory theatre, with its constant changes of programme, maintained on the continent partly by subventions, partly by the mere force of artistic tradition, had become in England a faint and far-off memory. There was not a single theatre in London at which plays, old and new, were not selected and moun.ted solely with a view to their continuous performance for as many nights as possible, anything short of fifty nights constituting an ignominious and probably ruinous failure. It was found, too, that those theatres were most successful which were devoted exclusively to exploiting the talent of an individual actor. Thus when the fourth quarter of the century opened, the long run and the actor-manager were in firm possession of the field.

The outlook was in many ways far from encouraging. It was not quite so black, indeed, as it had been in the late fifties and early sixties, when the legitimate enterprises of Phelps at Sadlers Wells and Charles Kean at the Princesss had failed to hold their ground, and when modem comedy and drama were represented almost exclusively by adaptations from the French. There had been a slight stirring of originality in the series of comedies produced by T. W. Robertson at the Prince of Waless theatre, where, under the management of Bancroft a new school of mounting and acting, minutely faithful (in theory at any rate) to everyday reality, had come into existence. But the hopes of a revival of English comedy seemed to have died with Robertsons death. One of his followers, James Albery, possessed both imagination and wit, but had not the strength of character to do justice to his talent, and sank into a mere adapter. In the plays of another disciple, H. J. Byron, the Robertsonian or cup-and-saucer school declined upon sheer inanity. Of the numerous plays signed by Tom Taylor some were original in substance, but all were cast in the machine-made French mould. Wilkie Collins, in dramatizing some of his novels, produced somewhat crude anticipations of the modern problem play. The literary talent of W. S. Gilbert displayed itself in a group of comedies both in verse and prose; but Gilbert saw life from too peculiar an angle to represent it otherwise than fantastically. The Robertsonian impulse seemed to have died utterly away, leaving behind it only five or six very insubstantial comedies and a subdued, unrhetorical method in acting. This method the Bancrofts proceeded to apply, during the~ seventies, to revivals of stage classics, such as The School for Scandal, Money and Masks and Faces, and to adaptations from the French ofSardou.

While the modern drama appeared to have relapsed into a comatose condition, poetic and romantic drama was giving some signs of life. At the Lyceum in 1871 Henry Irving had leapt into fame by means of his performance of Mathias in The Bells, an adaptation from the French of Erckmann-Chatrian. He followed this up by an admirably picturesque performance of the title-part in Charles I. by W. G. Wills. In the autumn of 1874 the great success of Irvings Hamlet was hailed as the prelude to a revival of tragic acting. As a matter of fact, it was the prelude to a long series of remarkable achievements in romantic drama and melodrama. Irvings lack of physical and vocal resources prevented him from scaling the heights of tragedy, and his Othello, Macbeth, and Lear could not be ranked among his successes; but he was admirable in such parts as Richard III., Shylock, Iago and Wolsey, while in melodramatic parts, such as Louis XI. and the hero and villain of The Lyons Mail, he was unsurpassed. Mephistopheles in a version of Faust (1885), perhaps the greatest popular success of his career, added nothing to his reputation for artistic intelligence; but on the other hand his Becket in Tennysons play of that name (1893) was one of his most masterly efforts. His management of the Lyceum (1878-1899) did so much to raise the status of the actor and to restore the prestige of poetic drama, that the knighthood conferred upon him in 1895 was felt to be no more than an appropriate recognition of his services. But his managerial career had scarcely any significance for the living English drama. - He seldom experimented with a new play, and, of the few which he did produce, only The Cup and Becket by Lord Tennyson have the remotest chance of being remembered.

To trace the history of the new English drama, then, we must go back to the Prince of Waless theatre. Even while it seemed that French comedy of the school of Scribe was resuming its baneful predominance, the seeds of a new order of things were slowly germinating. Diplomacy, an adaptation of Sardous Dora, produced in 1878, brought together on the Prince of Waless stage Mr and Mrs Bancroft, Mr and Mrs Kendal, John Clayton and Arthur Cecilin other words, the future managers of the Haymarket, the St Jamess and the Court theatres, which were destined to see the first real stirrings of a literary revival. Mr and Mrs Kendal, who, in conjunction with John Hare, managed the St Jamess theatre from 1879 to 1888, produced A. W. Piner.os first play of any consequence, The Money-Spinner (1881), and afterwards The Squire (1882) and The Hobby Horse (1887). The Bancrofts, who, after entirely rebuilding the Haymarket theatre, managed it from 1880 till their retirement in 1885, produced in 1883 Pineros Lords and Commons; and Messrs Clayton and Cecil produced at the Court theatre between 1885 and 1887 his three brilliant farces, The Magistrate, The Schoolmistress and Dandy Dick, which, with the sentimental comedy, Sweet Lavender, produced at Terrys theatre in 1888, assured his position as an original and fertile dramatic humorist of no small literary power. It is to be noted, however, that Pinero was almost the only original playwright represented under the Bancroft, Hare-Kendal and Clayton-Cecil managements, which relied for the rest upon adaptations and revivals. Adaptations of French vaudevilles were the staple productions of Charles Wyndhams management at the Criterion from its beginning in 1876 until 1893, when he first produced an original play of any importance. When Herbert Beerbohm Tree went into management at the Haymarket in 1887, he still relied largely on plays of foreign origin. George Alexanders first managerial ventures (Avenue theatre, 1890) were two adaptations from the French. Until well on in the eighties, indeed, adaptation from the French was held the normal occupation of the British playwright, and original composition a mere episode. Robertson, Byron, Albery, Gilbert, Tom Taylor, Charles Reade, Herman Merivale, G. W. Godfrey, all produced numerous adaptations; Sydney Grundy was for twenty years occupied almost exclusively in this class of work; Pinero himself has adapted more than one French play. The eighties, then, may on the whole be regarded as showing a very gradual decline in the predominance of France on the English stage, and an equally slow revival of originality, so far as comedy and drama were concerned, manifesting itself mainly in the plays of Pinero.

The reaction against French influence, however, was no less apparent in the domain of melodrama and operetta than in that of comedy and drama. Until well on in the seventies, DEnnery and his disciples, adapted and imitated by Dion Boucicault and others, ruled the melodramatic stage. The reaction asserted itself in two quartersin the East End at the Grecian theatre, and in the West End at the Princesss. In. The World, produced at Drury Lane in 1880, Paul Meritt (d. 1895) and Henry Pettitt (d. 1893) brought to the West End the Grecian type of popular drama; and at Drury Lane it survived in the elaborately spectacular form imparted to it by Sir Augustus Harris, who managed that theatre from 1879 till his death in 1896. The production of G. R. Simss Lights o London at the Princesss in 1881, under Wilson Barretts management, also marked a new departure. This style of melodrama was chiefly cultivated at the Adelphi theatre, from 1882 until the end of the century, when it died out there as a regular institution, apparently because a host of suburban theatres drew away its audiences. Of all these English melodramas, only one, The Silver King, by Henry Arthur Jones (Princesss, 1882), could for a moment compare in invention or technical skill with the French dramas they supplanted. The fact remains, however, that even on this lowest level of dramatic art the current of the time set decisively towards home-made pictures of English life, however crude and Duerile.

For twenty-five years, from 1865 to 1890, the English stage was overrun with French operettas of the school of Offenbach. Hastily adapted by slovenly hacks, their librettos (often witty in the original) became incredible farragos of metreless doggrel and punning ineptitude. The great majority of them are now so utterly forgotten that it is hard to realize how, in their heyday, they swarmed on every hand in London and the provinces. The reaction began in 1875 with the performance at the Royalty theatre of Trial by Jury, by W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan. This was the prelude to that brilliant series of witty and melodious extravaganzas which began with The Sorcerer at the Opera Comique theatre in 1877, but was mainly associated with the Savoy theatre, opened by R. DOyly Carte (d. 1901) in 1881. Little by little the Gilbert and Sullivan operettas (of which the most famous, perhaps, were H.M.S. Pinafore, 1878, Patience, 1881, and The Mikado, 1885) undermined the popularity of the French opera-bouffes, and at the same time that of the indigenous burlesques which, graceful enough in the hands of their inventor J. R. Planch, had become mere incoherent jumbles of buffoonery, devoid alike of dramatic ingenuity and of literary form. When, early in the nineties, the collaboration between Gilbert and Sullivan became intermittent, and the vogue of the Savoy somewhat declined, a new class of extravaganza arose, under the designation of musical comedy or musical farce. It first took form in a piece called In Town, by Messrs Adrian Ross and Osmond Carr (Prince of Waless theatre, 1892), and rapidly became very popular. In these plays the scene and costumes are almost always modern though sometimes exotic, and the prose dialogue, setting forth an attenuated and entirely negligible plot, is frequently interrupted by musical numbers. The lyrics are often very clever pieces of rhyming, totally different from the inane doggrel of the old opera-bouffes and burlesques. In other respects there is little to be said for the literary or intellectual quality of musical farce; but, being an entirely English (or Anglo-American) product, it falls into line with the other indications we have noted of the general declineone might almost say extinctionof French influence on the English stage.

To what causes are we to trace this gradual disuse of adaptation? In the domain of modern comedy and drama, to two causes acting simultaneously: the decline in France of the method of Scribe, which produced well-made, exportable plays, more or less suited to any climate and environment; and the rise in England of a generation of playwrights more original, thoughtful and able than their predecessors. ~It is not at all to be taken for granted that the falling off in the supply of exportable plays meant a decline in the absolute merit of French drama. ~Ihe historian of the future may very possibly regard the movement in France, no less than th&movement in England, as a step in advance, and may even see in the two movements co-ordinate manifestations of one tendency. Be this as it may, the fact is certain that as the playwrights of the Second Empire gradually died off, and were succeeded by the authors of the new comedy, plays which would bear transplantation became ever fewer and farther between. Of recent years Henri Bernstein, author of Le Vol eur and Samson, has been almost the only French dramatist whose works have found a ready and steady market in England. Attempts to acclimatize French poetical dramaPour la Couronne, Le Chemineau, Cyrano de Bergerac were all more or less unsuccessful.

Having noted the decline of adaptation, we may now trace a stage farther the development of the English drama. The first stage, already surveyed, ends with the production of Sweet Lavender in 1888. Up to this point its author, Pinero (b. 1855), stood practically alone, and had won his chief successes as a humorist. Henry A~thur Jones (b. 1851) was known as little more than an able mlodramatist, though in one play, Saints and Sinners (1884), he had made some attempt at a serious study of provincial life. R. C. Carton (b. 1856) had written, in collaboration, one or two plays of slight account. Sydney Grundy (b. 1848) had produced scarcely any original work. The second stage may be taken as extending from 1880 to 180,t On the 24th of April 1889 John Hare opened the new Garrick theatre with The Profligate, by Pineroan unripe and superficial piece of work in. many ways, but still a great advance, both in ambition and achievement, upon any original work the stage had seen for many a year.

With all its faults, it may be said that The Profligate notably enlarged at one stroke the domain open to the English dramatist. And it did not stand alone. The same year saw the production of two plays by H. A. Jones, Wealth and The Middleman, in which a distinct effort towards a serious criticism of life was observable, and of two plays by Sydney Grundy, A Fools Paradise and A White Lie, which, though very French in method, were at least original in substance. Jones during the next two years made a steady advance with Judah (1890), The Dancing Girl and The Crusaders (1891). Pinero in these years was putting forth less than his whole strength in The Cabinet Minister (1890), Lady Bountiful and The Times (1891), and The A mazons (March 1893). But meanwhile new talents were coming forward. The management of George Alexander, which opened at the Avenue theatre in 1890, but was transferred in the following year to the St Jamess, brought prominently to the front R. C. Carton, Haddon Chambers and Oscar Wilde. Cartons two sentimental comedies, Sunlight and Shadow (1890) and Liberty Hall (1892), showed excellent workmanship, but did not yet reveal his true originality as a humorist. Haddon Chamberss work (notably The Idler, 1891) was as yet sufficiently commonplace; but in Lady Windermeres Fan (1892) Oscar Wilde showed himself at his first attempt a brilliant and accomplished dramatist. Wildes subsequent plays, A Woman of No Importance (1893) and An Ideal Husband and The Importance of being Earnest (1895), though marred by mannerism and insincerity, did much to promote the movement we are here tracing.

As the production of The Profligate marked the opening of the second period in the revival of English drama, so the production of the same authors The Second Mrs Tanqueray is very clearly the starting-point of the third period. Before attempting to trace its course we may do well to glance at certain conditions which probably influenced it.

In the first place, economic conditions. The BancroftRobertson movement at the old Prince of Waless, ,between 1865 and 1870, was of even more importance from an economic than from a literary point of view. By mhk-ing their little theatre a luxurious place of resort, and faithfully imitating in their productions the accent, costume and furniture of upper and upper-middle class life, the Bancrofts had initiated a reconciliation between society and the stage. Throughout the middle decades of the century it was the constant complaint of the managers that the world of wealth and fashion could not be tempted to the theatre. The Bancroft management changed all that. It was at the Prince of Waless that half-guinea stalls were first introduced; and these stalls were always filled. As other theatres adopted the same policy of upholstery, both on and off the stage, fashion extended its complaisance to them as well. In yet another way the reconciliation was promotedby the everincreasing tendency of young men and women of good birth and education to seek a career upon the English stage. The theatre, in short, became at this period one of the favorite amusements of fashionable (though scarcely of intellectual) society in London. It is often contended that the influence of the sensual and cynical stall audience is a pernicious one. In some ways, no doubt, it is detrimental; but there is another side to the case. Even the cynicism of society marks an intellectual advance upon the sheer rusticity which prevailed during the middle years of the roth century and accepted without a murmur plays (original and adapted) which bore no sort of relation to life. In a celebrated essay published in 1879, Matthew Arnold (whose occasional dramatic criticisms were very influential in intellectual circles) dwelt on the sufficiently obvious fact that the result of giving English names and costumes to French characters was to make their sayings and doings utterly unreal andfantastic. During the years of French ascendancy, audiences had quite forgotten that it was possible for the stage to be other than fantastic in this sense. They no longer thought of comparing the mimic world with the real world, but were content with what may be called abstract humour and pathos, often of the crudest quality. The cultivation of external realism, coinciding with, and in part occasioning, the return of society to the playhouse, gradually led to a demand for some approach to plausibility in character and action as well as in. costume and decoration. The stage ceased to be entirely fantastic, and began to essay, however imperfectly, the representation, the criticism of li~e. It cannot be denied that the influence of society tended to narrow the outlook of English dramatists and to trivialize their tone of thought. But this was a passing phase of development; and cleverly trivial representations of reality are, after all, to be preferred to brainless concoctions of sheer emptiness.

Quite as important, from the economic point of view, as the reconciliation of society to the stage, was the reorganization of the mechanism of theatrical life in the provinces which took place between 1865 and 1875. From the Restoration to the middle of the i9th century the system of stock companies had been universal. Every great town in the three kingdoms had its established theatre with a resident company, playing the legitimate repertory, and competing, often by illegitimate means, for the possession of new London successes. The smaller towns, and even villages, were grouped into local circuits, each served by one manager with his troupe of strollers. The circuits supplied actors to the resident stock companies, and the stock companies served as nurseries to the patent theatres in London. Metropolitan stars travelled from one country theatre to another, generally alone, sometimes with one or two subordinates in their train, and were supported, as the phrase went, by the stock company of each theatre. Under this system, scenery, costumes and appointments were often grotesquely inadequate, and performances almost always rough and unfinished. On the other hand, the constant practice in a great number and variety of characters afforded valuable training for actors, and developed many remarkable talents. As a source of revenue to authors, the provinces were practically negligible. Stageright was unprotected by law; and even if it had been protected, it is doubtful whether authors could have got any considerable fees out of country managers, whose precarious ventures usually left them a small enough margin of profit.

The spread of,railways throughout the country gradually put an end to this system. The circuits disappeared early in the fifties, the stock companies survived until about the middle of the seventies. As soon as it was found easy to transport whole companies, and even great quantities of scenery, from theatre to theatre throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain, it became apparent that the rough makeshifts of the stock company system were doomed. Here again we can trace to the old Prince of Waless theatre the first distinct impulse towards the new order of things. Robertsons comedies not only encouraged but absolutely required a style of art, in mounting, stage-management and acting, not to be found in the country theatres. To entrust them to the stock companies was wellnigh impossible. On the other hand, to quote Sir Squire Bancroft, perhaps no play was ever better suited than Caste to a travelling company; the parts being few, the scenery and dresses quite simple, and consequently the expenses very much reduced. In 1867, then, a company was organized and rehearsed in London to carry round the provincial theatres as exact a reproduction as possible of the London performance of Caste and Robertsons other comedies. The smoothness of the representation, the delicacy of the interplay among the characters, were new to provincial audiences, and the success was remarkable. About the same time the whole Haymarket company, under Buckstones management, began to make frequent rounds of the country theatres; and other touring combinations were soon organized. It is manifest that the combination system and the stock company system cannot long coexist, for a manager cannot afford to keep a stock company idle while a London combination is occupying his theatre. The stock companies, therefore, soon dwindled away, and were probably quite extinct before the end of the seventies. Under the present system, no sooner is a play an established success in London than it is reproduced in one, two or three exact copies and sent round the provincial theatres (and the numerous suburban theatres which have sprung up since 1895), Company A serving first-class towns, Company B the second-class towns, and so forth. The process is very like that of taking plaster casts of a statue, and the provincial companies often stand to their London originals very much in the relation of plaster to marble. Even the London scenery is faithfully reproduced in material of extra strength, to stand the wear-and-tear of constant removal. The result is that, instead of the square pegs in round holes of the old stock company system, provincial audiences now see pegs carefully adjusted to the particular holes they occupy, and often incapable of fitting any other. Instead of the rough performances of old, they are now accustomed to performances of a mechanical and soulless smoothness.

In some ways the gain in this respect is undeniable, in other ways the loss is great. The provinces are no longer, in any effective sense, a nursery of fresh talents for the London theatres, for the art acquired in touring combinations is that of mimicry rather than of acting. Moreover, provincial playgoers have lost all personal interest and pride in their local theatres, which have no longer any individuality of their own, but serve as a mere frame for the presentation of a series of ready-made London pictures. Christmas pantomime is the only theatrical product that has any really local flavour in it, and even this is often only a second-hand London production, touched up with a few topical allusions. Again, the railways which bring London productions to the country take country playgoers by the thousand to London. The wealthier classes, in the Lancashire, Yorkshire and Midland towns at any rate, do almost all their theatre-going in London, or during the autumn months when the leading London companies go on tour. Thus the better class of comedy and drama has a hard fight to maintain itself in the provinces, and the companies devoted to melodrama and musical farce enjoy an ominous preponderance of popularity.

On the whole, howeverand this is the main point to be observed with regard to the literary development of the drama the economic movement of the five- and twenty years between 1865 and 1890 was enormously to the advantage of the dramatic author. A London success meant a long series of full houses at high prices, on which he took a handsome percentage. The provinces, in which a popular playwright would often have three or four plays going the rounds simultaneously, became a steady source of income. And, finally, it was found possible, even before international copyright came into force, to protect stageright in the United States, so that about the beginning of the eighties large receipts began to pour in from America. Thus successful dramatists, instead of living from hand to mouth, like their predecessors of the previous generation, found themselves in comfortable and even opulent circumstances. They had leisure for reading, thought and careful composition, and they could afford to gratify their ambition with an occasional artistic experiment. Failure might mean a momentary loss of prestige, but it would not spell ruin. A distinctly progressive spirit, then, began to animate the leading English dramatistsa spirit which found intelligent sympathy in such managers as John Hare, George Alexander, Beerbohm Tree and Charles Wyndham. Nor must it be forgotten that, though the laws of literary property, internal and international, remained far from perfect, it was found possible to print and publish plays without incurring loss of stageright either at home or in America. The playwrights of the present generation have accordingly a motive for giving literary form and polish to their work which was quite inoperative with their predecessors, whose productions were either kept jealously in manuscript or printed only in miserable and totally unreadable stage editions. It is no small stimulus to ambition to know that even if a play prove to be in advance of the standards of taste or thought among the public to which it is originally presented, it will not perish utterly, but will, if it have any inherent vitality, continue to live as literature.

Having now summed up the economic conditions which made for progress, let us glance at certain intellectual influences which tended in the same direction. The establishment of the Thfttre Libre in Paris, towards the close of 1887, ~ unquestionably marked the beginning of a period of drama.

restless experiment throughout the theatrical world of Europe. A. Antoine and his supporters were in open rebellion against the artificial methods of Scribe and the Second Empire playwrights. Their effort was to transfer to the stage the realism, the so-called naturalism, which had been dominant in French fiction since 1870 or earlier; and this naturalism was doubtless, in its turn, the outcome of the scientific movement of the century. New methods (or ideals) of observation, and new views as to the history and destiny of the race, could not fail to produce a profound effect upon art; and though the modern theatre is a cumbrous contrivance, slow to adjust its orientation ~o the winds of the spirit, even it at last began to revolve, like a rusty windmill, so as to fill its sails in the main current of the intellectual atmosphere. Within three or four years of its inception, Antoines experiment had been imitated in Germany, England and America. The Freie BUhne of Berlin came into existence in 1889, the Independent Theatre of London in 1891. Similar enterprises were set on foot in Munich and other cities. In America several less formal experiments of a like nature were attempted, chiefly in Boston and New York. Nor must it be forgotten that in Paris itself the Thtre Libre did not stand alone. Many other t/zdtres a ct~ sprang up, under such titles as Thtre dArt, Thfttre Moderne, Thtttre de lAvenir Dramatique. The most important and least ephemeral was the Thtre de l~uvre, founded in 1893 by Alex. Lugn-Poe, which represented mainly, though not exclusively, the symbolist reaction against naturalism.

The impulse which led to the establishment of the Thtre Libre was, in the first instance, entirely French. If any foreign influence helped to shape its course, it was that of the great Russian novelists. Tolstois Puissance des tnbres was the only exotic play announced in Antoines opening manifesto. But the whole movement was soon to receive a potent stimulus from the Norwegian poet Henrik Ibsen.

Ibsens early romantic plays had been known in Germany since 1875. In 1878 Pillars of Society and in 1880 A Dolls House achieved wide popularity, and held the German stage side by side with A Bankruptcy, by BjOrnstjerne BjOrnson. But these plays had little influence on the German drama. Their methods were, indeed, not essentially different from those of the French school of the Second Empire, which were then dominant in Germany as well as everywhere else. It was Ghosts (acted in Augsburg and Meiningen 1886, in Berlin 1887) that gave the impulse which, coalescing with the kindred impulse from the French Thtre Libre, was destined in the course of a few years to create a new dramatic literature in Germany. During the middle decades of the century Germany had produced some dramatists of solid and even remarkable talent, such as Friedrich Hebbel, Heinrich Laube, Karl Gutzkow and Gustav Freytag. Even the generation which held the stage after 1870, and included Paul Heyse, Paul Lindau and Adolf Wilbrandt, with numerous writers of light comedy and farce, such as E. Wichert, 0. Blumenthal, G. von Moser, A. LArronge and F. von SchOnthan, had produced a good many works of some merit. But, in the main, French artificiality and frivolity predominated on the German stage. In point of native talent and originality, the Austrian popular playwright Ludwig Anzengruber was well ahead of his North German contemporaries. It was in 1889, with the establishment of the Berlin Freie Buhne, that the reaction definitely set in. In Berlin, as afterwards in London, Ghosts was the first play produced on the outpost stage, but it was followed in Berlin by a very rapid development of native talent. Less than a month after the performance of Ibsens play, Gerhart Hauptmann came to the front with Vor Sonnenaufgang, an immature piece of almost unrelieved Zolaism, which he soon followed up, however, with much more important works. In Das Friedensfesi (1890) and Einsame Menschen (1891) he transferred his allegiance from Zola to Ibsen. His true originality first manifested itself in Die Weber (1892); and subsequently he produced plays in several different styles, all bearing the stamp of a potent individuality. His most popular productions have been the dramatic poems Hannele and Die versunkene Glocke, the low-life comedy Der Biberpelz, and the low-life tragedy Fu/irmann Henschel. Other remarkable playwrights belonging to the Freie Buhne group are Max Halbe (b. 1865), author of Jugend and Mutter Erde, and Otto Erich Hartleben (b. 1864), author of Hanna Jagert and Rosenmontag. These young men, however, so quickly gained the ear of the general public, that the need for a special free stage was no longer felt, and the Freie Btihne, having done its work, ceased to exist. Unlike the French Thtre Libre and the English Independent theatre, it had been supported from the outset by the most influential critics, and had won the day almost without a battle. The productions of the new school soon made their way even into some of the subventioned theatres; but it was the unsubventioned Deutsches Theater of Berlin that most vigorously continued the tradition of the Freie Bflhne. One or two playwrights of the new generation, however, did not actually belong to the Freie Buhne group. Hermann Sudermann produced his first play, Die Ekre, in 1888, and his most famous work, Hei mat, in 1892. In him the influence of Ibsen is very clearly perceptible; while Arthur Schnitzler of Vienna, author of Liebelei, may rather be said to derive his inspiration from the Parisian new comedy. Originality, verging sometimes on abnormality, distinguishes the work of Frank Wedekind (b. 1864), author of Erdgeist and Fruhlingserwachen. Hugo von Hofmannsthal (b. 1874), in his Elektra and Odipus, rehandles classic themes in the light of modern anthropology and psychology.

The promoters of the Thtre Libre had probably never beard of Ibsen when they established that institution, but three years later his fame had reached France, and Les Revenants was produced by the Th~tre Libre (29th May 1890). Within the next two or three years almost all his modern plays were acted in Paris, most of them either by the Thtre Libre or by L~Euvre. Close upon the heels of the Ibsen influence followed another, less potent, but by no means negligible. The exquisite tragic symbolism of Maurice Maeterlinck began to find numerous admirers about 1890. In 1891 his one-act play LIntruse was acted; in 1893, Pell~as et Mlisande. By this time, too, the reverberation of the impulse which the Thtre Libre had given to the Freie Buhne began to be felt in France. In 1893 Hauptmanns Die Weber was acted in Paris, and, being frequently repeated, made a deep and lasting impression.

The English analogue to the Thtre Libre, the Independent theatre, opened its first season (March 13, 1891) with a performance of Ghosts. This was not, however, the first introduction of Ibsen to the English stage. On the 7th of June 1889 (six weeks after the production of The Profligate) A Dolls House was acted at the Novelty theatre, and ran for three weeks, amid a storm of critical controversy. In the same year Pillars of Society was presented in London. In 1891 and 1892 A Dolls House was frequently acted; Rosmersholm was produced in 1891, and again in 1893; in May and June 1891 Hedda Gabler had a run of several weeks; and early in 1893 The Master Builder enjoyed a similar passing vogue. During these years, then, Ibsen was very much in the air in England, as well as in France and Germany. The Independent theatre, in the meantime, under the management of J. T. Grein, found but scanty material to deal with. It presented translations of Zolas Tkrse Raquin, and of A Visit, by the Danish dramatist Edward Brandes; but it brought to the front only one English author of any note, in the person of George Bernard Shaw, whose didactic realistic play, Widowers Houses, it produced in December 1892.

None the less is it true that the ferment of fresh energy, which between 1887 and 1893 had created a new dramatic literature both in France and in Germany, was distinctly felt in England as well. England did not take at all kindly to it. The productions of Ibsens plays, in particular, were received with an outcry of reprobation. A great part of this clamour was due to sheer misunderstanding; but some of it, no doubt, arose from genuine and deep-seated distaste. As for the dramatists of recognized standing, they one and all, both from policy and from conviction, adopted a hostile attitude towards Ibsen, expressing at most a theoretical respect overborne by practical dislike. Yet his influence permeated the atmosphere. He had revealed possibilities of technical stagecraft and psychological delineation that, once realized, were not to be banished from the mind of the thoughtful playwright. They haunted him in spite of himself. Still subtler was the influence exerted over the critics and the more intelligent public. Deeply and genuinely as many of them disliked Ibsens works, they found, when they returned to the old-fashioned play, the adapted frivolityor the homegrown sentimentalism, that they disliked this still more. On every side, then, there was an instinctive or deliberate reaching forward towards something new; and once again it was Pinero who yentured the decisive step.

On the 27th of May 1893 The Second Mrs Tanqueray was produced at the St Jamess theatre. With The Second Mrs Tan queray the English acted drama ceased to be a merely insular product, and took rank in the literature of Europe. Here was a play which, whatever its faults, was obviously comparable with the plays of Dumas,of Sudermann,of Bjrnson,of Echegaray. It might be better than some of these plays, worse than others; hut it stood on the same artistic level. The fact that such a play could not only be produced, but could brilliantly succeed, on the London stage gave a potent stimulus to progress. It encouraged ambition in authors, enterprise in managers. What Hernani was to the romantic movement of the thirties, and La Dame aux camlias to the realistic movement of the fifties, ,The Second Mrs Tan queray was to the movement of the nineties towards the serious stage-portraiture of English social life. All the forces which we have been tracingRobertsonian realism of externals, the leisure for thought and experiment involved in vastly improved financial conditions, the substitution in France of a simpler, subtler technique for the outworn artifices of the Scribe school, and the electric thrill communicated to the whole theatrical life of Europe by contact with the genius of Ibsen all these slowly converging forces coalesced to produce, in The Second Mrs Tan queray, an epoch-marking play.

Pinero followed up Mrs Tan queray with a remarkable series of playsThe Notorious Mrs Ebbsmith, The Benefit of the Doubt, The Princess and the Butterfly, Trelawny of the Wells, The Gay Lord Quex, Iris, Letty, His House in Order and The Thunderboltall of which show marked originality of conception and intellectual force. In January 1893 Charles Wyndham initiated a new policy at the Criterion theatre, and produced an original play, The Bauble-Shop, by Henry Arthur Jones. It belonged very distinctly to the pre-Tanqueray order of things; but the same authors The Case of Rebellious Susan, in the following year, showed an almost startlingly sudden access of talent, which was well maintained in such later works as Michael and his Lost Angel (1896), that admirable comedy The Liars (1897), and Mrs Danes Defence (1900). Sydney Grundy produced after 1893 by far his most important original works, Tile Greatest of These (1896) and The Debt of Honor (1900). R. C. Carton, breaking away from the somewhat labored sentimentalism of his earlier manner, produced several light comedies of thoroughly original humour and of excellent literary workmanshipLord and Lady Algy, Wheels within Wheels, Lady Huntworths Experiment, Mr Hopkinson and Mr Preedy and the Countess. Haddon Chambers, in The Tyranny of Tears (1899) and The Awakening (1901), produced two plays of a merit scarcely foreshadowed in his earlier efforts.

What was of more importance, a new generation of playwrights came to the front. Its most notable representatives were J. M. Barrie, who displayed his inexhaustible gift of humorous observation and invention in Quality Street (1902), The Admirable Cricilton (1903), Little Mary (1903), Peter Pan (1904), Alice Sit-by-the-Fire (1905) and What Every Woman Knows (1908); Mrs Craigie (John Oliver Hobbes), who produced in The Ambassador (1808) a comedy of fine accomplishment; and H. V. Esmond, Alfred Sutro, Hubert Henry Davies, W. S. Maugham, Rudolf Besier, Roy Horniman and J. B. Fagan.

Meanwhile, the efforts to relieve the drama from the pressure of the long-run system had not been confined to the Independent theatre. Several other enterprises of a like nature had proved more or less short-lived; but the Stage Society, founded in 1900, was conducted with more energy and perseverance, and became a real force in the dramatic world. After two seasons devoted mainly to Bernard Shaw, Ibsen, Maeterlinck and Hauptmann, it produced in its third season The Marrying of Ann Leete, by Granville Barker (b. 1877), who had developed in its service his remarkable gifts as a producer of plays. A year or two later, Barker staged for another organization, the New Century theatre, Professor Gilbert Murrays rendering of the Hippo! ytus of Euripides; and it was partly the success of this production that suggested the Vedrenne-Barker partnership at the Court theatre, which, between 1904 and 1907, gave an extraordinary fInpulse to the intellectual life of the theatre. Adopting the short run system, as a compromise between the long-run and the repertory systems, the Vedrenne-Barker management made the plays of Bernard Shaw (both old and new) for the first time really popular. Of the plays already published You Never Can Tell and Man and Superman were the most successful; of the new plays, John Bulls Other Island, Major Barbara and The Doctors Dilemma. But though Shaw was the mainstay of the enterprise, it gave opportunities to several other writers, the most notable being John Galsworthy (b. 1867), author of The Silver Box and Strife, St John Hankin (1869-1909), author of The Return of the Prodigal and The Charity that began at Home, and Granville Barker himself, whose plays The Voysey Inheritance and Waste (1907) were among the most important products of this movement. It should also be noted that the production of the Hip polytus was followed up by the production of the Trojan Women, the Electra and the Medea of Euripides, all translated by Gilbert Murray.

The impulse to which were due the Independent theatre, the Stage Society and the Vedrenne-Barker management, combined with local influences to bring about the foundation in Dublin of the Irish National theatre. Its moving spirit was the poet W. B. Yeats (b. 1865), who wrote for it Cathleen-ni-Hoolihan, The Hour-Glass, The Kings Threshold and one or two other plays. Lady Gregory, Padraic Collum, Boyle and other authors also contributed to the repertory of this admirable little theatre; but its most notable products were the plays of J. M. Synge (1871-1909), whose Riders to the Sea, Well of the Saints and Playboy of the Western World showed a fine and original dramatic faculty combined with extraordinary beauty of style.

Both in Manchester and in Glasgow endeavours have been made, with considerable success, to counteract the evils of the touring system, by the establishment of resident companies acting the better class of modern plays on a short-run plan, similar to that of the Vedrenne-Barker management. The Manchester enterprise was to some extent subsidized by Miss E. Horniman, and may therefore claim to be the first endowed theatre in England. The need for endowment on a much larger scale was, however, strongly advocated in the early years of the 20th century by the more progressive supporters of English drama, and in 1908 found a place in the scheme for a Shakespeare National theatre, which was then superimposed on the earlier proposal for a memorial commemorating the Shakespeare tercentenaly, organized by an influential committee under the chairmanship of the Lord Mayor of London. The scheme involved the raising of 500,000, half to be devoted to the requisite site and building, while the remainder would be invested so as to furnish an annual subvention.

It remains to say a few words of the English literary drama, as opposed to the acted drama. The two classes are not nearly so distinct as they once were; but plays continue to be produced from time to time which are wholly unfitted for the theatre, and others which, though they may be experimentally placed on the stage, make their appeal rather to the reading public. Tennyson had essayed in his old age an art which is scarcely to be mastered after the energy of youth has passed. He continued to the last to occupy himself more or less with drama, and all his plays, except Harold, found their way to the stage. The Cup and Becket, as we have seen, met with a certain success, but The Promise of May (1882), an essay in contemporary drama, was a disastrous failure, while The Falcon (1879) and The Foresters (acted by an American company in 1893) made little impression. Lord Tennyson was certainly not lacking in dramatic faculty, but he worked in an outworn form which he had no longer the strength to renovate. Swinburn.e continued now and then to cast his creations in the dramatic mould, but it cannot be said that his dramas attained either the vitality or the popularity of his lyrical poems. Mary Stuart (1881) brought his Marian trilogy to a close. In Locrine he produced a tragedy in heroic coupletsa thing probably un.attempted since the age of Dryden. The Sisters is a tragedy of modern date with a medieval drama inserted by way of interlude. Rosamund, Queen of the Lombards (1899), perhaps approached more nearly than any~ of his former works to the concentration essential to drama. It may be doubted, however, whether his copious and ebullient style could ever really subject itself to the trammels of dramatic form. Of other dramas on the Elizabethan model, the most notable, perhaps, were the works of two ladies who adopt the pseudonym of Michael Field; Callirrhoe (1884), Brutus Ultor (1887), and many other dramas, show considerable power of imagination and expression, but are burdened by a deliberate artificiality both of technique and style. Alfred Austin put forth several volumes in dramatic form, such as Savonarola (1881), Prince Lucifer (1887), Englands Darling (1896), Flodden Field (1905). They are laudable in intention and fluent in utterance. Notable additions to the purely literary drama were made by Robert Bridges in his Prometheus (1883), Nero (1885), The Feast of Bacchus (1889), and other solid plays in verse, full of science and skill, but less charming than his lyrical poems. Sir Lewis Morris made a dramatic experiment in Gycia, but was not encouraged to repeat it.

From the outset of his career, John Davidson (1857-1909) was haunted by the conviction that he was a born dramatist; but his earlier plays, such as Smith: a Tragedy (1886), Bruce: a Chronicle Play (1884) and Scaramouch in Naxos (1888), contained more poetry than drama; and his later pieces, such as Selfs the Man (1901), The Theatrocrat (1905) and the Triumph of Mammon (I9o7), showed a species of turbulent imagination, but became more and more fantastic and impradicable. Stephen Phillips (b. 1867), on the other hand, having had some experience as an actor, wrote always with the stage in view. In his first play, Paolo and Francesca (1899; produced in 1902), he succeeded in combining great beauty of diction with intense dramatic power and vitality. The same may be said of Herod (1900); but in Ulysses (1902) and Nero (1906) a great fallingoff in constructive power was only partially redeemed by the fine inspiration of individual passages.

The collaboration of Robert Louis Stevenson with William Ernest Henley produced a short series of interesting experiments in drama, two of which, Beau Austin (1883) and Admiral Guinea (1884), had more than a merely experimental value. The former was an emotional comedy, treating with rare distinction of touch a difficult, almostan impossible, subject; the latter was a nautical melodrama, raised by force of imagination. and diction. into the region of literature. Imcomparably the most important of recent additions to the literary drama is Thomas Hardys vast panorama of the Napoleonic wars, entitled The Dynasts (I9o4I9o8). It is rather an epic in. dialogue than a play; but however we may classify it we cannot but recognize its extraordinary intellectual and imaginative powers.

United States.American dramatists have shown on their own account a progressive tendency, quite as marked as that which we have been tracing in England. Down to about I 89o the influence of France had been even more predominant in America than in England. The only American dramatist of eminence, Bronson Howard (I 8421908), was a disciple, though a very able one, of the French school. A certain stirring of native originality manifested itself during the eighties, when a series of semi-improvised farces, associated with the names of two actor-managers, Harrigan and Hart, depicted low life in New York with real observation, though in a crude and formless manner. About the same time a native style of popular melodrama began to make its appearancea play of conventional and negligible plot, which attracted by reason of one or more faithfully observed character-types, generally taken from country life. The Old Homestead, written by Denman Thompson, who himself acted in it, was the most popular play of this class. Rude as it was, it distinctly foreshadowed that faithfulness to the external aspects, at any rate, of everyday life, in which lies the strength of the native American drama. It was at a sort of free theatre in Boston. that James A. Herne (1840-1901) produced in 1891 his realistic drama of modern life, Margaret Fleming, which did a great deal to awaken the interest of literary America in the theatrical movement. Herne, an actor and a most accomplished stage-manager, next produced a drama of rural life in New England, Shore Acres (1892), which made an immense popular success. It was a play of the Old Homestead type, but very much more coherent and artistic. His next play, Griffith Davenport (1898), founded on a novel, was a drama of life in Virginia during the Civil War, admirable in its strength and quiet sincerity; while in his last work, Sag Harbour (1900), Herne returned to the study of rustic character, this time in Long Island. Herne showed human nature in its more obvious and straightforward aspects, making no attempt at psychological subtlety; but within his own limits he was an admirable craftsman. The same preoccupation with local color is manifest in the plays of Augustus M. Thomas, a writer of genuine humour and originality. His localism announces itself in the very titles of his mast popular playsAlabama, In Mizzoura, Arizona. He also made a striking success in The Witching Hour, a play dealing with the phenomena of hypnotism and suggestion. Clyde Fitch (1865-1909), an immensely prolific playwright of indubitable ability, after becoming known by some experiments in quasi-historic drama (notably Nathan Hale, 1898; Barbara Frietchie, 1899), devoted himself mainly to social drama on the French model, in which his most notable efforts have been The Climbers (1900), The Truth (1906), and The Girl with the Green Eyes (1902). In popular drama, with elaborate scenic illustration, William Gillette (b. 1856), David Belasco (b. 1859) and Charles Klein (b. 1867) have done notable work. William Vaughn Moody (b. 1869) produced in The Great Divide (1907) a play of somewhat higher artistic pretensions; Eugene Walter in Paid in Full (1908) and The Easiest Way (1909) dealt vigorously with characteristic themes of modern life; and Edward Sheldon produced in Salvation Nell a slum drama of very striking realism. The poetic side of drama was mainly represented by Percy Mackaye (b. 1875), whose Jeanne dArc (1906) and Sapplio and Phaon showed a high ambition and no small literary power. On the whole it may be said that, though the financial conditions of the American stage are even more unfortunate than those which prevail in England, they have failed to check a very strong movement towards nationalism in drama. Season by season, America writes more of her own plays, good or bad, and becomes less dependent on imported work, whether French or English.


(g) German Drama.

The history of the German drama differs widely from that, of the English, though a close contact is observable between them at an early point, and again at relatively recent points, in their annals. The dramatic literature of Germany, though in its beginnings intimately connected with the great national movement of the Reformation, soon devoted its efforts to a sterile imitation of foreign models; while the popular stage, persistently suiting itself to a robust but gross taste, likewise largely due to the influence of foreign examples, seemed destined to a hopeless decay. The literary and the acted drama were thus estranged from one another during a period of extraordinary length; nor was it till the middle of the 18th century that, with the opening of a more ra1ceful era for the life and literature of the nation, the reunion of dramatic literature and the stage began to accomplish itself. Before the end of the same century the progress of the German drama in its turn began to influence that of other nations, and by the widely comprehensive character of its literature, as well as by the activity of its stage, to invite a steadily increasing interest.

It should be premised that in its beginnings the modern German drama might have seemed likely to be influenced even more largely than the English or the French by the copious imitation of classical models which marked The Latin the periods of the Renaissance and the Reformation; ~ but here the impulse of originality was wanting to bring about a speedy and gradually a complete emancipation, and imitative reproduction continued in an all but endless series. The first German (and indeed the earliest transalpine) writer to follow in the footsteps of the modern Latin drama of the Italians was the famous Strassburg humanist Jacob Wimpheling (1450-1528), whose comedy of Stylpho (1480), an attack upon the ignorance of the pluralist beneficed clergy, marks a kind of epoch in the history of German dramatic effort. It was succeeded by many other Latin plays of various kinds, among which may be mentioned J. Kerckmeisters Cod rus (1485), satirizing pedantic schoolmasters; a series of historical dramas in a moralizing vein, partly on the Turkish peril, as well as of comedies, by Jacob Locher (1471-1528); two plays by the great Johann Reuchlin, of which the so-called Henno went through more than thirty editions; and the Ludus Dianae, with another play likewise in honor of the emperor Maximilian I., by the celebrated Viennese scholar Conrad Celtes (1459-1508). Sebastian B rants Hercules in Bivio (1512) is lost; but Wilibald Pirckheimers Eckius dedolatus (I 520) survives as a dramatic, contribution to Luthers controversy with one of his most active opponents. The Acolastus (1525) of W. Gnaphaeus (alias Fullonius, his native name was de Volder) should also be mentioned in the present connection, as, though a Dutchman by birth, he spent most of his literary life in Germany. This Terentian version of the parable of the Prodigal Son was printed in an almost endless number of editions, as well as in various versions in modern tongues, among which reference has already been made to the English, for the use of schools, by J. Palsgrave (1540). Macropedius (Langhveldt) belongs wholly to the Low Countries. In Germany the stream of these compositions continued to flow almost without abatement throughout the earlier half of the 16th century; but in the days of the Reformation it takes a turn to scriptural subjects, and during the latter part of the century remains on the whole faithful to this preference.i These Latin plays may be called school-dramas in the most precise sense; for they were both performed in the schools and read in class with commentaries specially composed for them; nor was it except very reluctantly that in this age the vernacular drama was allowed to intrude into scholastic circles. It should be noticed that the Jesuit order, which afterwards proved so keenly alive to the influence which dramatic performances exercise over the youthful mind, only ~,i~SUft very gradually abandoned the principle, formally sanctioned in their Ratio studiorum, that the acting of plays (these being always in the Latin tongue) should only rarely be permitted in their seminaries. The flourishing period of the Jesuit drama begins with the spread of, the order in the west and south-west of the Empire in the last decade of the Ioth century, and then continues, through the vicissitudes of good and evil, with a curious intermixture of Latin and German plays, during the whole of the x7th and the better part of the 18th. These productions, which ranged in their subjects from biblical and classical story to themes of contemporary history (such as the relief of Vienna by Sobiesky and the peace of Ryswick), seem generally to bear the mark of their authorshipthat of teachers appointed by their superiors to execute this among other tasks allotted to them; but, as it seems unnecessary to return to this special growth, it may be added that the extraordinary productiveness of the Jesuit dramatists, and the steadiness of self-repetition which is equally characteristic of them, should warn us against underrating its influence upon a considerable proportion of the nations educational life during a long succession of generations.

While the scholars of the German Renaissance, who became so largely the agents of the Reformation, eagerly dramatized Begin- scriptural subjects in the Latin, and sometimes (as in i the case of Luthers protg P. Rebhuni) in the native vernacular tongue, the same influence made itself felt in another German sphere of dramatic activity. Towards the close of the drama. middle ages, as has been seen, dramatic performances had in Germany, as in England, largely fallen into the hands of the civic gilds, and the composition of plays was more especially cultivated by ,the master-singers of Nuremberg and other towns. It was thus that, under the influence of the Reformation, and of the impulse given by Luther and others to the use of High German as the popular literary tongue, Hans Sachs, the immortal shoemaker of Nuremberg, seemed destined to become the father of the popular German drama. In his plays, spiritual, secular, and Faslnachtsspiele alike, the interest indeed lies in the dialogue rather than in the action, nor do they display any attempt at development of character. In their subjects, whether derived from Scripture or from popular legend and fiction,s there is no novelty, and in their treatment no originality. But the healthy vigour and fresh humour of this marvelously fertile author, and his innate sympathy with the views and sentiments of the burgher class to which he belonged, were elements of genuine promisea promise which the event was signally to disappoint. Though the manner of Hans Sachs found a few followers, and is recognizable in the German popular drama even of the beginning of the i7th century, the literature of the Reformation, of which his works may claim to form part, was soon absorbed in labors of a very different kind. The stage, after admitting novelties introduced from Italy or (under Jesuit supervision) from Spain, was subjected to another and enduring influence. Among the foreign actors of various nations who flitted through the innumerable courts of the empire, or found a temporary Thee h home there, special prominence was acquired, towards cie~ians. the close of the 16th and in the early years of the 17th century, by the English comedians, who appeared at Cassel, Wolfenbuttel, Berlin, Dresden, Cologne, &c. Through these players a number of early English dramas found their way into Germany, where they were performed in more or less imperfect versions, and called forth imitations by native authors. Duke Henry Julius of Brunswick-Luneburg3 (1564-1613) and Jacob Ayrer (a citizen of Nuremberg, where he died, 1605) represent the endeavours of the early German drama to suit its still uncouth forms to themes suggested by English examples; and in their works, and in those of contemporary playwrights, there reappears no small part of what we may conclude to have been the English comedians repertoire.4 (The converse influence of German themes brought home with them by the English actors, or set in motion by their strolling ubiquity, cannot have been equal in extent, though Shakespeare himself may have derived the idea of one of his plots5 from such a source). But, though welcome to both princes and people, the exertions of these foreign comedians, and of the native imitators who soon arose in the earliest professional companies of actors known in Germany, instead of bringing about a union between the stage and literature, led to a directly opposite result. The popularity of these strollers was owing partly to the (very real) blood and other horrors with which their plays were deluged, partly to the buffoonery with which they seasoned, and the various tricks and feats with which they diversified, their perSusanna (Geistliches Spiel) (1536), &c. Sixt Birk also brought out a play on the story of Susanna, which he had previously treated in a Latin form, in the vernacular (1552).

2 Siegfried; Eulenspiegel, &c.

~ Susanna; Vincentius Ladislaus, &c.

4 Mahomet; Edward III.; Hamlet; Romeo and Juliet, &c. The Tempest (Ayrer, Comedia v. d. schonen Sidea).

formances. The representatives of the English clowns had learnt much on their way from their brethren in the Netherlands, where in this period the art of grotesque acting greatly flourished. Nor were the aids of other arts neglected,to this day in Germany professors of the equestrian drama are known by the popular appellation of English riders. From these true descendants of the mimes, then, the professional actors in Germany inherited a variety of tricks and traditions; and soon the favorite figures of the popular comic stage became conventional, and were stereotyped by the use of masks. Among these an acknowledged supremacy was acquired by the native Hans Wurst (Jack Pudding)of whose name Luther disavowed the invention, and who is known already to Hans Sachsthe privileged buffoon, and for a long series of generations the real lord and master, of the German stage. If that stage, with its grossness and ribaldry, seemed likely to become permanently estranged from Separat~n the tastes and sympathies of the educated classes, between the fault was by no means entirely its own and that the stage of its patron the populace. The times were evil times for a national effort of any kind; and poetic literature era s~. was in all its branches passing into the hands of scholars who were often pedants, and whose language was a jargon of learned affectations. Thus things continued, till the awful visitation of the Thirty Years War cast a general blight upon the national life, and the traditions of the popular theatre were left to the guardianship of the marionettes (Puppenspiele) I

When, in the midst of that war, German poets once more began to essay the dramatic form, the national drama was left outside their range of vision. M. Opitz, who holds an The honored place in the history of the German language litarary and literature, in this branch of his labors contented drama of himself with translations of classical dramas and of the 17th Italian pastoralsamong the latter one of Rinuccinis Cell U~.V. Daphne, with which the history of the opera in Germany begins. A. Gryphius, though as a comic dramatist lacking neither vigour nor variety, and acquainted with Shakespearian 6 as well as Latin and Italian examples, chiefly devoted himself to the imitation of Latin, earlier French, and Dutch tragedy, the rhetorical dialogue of which he effectively reproduced in the Alexandrine metre.1 Neither the turgid dramas of D. C. von Lohenstein (1665-1684), for whose Cleopatra the honor of having been the first German tragedy has been claimed, nor even the much healthier comedies of Chr. Weise (1642-1708) were brought upon the stage; while the religious plays of J. Klay (I6161656) are mere recitations connected with the Italian growth of the oratorio. The frigid allegories commemorative of contemporary events, with which the learned from time to time supplied the theatre, and the pastoral dramas with which the idyllic poets of Nuremberg the shepherds of the Pegnitz after the close of the war gratified the peaceful longings of their fellow-citizens, were alike mere scholastic efforts. These indeed continued in the universities and gymnasia to keep alive the love of both dramatic composition and dramatic representation, and to encourage the theatrical taste which led so many students into the professional companies. But neither these dramatic exercises nor the ludi Caesarei in which the Jesuits at Vienna revived the pomp and pageantry, and the mixture of classical and Christian symbolism, of the Italian Renaissance, had any influence upon the progress of the popular drama.

The history of the German stage remains to about the second decennium of the 18th century one of the most melancholy, as it is in its way one of the most instructive, chapters of theatrical history. Ignored by the world of letters, Engelsft the actors in return deliberately sought to emancipate t~efora,. their art from all dependence upon literary material.

Improvisation reigned supreme, not only in farce,where Hans Wurst, with the aid of Italian examples, never ceased to charm 6 Herr Peter Squenz (Pyramus and Thisbe); Horribilicribrifax (Pistol ?).

His son, Christian Gryphius, was author of a curious dramatic summary (or revue) of German history, both literary and political; but the title of this school-drama is far too long for quotatron.

his public, but in the serious drama likewise (in which, however, he also played his part) in those Haupt- und Staatsactionen (highmatter-of-state-dramas), the plots of which were taken from the old stores of the English comedians, from the religious drama and its sources, and from the profane history of all times. The hero of this period is Magister J. Velthen (or Veitheim), who at the head of a company of players for a time entered the service of the Saxon court, and, by reproducing comedies of Moliere and other writers, sought to restrain the licence which he had himself carried beyond all earlier precedent, but who had to fall back into the old ways and the old life. His career exhibits the climax of the efforts of the art of acting to stand alone; after his death (c. 1693) chaos ensues. The strolling companies, which now included actresses, continued to foster the popular love of the stage, and even under its most degraded form to uphold its national character against the rivalry of the opera, and that of the Italian comtnedia deli arte. From the latter was borrowed Harlequin, with whom Hans Wurst was blended, and who became a standing figure in every kind of popular play.f He established his sway more especially at Vienna, where from about 1712 the first permanent German theatre was maintained. But for the actors in general there was little permanence, and amidst miseries of all sorts, and under the growing ban of clerical intolerance, the popular stage seemed destined to hopeless lecay. A certain vitality of growth seems, under clerical guidance, to have characterized the plays of the people in Bavaria and parts of Austria.

The first endeavours to reform what had thus apparently passed beyond all reach of recovery were neither wholly nor K generally successful; but this does not diminish the ~ honor due to two names which should never be Qottsched, mentioned without respect in connection with the and the history of the drama. Friederike Karoline Neubers LeipzIg (169 7I 760) biography is the story of a long-continued SC 00. effort which, notwithstanding errors and weaknesses, and though, so far as her personal fortunes were concerned, it ended in failure, may almost be described as heroic. As directress of a company of actors which from 1727 had its headquarters at Leipzig (hence the new school of acting is called the Leipzig school), she resolved to put an end to the formlessness of the existing stage, to separate tragedy and comedy, and to extinguish Harlequin. In this endeavour she was supported by the Leipzig professor J. Chr. Gottsched, who induced her to establish French tragedy and comedy as the sole models of the regular drama. Literature and the stage thus for the first time joined hands, and no temporary mischance or personal misunderstanding can obscure the enduring significance of the union. Not only were the abuses of a century swept away from a representative theatre, but a large number of literary works, designed for the stage, were produced on it. It is true that they were but versions or imitations from the French (or in the case of Gottscheds Dying Cato from the French and English) ,I and that at the moment of the regeneration of the German drama new fetters were thus imposed upon it, and upon the art of acting at the same time. But the impulse had been given, and the beginning made. On the one hand, men of letters began to subject their dramatic compositions to the test of performance; the tragedies and comedies of J. E. Schlegel, the artificial and sentimental comedies of Chr. F. Gellert and others, together with the vigorous popular comedies of the Danish dramatist Holberg, were brought into competition with translations from the French. On the other hand, the ~ ,,, Leipzig school exercised a continuous effect upon the progress of the art of acting, and before long K. Ekhof began a career which made his art a fit subject for the critical study of scholars, and his profession one to be esteemed by honorable men.

Among the authors contributing to Mme. Neubers Leipzig enterprise had been a young student destined to complete, after 2 Deschamps and Addison.

a very different fashion and with very differeiit aims, the work which she and Gottsched had begun. The critical genius of G. E. Lessing is peerless in its comprehensiveness, as in its LesSIi~g. keenness and depth; but if there was any branch of literature and art which by study and practice he made preeminently his own, it was that of the drama. As bearing upon the progress of the German theatre, his services to its literature, both critical and creative, can only be described as inestimable. The Hamburgische Dramaturgie, a series of criticisms of plays and (in its earlier numbers) of actors, was undertaken in furtherance of the attempt to establish at Hamburg the first national German theatre (1767-1769). This fact alone would invest these papers with a high significance; for, though the theatrical enterprise proved abortive, it established the principle upon which the progress of the theatre in all countries dependsthat for the dramatic art the immediate theatrical public is no sufficient court of appeal. But the direct effect of the Dramaturgie was to complete the task which Lessing had in previous writings begun, and to overthrow the dominion of the arbitrary French rules and the French models established by Gottsched. Lessing vindicated its real laws to the drama, made clear the difference between the Greeks and their would-be representatives, and established the claims of Shakespeare as the modern master of both tragedy and comedy. His own dramatic productivity was cautious, tentative, progressive. His first step was, by his Miss Sara Sampson (1755), to oppose the realism of the English domestic drama to the artificiality of the accepted French models, in the forms of which Chr. F. Weisse (1726-1804) was seeking to treat the subjects of Shakespearian plays.3 Then, in his Minna von Barnheim (1767), which owed something to Farquhar, he essayed a national comedy drawn from real life, and appealing to patriotic sentiments as well as to broad human sympathies. It was written in prose (like Miss Sara Sampson), but in form held a judicious mean between French and English examples.

The note sounded by the criticisms of Lessing met with a ready response, and the productivity displayed by the nascent dramatic literature of Germany is astonishing, both ~ ol in the efforts inspired by his teachings and in those the theatre which continued to controvert or which aspired and of to transcend them. On the stage, Harlequin and literature. his surroundings proved by no means easy to suppress, more especially at Vienna, the favorite home of frivolous amusement; but even here a reform was gradually effected, and, under the intelligent rule of the emperor Joseph II., a national stage grew into being. The mantle of Ekhof fell upon the shoulders of his eager younger rival, F. L. Schrder, who was the first to domesticate Shakespeare upon the German stage. In dramatic literature few of Lessings earlier contemporaries produced any works of permanent value, unless the religious dramas of F. G. Klopstocka species in which he had been preceded by J. J. Bodmerand the patriotic Bardietien of the same author be excepted. S. Gessner, J. W. L. Gleim, and G. K. Pfeffel (1736-1809) composed pastoral plays. But a far more potent stimulus prompted the efforts of the younger generation. The translation of Shakespeare, begun in 1762 by C. M. Wieland, whose own plays possess no special significance, and completed in 1775 by Eschenburg, which furnished the text for many of Lessings criticisms, helps to mark an epoch in German literature. Under the influence of Shakespeare, or of their conceptions of his genius, arose a youthful group of writers who, while worshipping their idol as the representative of nature, displayed but slight anxiety to harmonize their imitations of him with the demands of art. The notorious Ugolino of H. W. von Gerstenberg seemed a premonitory sign that the coming flood might merely rush back to the extravagances and horrors of the old popular stage; and it was with a sense of this danger in prospect that Lessing in his third important drama, the prose tragedy Einilia Galotti (1772), set the example of a work of incomparable nicety in its adaptation of means to end. But successful as it proved, it could not stay the excesses of the Sturm find Drang period 8 Richard III.; Romeo and Juliet.

which now set in. Lessings last drama, Nathan der Weise (1779), was not measured to the standard of the contemporary stage; but it was to exercise its influence in the progress of timenot only by causing a reaction in tragedy from prose to blank verse (first essayed in J. W. von Brawes Brutus, 1770), but by ennobling and elevating by its moral and intellectual grandeur the branch of literature to which in form it belongs.

Meanwhile the young geniuses of the Slurm und Drang had gone forth, as worshippers rather than followers of Shakespeare, to conquer new worlds. The name of this group of d writers, moreremarkable for their collective significance ~ than for their individual achievements, was derived from a drama by one of the most prolific of their number, M. F. von Klinger; i other members of the fraternity were J. A. Leisewitz1 (1752-1806), M. R. Lenz3 and F. MUller4 the painter. The youthful genius of the greatest of German. poets was itself under the influences of this period, when it produced the first of its masterpieces. But Goethes Gotz von Berlichingen (i~3), both by the choice and treatment of its national theme, and by the incomparable freshness and originality of its style, holds a position of its own in German dramatic literature. Though its defiant irregularity of form prevented its complete success upon the stage, yet its influence is far from being represented by the series of mostly feeble imitations to which it gave rise. The Ritterdramen (plays of chivalry) had their day like similar fashions in drama or romance; but the permanent effect of Gotz was, that it crushed as with an iron hand the last remnants of theatrical conventionality (those of costume and scenery included), and extinguished with them the lingering respect for rules and traditions of dramatic composition which even Lessing had treated with consideration. Its highest significance, however, lies in its having been the first great dramatic work of a great national poet, and having definitively associated the national drama with the poetic glories of the national literature.

Thus, in the classical period of that literature, of which Goethe and Schiller were the ruling stars, the drama had a full share o Lb of the loftiest of its achievements. Of these, the ~ dramatic works of Goethe vary so widely in form and character, and connect themselves so intimately with the different phases of the development of his own self-directed poetic genius, that it was impossible for any of them to become the starting-points of any general growths in the history of the German drama. His way of composition was, moreover, so peculiar to himselfconception often preceding execution by many years, part being added to part under the influence of new sentiments and ideas and views of art, flexibly followed by changes of formthat the history of his dramas cannot be severed from his general poetic and personal biography. His Clavigo and Stella, which succeeded Glz, are domestic dramas in prose; but neither by these, nor by the series of charming pastorals and operas which he composed for the Weimar court, could any influence be exercised upon the progress of the national drama. In the first conception of his Faust, he had indeed sought the suggestion of his theme partly in popular legend, partly in a domestic motive familiar to the authors of the Sturm und Drang (the story of Gretchen); the later additions to the First Part, and the Second Part generally, are the results of metaphysical and critical studies and meditations belonging to wholly different spheres of thought and experience. The dramatic unity of the whole is thus, at the most, external only; and the standard of judgment to be applied to this wondrous poem is not one of dramatic criticism. Egmont, originally designed as a companion to Gotz, was not completed till many years later; there are few dramas more effective in parts, but the idea of a historic play is lost in the elaboration of the most graceful of love episodes. In Iphigenia and Tasso, Goethe exhibited the perfection of form of which his classical period had 1Die Zwillinge (The Twins); Die Soldaten, &c.

2 Julius von Tarent.

2 Der Hofmeister (The Governor), &c. Genoveva, &c.

enabled him to acquire the mastery; but the sphere of the action of the former (perfect though it is as a dramatic action), and the nature of that of the latter, are equally remote from the demands of the popular stage. Schillers genius, &hlilr unlike Goethes, was naturally and consistently suited to the claims of the :theatre. His juvenile works, The Robbers, Fiesco, Kabale und Liebe, vibrating under the influence of an age of social revolution, combined in their prose form the truthful expression of passion with a considerable admixture of extravagance. But, with true insight into the demands of his art, and with unequalled single-mindedness and self-devotion to it, Schiller gradually emancipated himself from his earlier style; and with his earliest tragedy in verse, Don Carlos, the first period of his dramatic authorship ends, and the promise of the second announces itself. The works which belong to thisfrom the Wallenstein trilogy to Tell are the acknowledged masterpieces of the German poetic drama, treating historic themes reconstructed by conscious dramatic workmanship, and clothing their dialogue in a noble vestment of rhetorical verse. The plays of Schiller are the living embodiment of the theory of tragedy elaborated by Hegel, according to which its proper theme is the divine, or, in other words, the moving ethical, element in human action. In one of his later plays, The Bride of Messina, Schiller attempted a new use of the chorus of Greek tragedy; but the endeavour was a splendid error, and destined to exercise no lasting effect. The reaction against Schillers ascendancy began with writers who could not reconcile themselves with the cosmopolitan and non-national elements in his genius, and is stifi represented by eminent critics; but the future must be left to settle the contention.

Schillers later dramas had gradually conquered the stage, over which his juvenile works had in this time triumphantly passed, but on which his Don Carlos had met with a cold welcome. For a long time, however, its favorites were authors of a very different order, who suited st~. themselves to the demands of a public tolerably indifferent to the literary progress of the drama. After popular tastes had oscillated between the imitators of Gotz and those of Emilia Galotti, they entered into a more settled phase, as the establishment of standing theatres at the courts and in the large towns increased the demand for good acting plays. Famous actors, such as Schroder and A. W. Iffland, sought by translations or compositions of their own to meet the popular likings, which largely took the direction of that irrepressible favorite of theatrical audiences, the sentimental domestic drama.i But the most successful purveyor of such wares was an author who, though not himself an actor, understood the theatre with a professional instinctAugust von Kotzebue. His productivity ranged from the domestic drama and comedy of all kinds to attempts to rival Schiller and Shakespeare in verse; and though his popularity (which ultimately proved his doom) brought upon him the bitterest attacks of the romantic school and 4her literary authorities, his self-conceit is not astonishing, and the time has come for saying that there is some exaggeration in the contempt which has been lavished upon him by posterity.6 Nor should it be forgotten that German literature had so far failed to furnish the comic stage with any successors to Minna von Barnhelm; for Goethes efforts to dramatize characteristic events or figures of the Revolutionary age7 must be dismissed as failures, not from a theatrical point of view only. The joint efforts of Goethe and Schiller for the Weimar stage, important in many respects for the history of the German drama, at the same time reveal the want of a national dramatic literature sufficient 6 Die deutschen Kleinstddier is his most celebrated comedy and Menschenhass und Reuone of the most successful of his hentimental dramas. According to one classification he wrote 163 plays with a moral tendency, 5 with an immoral, and 48 doubtful.

I Der Groosskophta (Cagliostro); Der Burgergeneral.

to supply the needs of a theatre endeavouring to satisfy the demands of art.

Meanwhile the so-called romantic school of German literature was likewise beginning to extend its labors to original dramatic composition. From the universality of sympathies ,~~antIc proclaimed by this school, to whose leaders Germany school, owed its classical translation of Shakespeare,i and an introduction to the dramatic literatures of so many ages and nations,I a variety of new dramatic impulses might be expected; while much might be hoped for the future of the national drama (especially in its mixed and comic species) from the alliance between poetry and real life which they preached, and whic~h some of them sought personally to exemplify. But in practice universality presented itself as peculiarity or even as eccentricity; and in the end the divorce between poetry and real life was announced as authoritatively as their union had been. Outside this school, the youthful talent of Th. Korner, whose early promise as a dramatist3 might perhaps have ripened into a fulness enabling him not unworthily to occupy the seat left vacant by his fathers friend Schiller, was extinguished by a patriotic death. The efforts of M. von Collin (1779-1824) in the direction of the historical drama remained isolated attempts. But of the leaders of the romantic school, A. W.4 and F. von Schlegel contented themselves with frigid classicalities; and L. Tieck, in the strange alembic of his Phanlasus, melted legend and fairy-tale, novel and drama,6 poetry and satire, into a compound, enjoyable indeed, but hardly soin its entirety, or in many of its parts, to any but the literary mind.

F. de La Motte Fouqu infused a spirit of poetry into the chivalry drama. Klemens Brentano was a fantastic dramatist unsuited to the stage. Here a feeble outgrowth of the ~1Z~a- romanticists, the destiny dramatists Z. Werner ~

tists. the most original of the groupA. Milliner,8 and Baron C. E. v. Houwald,9 achieved a temporary furore; and it was with an attempt in the same direction nI that the Austrian dramatist F. Grillparzer began his long career. He is assuredly, what he pronounced himself to be, the fOremost of the later dramatic poets of Germany, unless that tribute be thought due to the genius of H. von Kleist, who in his short life produced, besides other works, a romantic drama n. and a rustic comedy 1I of genuine merit, and an historical tragedy of singular originality and power.i3 Grillparzers long series of plays includes poetic dramas on classical themes i and historical subjects from Austrian history,15 or treated from an Austrian point of view. The romantic school, which through Tieck had satirized the drama of the bourgeoisie and its offshoots, was in its turn satirized by Count A. von Platen-Hallermunds admirable imitations of Aristophanic comedy.16 Among the objects of his banter were the popular playwright E. Raupach, and K. Immermann, a true poet, who is, however, less generally remembered as a dramatist. F. Hebbel i1 is justly ranked high among the foremost later dramatic poets of his country, few of whom equal him in intensity. The eminent lyrical (especially ballad) poet L. Uhland left behind him a large number of dramatic fragments, but little or nothing really complete. Other names of literary mark are those of C. D. Grabbe, J. Mosen, 0. Ludwig ii (1813-1865), a dramatist of great power, and F. HaIm (Baron von MUnchBellinghausen) (1806-1871), and, among writers of a more 2 A. W. von Schlegel, Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature, &c.

Zriny, &c. Ion. i Alarcos.

8 Kaiser Octavianus; Der gestiefelte Kater (Puss in Boots), &c.

Der 24. Februar (produced on the Weimar stage with Goethes sanction). 8 Der 29. Februar; Die Schuld (Guilt).

Des Bild (The Picture); Der Leuchtthurm (The Lighthouse).

a Die A hnfrau (The A ncestress).

ii Das Kdthchen (Kate) von Heilbronn.

n Der zerbrochene Krug (The Broken Pitcher).

0 Prinz Friedrich von Homburg. i4 Sappho, Medea, &c.

h Konig Ottokars Glck und Ende (Fortune and Fall); Der Bruderzwist (Fraternal Feud) in Habsburg.

~ Die verhngnissvolle Gabel (The Fatal Fork); Der romantische Oedipus.

0 Die Nibelungen; Judith, &c. a Der Erbforster.

modern school, K. Gutzkow,59 G. Freytag,2 and H. Laube.21 L. Anzengruber, a writer of real genius though restricted range, imparted a new significance to the Austrian popular drama,~ formerly so commonplace in the hands of F. Raimund and J. Nestroy.

During the long period of transition which may be said to have ended with the establishment of the new German empire, the German stagein somemeasure anticipated the developments which more spacious times were to witness in the German drama. The traditions of the national stage of theatre contemporary with the great epoch of the the latter national literature were kept alive by a succession of eminent actorssuch as the nephews of Ludwig ~ Devrient, himself an artist of the greatest originality, whose most conspicuous success, though nature had fitted him for Shakespeare, was achieved in Schillers earliest play.21 Among the younger generation of Devrients the most striking personality was that of Emil; his elder brother Karl August, husband of Wilhelmine Schrder-Devrient, the brilliant star of the operatic stage, and their son Friedrich, were also popular actors; yet another brother, Eduard, is more widely remembered as the historian of the German stage. Partly by reason of the number and variety of its centres of intellectual and artistic life, Germany was long enabled both to cherish the few masterpieces of its own drama, and, with the aid of a language well adapted for translation, to give admittance to the dramatic masterpieces of other nations also, and to Shakespeare in particular, without going far in the search for theatrical novelty or effect. But a change came over the spirit of German theatrical management with the endeavours of H. Laube, from about the middle of the century onwards, at Vienna (and Leipzig), which avowedlyplac~d the demands of the theatre as such above those of literary merit or even of national sentiment. In a less combative spirit, F. Dingelstedt, both at Munich, which under King Maxithilian he had made a kindly nurse of German culture, and, after his efforts there had come to an untimely end,24 at Weimar and at Vienna, raised the theatre to a very high level of artistic achievement. The most memorable event in the annals of his managements was the production on the Weimar stage of the series of Shakespeares histories. At a rather later period, of which the height extended from 1874 to 1890, the company of actors in the service, and under the personal direction, of Duke George of Saxe-Meiningen, created a great effect by their performances both in and outside Germanynot so, much by their artistic improvements in scenery and decoration, as by the extraordinary perfection of their ensemble. But no dramaturgic achievement in the century could compare in grandeur either of conception or of execution with Richard Wagners Bayreuth performances, where, for the first time in the hi~tory of the modern stage, the artistic instinct ruled supreme in all the conditions of the~ work and its presentment. Though the Ring of the Nibelungs and its successors belong to opera rathef than drama proper, the importance of their production (1876) should be overlooked by no student of the dramatic art. Potent as has been the influence of foreign dramatic literatureswhether French or Scandinavian and that of a movement which has been common to them all, and from which the German was perhaps the least likely to exclude itself, the most notable feature in the recent history of the German drama has been its quick response to wholly new demands, which, though the attempt was made with some persistence, could no longer be met without an effort to span the widths and sound the depths of a more spacious and more self-conscious era.25

19 Uriel Acosta; Der Konigslieutenant.

~ Die Valentine. n Die Karlsschjer, 1~ Der Pfarrer von Kirchfeld; Der Meineidbauer; Die Kreuzelschreiber; Das vierte Gebot.

13 The Robbers (Franz Moor). His next most famous part was Lear.

24 In connection with the production in 1855 of F. Haims Fechter von Ravenna, of which the authorship was claimed by a half-demented schoolmaster.

f~ As to more recent developments of German theatrical literature see the article GERMAN LITERATURE, and the remarks on the influence of foreign works in the section on Recent English Drama above.

h. Dutth Drama.

Among other modern European dramas the Dutch is interesting both in its beginnings, which to all intents and purposes form part of those of the German, and because of the special influence of the so-called chambers of the rederykers (rhetoricians), from the early years of the 15th century onwards, which bear some resemblance to the associations of the master-singers in contemporary higher Germany. The earliest of their efforts, which so effectively tempered the despotism of both church and state, seem to have been of a dramatic kind; and a manifold variety of allegories, moralities and comic entertainments (esbatementen or comedies, kluiten and factien or farces) enhanced the attractions of those popular pageants in which the Netherlands surpassed all other countries of the North. The Low Countries responded more largely to the impulse of the Renaissance than, with some local exceptions, any other of the Germanic lands. They necessarily had a considerable share~ in the cultivation of the modern Latin drama; and, while the author of A colastus may be claimed as its own by the country of his adoption as well as by that of his birth, G. M. Macropedius (Langhveldt) (c. 1475-1508), who may be regarded as the foremost Latin dramatist of his age, was born and died at Hertogenbosch or in its immediate vicinity. Macropedius, who belonged, to the fraternity of the Common, Life, was a writer of great realistic power as well as of remarkable literary versatility.1 The art of acting flourished in the Low Countries even during the troubles of the great revolt; but the birth of the regular drama was delayed till the advent of qu~ieter times. Dutch dramatic literature begins, under the influence of the classical studies cherished in the seats of learning founded before and after the close of the war, with the classical tragedies of S. Koster (c. 1585c. 1650). The romantic dramas and farces of Gerbrand Bredero (1585-1618) and the tragedies of P. Hooft (1581-1647) belong to the same period; but its foremost dramatic poet was J. van den Vondel, who from an imitation of classical models passed to more original forms of dramatic composition, including a patriotic play and a dramatic treatment of part of what was to form the theme of Paradise Lost.2 But Vondel had no successor of equal mark. The older form of Dutch tragedyin which the chorus still appearedwas, especially under the influence of the critic A. Pels, exchanged for a close imitation of the French models, Corneille and Racine; nor was the attempt to create a national comedy successful. Thus no national Dutch drama was permanently called into life.

1. Scandinavian Drama.

Still more distinctly, the dramatic literature of the Scandinavian peoples springs from foreign growths. In Denmark, Denmark where the beginnings of the drama in the plays of, the schoolmaster Chr. Hansen recall the mixture of religious and farcical elements in contemporary German efforts, the drama in the latter half of the 16th century remained essentially scholastic, and treated scriptural or classical subjects, chiefly in the Latin tongue. J. Ranch (1539-1607) and H. S. Sthen were authors of this type. But often in the course of the 17th century, German and French had become the tongues of Danish literature and of the Danish theatre; in the 18th Denmark could boast a comic dramatist of thorough originality and of a wholly national cast. L. Holberg, one of the most noteworthy comic poets of modern literature, not only marks an epoch in the dramatic literature of his native land, but he contributed to overthrow the trivialities of the German stage in its worst period, which he satirized with merciless humour,1 and set an example, never surpassed, of a series of comedies4 deriving their types from popular life and ridiculing with healthy directness those vices and follies which are the proper theme of the most widely effective species of the comic drama. Among 2 Gysbrecht van A emsiel; Lucifer. 1 Ulysses of Ithaca.

The Politician-Tinman; Jean de France or Hans Franzen; The Lying-In,&c.

his followers, P. A. Heiberg is specially noted. Under the influence of the Romantic school, whose influence has nowhere proved so long-lived as in the Scandinavian north, A. Ohlenschlager began a new era of Danish literature. His productivity, which belongs partly to his native and partly to German literary history, turned from foreign5 to native themes; and other writers followed him in his endeavours to revive the figures of Northern heroic legend. But these themes have in their The turn given way in the Scandinavian theatre to subjects modern coming nearer home to the popular consciousness, Norwegian and treated with a direct appeal to the common drama.

experience of human life, and with a searching insight into the actual motives of human action. The most remarkable movement to be noted in the history of the Scandinavian drama, and one of the most widely effective of those which mark the more recent history of the Western drama in general, had its origin in Norway. Two Norwegian dramatists, H. Ibsen and Bjdrnsterne BjOrnson, standing as it were side by side, though by no means always judging eye to eye, have vitally influenced the whole course of modern dramatic literature in the direction of a fearlessly candid and close delineation of human nature. The lesser of the pair in inventive genius, aI~d in the power of exhibiting with scornful defiance the conflict between soul and circumstance, but the stronger by virtue of the conviction of hope which lies at the root of achievement, is BjOrnson.1 Ibsens long career as a dramatist exhibits a succession of many changes, but at no point any failure in the self-trust of his genius. His early masterpieces were dramatic only in form.7 His worlddrama of Emperor and Galilean was still unsuited to a stage rarely trodden to much purpose by idealists of Julians type. The beginnings of his real and revolutionary significance as a dramatist date from the production of his first plays of contemporary life, the admirable satirical comedy The Pillars of Society (1877), the subtle domestic drama A Dolls House (1879), and the powerful but repellent Ghosts (1881),8 which last, with the effects of its appearance, modern dramatic literature may even to this day be said to have failed altogether to assimilate. Ibsens later prose comedies(verse, he writes, has immensely damaged the art of acting, and a tragedy in iambics belongs to the species Dodo)for the most part written during an exile which accounts for the note of isolat~ion so audible in many of them, succeeded one another at regular biennial intervals, growing more and more abrupt in form, cruel in method, and intense in ele-mental dramatic force. The prophet at last spoke to a listening world, but without the amplitude, the grace and the wholeheartedness which are necessary for subduing it. But it may be long before the art which he had chosen as the vehicle of his comments on. human life and society altogether ceases to show the impress of his genius.

5. Drama of the Slav Peoples.

As to the history of the Slav drama, only a few hints can be here given. Its origins have not yetat least in works, accessible to Western studentsbeen authoritatively traced. The Russian drama in its earliest or religious beginnings is stated to have been introduced from Poland early in the 12th century; and, again, it would seem that, when the influence of the Renaissance touched the east of Europe, the religious drama was cultivated in Poland in the 16th, but did not find its way into Russia till the 17th century. It is probable that the species was, like so many other elements of culture, imported into the Carpathian lands in the 15th or 16th century~ from Germany. How far indigenous growths, such as the Russian popular puppet-show called vertep, which about the middle of the 17th century began to treat secular and popular themes, helped to foster dramatic tendencies and tastes, cannot here be estimated. The regular drama of eastern Europe is to all intents and purposes of Western origin. Thus, the history of the Polish drama may be fairly Aladdin; Corregio.

6 Maria Stuart; A Bankruptcy; Leonarda.

Brand; Peer Gynt.

8 Samfundets Stottere; Et Dukkehjem; Gengangere.

dated as beginning with the reign of the last king of Poland, Stanislaus II. Augustus, who in 1765 solemnly opened a natianal Polish, theatre at Warsaw. This institution was carried on till the fatal year 1794, and saw the production of a considerable number of Polish plays, mostly translated or adapted, but in part originalas in the case of one or two of those from the active pen of the secretary to the educational commission, Zablonski. But it was not till after the last partition that, paradoxically though not wholly out of accordance with the history of the relations between political and literary history, the attempts of W. Bogulawski and J. N. Kaminski to establish and carry on a Polish national theatre were crowned with success. Its literary mainstay was a gifted Franco-Pole, Count Alexander Fredro (1793-1876), who in the period between the Napoleonic revival and the long exodus fathered a long-lived species of modern Polish comedy, French in origin (for Fredro was a true disciple of Moliere), and wholly out of contact with the sentiment that survived in the ashes of a doomed nation.1 His complaint as to the exiguity of the Polish literary publica brace of theatres and a booksellers handcartmay have been premature; but a national drama was most certainly impossible in a denationaliied and dismembered land, in whose historic capital the theatre in which Polish plays continued to be produced seemed garrisoned by Cossack officers.

Much in the same way, though with a characteristic difference, the Russian regular drama had its origin in the cadet corps at Russian. St Petersburg, a pupil of which, A. Sumarokov (1718-1777), has beep regarded as the founder of the modern Russian theatre. As a tragic poet he seems to have imitated Racine and Voltaire, though treating themes from the national history, among others the famous dramatic subject of the False Demetrius. He also translated Hamlet. As a comic dramatist he is stated to have been less popular than as a tragedian; yet it is in comedy that he would seem to have had the most noteworthy successors. Among these it is impossible to pass by the empress Catherine II., whose comedies seem to have been satirical sketches of the follies and foibles of her subjects, and who in one comedy as well as in a tragedy had the courage to imitate Shakespeare. Comedy aiming at social satire long continued to temper the conditions of Russian society, and had representatives of mark in such writers as A. N. Ostrovsky of Moscow and Griboyedov, the author of Gore et uma.

In a~iy survey of the Slav drama that of the Czech peoples, whose national consciousness has so fully reawakened, must not be overlooked. A Czech theatre was called into life at Prague as early as the 18th century; and in the 19th its demands, centring in a sense of nationality, were met by J. N. Stepinek (1783-1844), W. C. Klicpera (1792-1859) and J. C. Tyl (1808-1856); and later writers continued to make use of the stage for a propaganda of historical as well as political significance.

BIBLIOGRAPHV.The following works treat the general theory of the drama and the dramatic art, together with the principles of dramaturgy and of the art of acting. Works which have reference to the drama of a particular period or of a particular nation only are mentioned separately. Works which deal with special authors only have been intentionally omitted in this bibliography, as being mentioned in the articles in the several authors.

Aristotles Poetics (text and transl. by S. H. Butcher, London, 1895; transl. by T. Twining, London, 1812; see also Donaldsons Theatre of the Greeks); H. Baumgart, Aristoteles, Lessing, u. Goethe. Uber das ethische u. dsthetische Princip der Tragodie (Leipzig, 1877); H. A. Bulthaupt, Dramaturgie des Sclususpiels (4 vols., Oldenburg u. Leipzig, 1893-1902); L. Campbell, Tragic Drama in Aeschylus, Sophocles and Shakespeare (London, 1904); P. Corneille, Discours du pome dramatiguede la tragediedes trois unites, Qiuvres, vol. i. (Paris,, 1862); W. L. Courtney, The Idea of Tragedy in Ancient and Modern Drama (Westminster, 1900); Diderot, De la poesie dramatique. Entretiens sur le Fits Naturel, tTEuvres corn pltes, vii. (Paris, 1875); J. Dryden, Essay of Dramatic Poesy and other critical essays (Essays of J. Dryden, ed. W. P. Ker, 2 vols., Oxford, 1900); G. Freytag, Die Technik des Dramas (5th ed., Leipzig, i886); G. W. F. Hegel, Vorlesungen dber Asthetik, ed. H. G. Hotho, bd. 3, chap. iii. c. Die dramatische Poesie (Werke, x. 3; Berlin 1838); G. Larroumet, Etudes dhistoire et de critique dramatiques, 2 sr. (Paris, 1892-1899); G. E. Lessing, Hamburgische Dramaturgie.

1 Pan Jowialski; Oludki I Poeta (The Misanthroi1e and the Poet).

Erlitutert von F. Schroter u. R. Thiele (Halle, 1877); Materialien zu Lessings Hamburgische Dramaturgie, von W. Cosack (Paderborn, 1876); G. H. Lewes, On Actors and the Art of Acting (London, 1875);

Sir T. Martin, Essays on the Drama (London, 1874); K. Mantzius, History of Theatrf cal Art in Ancient and Modern Times, transl. by L. von Cossel (London, I9o5~ &c.); G. Meredith, Essay on Corned?,

(Westminster, 1897); R. krlss, Katechismus der Dramaturgie (Leipzig, 1877); H. T. ROtscher, Die Kunst der dramatischen Darstellung (3 vols., Berlin, 1841-1846); .Jahrbcher fr dramatische Kunst u. Literatur (Berlin and Frankfort, 1848-1849); P. de SaintVictor, Les Deux Masques, tragediecomedie (3rd ed., 3 vols., Paris, 1881, &c.); Saint-Marc Girardin, Cows de littirature dramatique (7th ed., 5 vols., Paris, 1868); A. W. von Schlegel, Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature (Eng. transi., London, 1846); Sir W.

Scott, Essays on Chivalry, Romance and the Drama (including his article Drama written for the Supplement to the 4th edition of the Ency. Brit., ~nd reprinted in the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th editions);

F. T. Vischer, Asthetik, vol. iv. (Stuttgart, 1857).

The fullest general history of the drama extant is J. L. Kleins Geschichte des Dramas, 13 vols. and index (Leipzig, 1865-1886).

See also, for encyclopaedic information, W. Davenport Adams, A

Dictionary of the Drama, vol. i. (London, 1904); C. M. E. Bquet, Encyclopdie de lart dramatique (Paris, 1886); A. Pougin, Dictionnaire historigue et p-ittoreique du thdtre et des arts qul sy rattachent (Paris, 1885).

The drama of the Eastern nations is generally treated in :A. P. Brozzi, Teatri e spettacoli dei p0 poll orientali Ebrei, A rabi, Persani, Indiani, Cinesi, Giapponesi e Giavanesi (Milan, 1887); Comte J. A. de Gobinenu, Les Religions et les philosophies dans lAsie centrale (2nd ed., Paris, 1866).

The following works deal with the Indian drama :M. Schuyler, Bibliography of the Sanskrit Drama (Columbia Univ., Indo-Iranian, ser. iii., New York, 1906); H. H. Wilson, Select Specimens of the Theatre of the Hindus, transl. from the original Sanskrit(with introduction on the dramatic system of the Hindus), 3rd ed., 2 vols.

(London, 1871); S. Levi, Le Thidtre indien (supplements Wilson)

(Paris, 1891).

For Chinese :Tscheng-Ki-Tong, Le Thedtre des Chinois (Paris, 1886); see also H. A. Giles, History of Chinese Literature (London, 190f).

For Japanese :C. Florenz, Gesch. d. japan. Lilleratur, vol. i. I (Leipzig, 1905); see also F. Brinkley, Japan, its History, Arts and Literature, vol. iii. (Boston and Tokyo, 1901).

For Persian :A. Chodzko, Thedtre persan. Choix de tiazis ou drames, traduits pour La premiere fois du persan par A. Chodzko (Paris, 1878); E. Montet, Le ThiAtre en Perse (Geneva, 1888); Sir L. Pelly, The Miracle Play of Hasan and Husain, collected from oral tradition; revised with explanatory notes by A .N. Wollaston(2 vols., London,I 879).

Of works treating of the ancient Greek and Roman drama only a small selection can be given here. In the case of the Greek drama, the chief histories of literaturesuch as G. Bernhardys, K. 0. Mullers (Eng. tr. by Sir G. C. Lewis, with continuation by J. W. Donaldson) and G. Murraysand general historiessuch as Grotes, Thirlwalls, Curtius~s, &c.should also be consulted; and for the administration and finance of the Attic theatre, Boeckhs Public Economy of Athens, Eng. tr. (London, 1842). Much useful inf ormation will be found in A Companion to Greek Studies, ed. by L.

Whibley (Cambridge, 1905). The standard collective edition of the ancient Greek dramatic poets is the Fotae scenici Graeci, ed. C. W.

Dindorf (5th ed., Leipzig, 1869), and that of the Comic poets A.

Meinekes Historia critica comicorum Graecorum. Cum fragmentis (5 vols., Berlin, 1839-1857). Aristotles Poetics, cited above, will of course be consulted for the theory of the Greek drama in particular; and much valuable critical matter will be found in passages of Bentleys Phalaris (I6~9), which are reprinted in Donaldsons Theatre of the Greeks. The following later works, some of which treat of the ancient classical orama in general, may be noted :E. A. Chaignet, La Tragidie grecque (Paris, 1877); J. Denys, Histoire de La comdie grecque (2 vols., Paris, 1886); J. W. Donaldson, The Theatre of the Greeks (7th ed., London, 1860); Du Mril, Histoire de La comedic.

Firiode primitive (Paris, 1864); Histoire de La comdie ancienne (Paris, 1869); A. E. Haigh, The Tragic Drama of the Greeks (Oxford, 1896); The Attic Theatre (Oxford, 1898); G. Korting, Gesch. des Theaters in semen Beziehungen zur Kunstentwickelung der dramatischen Dichtkunsl, Bd. i. Gesch. des griechischen u. romischen Theaters (Paderborn, 1897); R. G. Moulton, The Ancient Classical Drama (Oxford, 1898); M. Patin, Etude sur les tragiques grecs (3 vols., Paris, 1861); C. M. Rapp, Gesch. des griechischen Schauspiels vom Standpunkt der dramatischen Kunst (Tubingen, 1862); H. Weil, Etudes sur le drame antique (Paris, 1897); F. G. Weicker, Die griechischen Tragodien, mit Rucksicht auf den epischen Cyklus (Rhein. Mus. Suppl. ii.) ~ pts. (Bonn, 1839-1841).

In addition to the works of individual Roman dramatists, and critical writings concerning them, see Scaenicae Romanorum posis fragmenta, 2 vols. (I. Tragic, II. Comic) ed. by 0. Ribbeck (3rd ed.

Leipzig, 1897-1898). W. S. Teuffels History of Roman Literature, Eng. tr. (2 vols., London, 1891-1892), and M. Schanz Gesch. der romischen Litteratur bis Justinian (2 vols., Munich, 1890-1892), may be consulted for a complete view of the course of the Roman drama. For its later develotiments consult Dean Merivales History of the Romans under the Empire, and S. Dills Roman Society in the Last Days of the Western Em~nre (London, 1898). See also L. Friedlander, Darstellungen aus der Sfttengeschichte Roms, 6th ed., vol. ii. (Leipzig, 1889); M. Meyer, Etude sur Ic thdtre latin (Paris, 1847); 0. Ribbeck, Die rmische Tragodie im Zeitalter der Republik (Leipzig, 1875).

The following works treat of the medieval drama, religious or secular, of its origins and of usages connected with it :H. Anz, Die lateinischen Magierspiele (Leipzig, 1905); E. K. Chambers, The Medieval Stage (2 vols., Oxford, 1903), with full bibliography; E. de Coussemaker, Drames liturgiques dii moyen age (Paris, 1861); du Merit, Theatri liturgici quae Latina supersunt monumenta (Caen and Paris, 1849); C. A. Hase, Miracle Plays and Sacred Dramas (Eng. tr.), (London, 1880); Hilarius, Versus et ludi, ed. ChampollionFigeac (Paris, 1838); R. Froning, Das Drama des Mittelalters (3 vols., Stuttgart, 1891, &c.); Edwin Norris, Ancient Cornish Drama (ed. and tr. 2 vols., 1859); W. Hone, Ancient Mysteries Described (London, 1823); A. von Keller, Fastnachtsspiele aus dem 15. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1858); C. Magnin, Les Origfnes du the dtre moderne, vol. i. only (Paris, 1838); F. J. Mone, Schauspiele des Mitielalters (2 vots., Karlsruhe, 1846); A. Reiners, Die Tropen-, Prosen- ii. Prafations-Gesange (Luxemburg, 1884); J. de Rothschild, Le Mistre du Viel Testament, ed. J. de Rothschild (6 vols., Paris, 1878-1891); M. Sepet, Le Drame chretien au rnoyen dge (Paris, 1878); Origines catholiques du thtre moderne. Les drames liturgiques (Paris, 1901); T. Wright, Early Mysteries and other Latin Poems of the 12th and 13th Centuries (London, 1838); C. A. G. von Zezschwitz, Das mittelalterliche Drama (Leipzig, i88j).

For French medieval drama in particular:L. Cldat, Le Thidtre en France au moyen age (Paris, 1896); E. Fournier, Le Thitre franqais avant la Renaissance (Paris, 5872); Miracles de Noire Dame rar personnages, ed. G. Paris and U. Robert (8 vols., Paris, 1876-1893); L.. J. N. Monmerqu and F. Michel, Thidtre francais au moyen dge (Paris, 1839); L. Petit de Julleville, Histoire dii thdtre en France au moyen dge (5 vols., Paris, 1880-1886); E. L. N. Viollet-te-Duc, Ancien Thidtre francais (10 vols., Paris, 1854-1857).

For the medieval Italian in particular:A. dAncona, Sacre rappresentazioni dci secoli XIV., XV. e XVI. (Florence, 1872).

For medieval English in particular :Ahn, English Mysteries and Miracle Plays (Trves, 1867); S. W. Clarke, The Miracle Play in England (London, 1897); F. W. Fairholt, Lord Mayors Pageants, 2 vols- (Percy Soc.) (London, 1843-1844); A. W. Pollard, English Miracle Plays, Moralities and Interludes (3rd ed., Oxford 1898); Chester Plays ed. T. Wright, 2 vols. (Shakespeare Soc.) (London, 1843), re-ed. by H. Deimling (part only) (E.E.T.S.) (London, 1893); Coventry Plays, Ludus Coventriae, ed. J. 0. Halliwell (-Phillipps) (Shakespeare Soc.) (London, 1841); Coventry Plays. Dissertation on the pageants or mysteries at Coventry, by T. Sharp (Coventry, 1825); Digby Plays, ed. F. J. Furnivall (E.E.T.S.) (London, 1896); Towneley Mysteries, ed. G. England and A. W. Pollard (E.E.T.S.) (London, 1897); York Plays, ed. L. T. Smith (Oxford, 1885).

For the German in particular:F. J. Mone, Altteutsche Schauspiele (Quedlinburg, 1841); H. Reidt, Das geistliche Schauspiel des Mittelalters in Deutschland (Frankfort, 1868); E. Wilken, Gesch. der geistlichen Spiele in Deutschland (Göttingen, 1872).

The revival of the classical drama in the Renaissance age is treated in P. Bahlmanns Die Erneuerer des antiken Dramas md ihre ersten dramatischen Versuche, 1314-1478 (Munster, 1896); A. Chassangs Des essais dramatiques imits de lantiquit am XIV ci XV sicle (Paris, 1852); and in V. de Amitis LImitazionelatina ucla commedia del XVI. secolo (Pisa, 1871).

Both the medieval and portions of the later drama are treated in W. Cloetta, Beitrage zur Liitraturgeschichte des Mittelalters find der Renaissance (2 vols., Halle, 1890-1892); W. Creizenach, Geschichte des neueren Dramas, vols. i.-iii. (Halle, 1893-1903); R. Prolss, Geschichte des neueren Dramas (3 vols., Leipzig, 1881-1883). See also L.-V. Gofflot, Le Theatre au college, dii moyen age a nos jours, Preface par Jules Ctaretie (Paris, 1907).

The history of the modern Italian drama, in its various stages, is treated by A. dAncona, Origini del teatro italiano (2nd ed., 2 vols., Turin, 1891); J. Dornis, Le Theatre italien contem~orain (Paris, 1904); H. Lyonnet, Le Theatre en Italie (Paris, 1900); L. Riccoboni, Histoire du theatre italien (2 vols., Rome, 1728-1731); J. C. Walker, Historical Memoir on Italian Tragedy (London, 1799). See also A. Gaspary, History of Early Italian Literature, transl. by H. Oelsner (London, 1901).

Some information as to the modern Greek drama is given in R. Nicotai, Geschichte der neugriechischen Literatur (Leipzig, 1876).

Modern Spanish drama :M. A. Fee, Etudes sur lancien theatre espagnol (Paris 1873); A. Gassier, Le Theatre espagnol (Paris, 1898); G. H. Lewes, The Spanish Drama (London, 1846); H. Lyonnet, Le Theatre en Espagne (Paris, 1897); A. Schaffer, Gesch. des spanischen Nationaldramas (2 vols., Leipzig, 1890); L. de Viel-Castel, Essai sur Ic theatre espagnol (2 vols., Paris, 1882). See also G. Ticknor, History of Spanish Literature (3 vols., London, 1863).

Modern Portuguese :H. Lyonnet, Le Theatre au Portugal (Paris, 1898),; see also K. von Reinhardstoettners Portugiesische Literaturgeschichte (Sammlung Gschen) (Leipzig, 1904), which contains a useful bibliography.

Regular French drama (tragedy and comedy) :F. Brunetibre, ~ ,I,, ~ f-,,;~ ~ (P-..-a, ~ n rr~.,.,r...,

La Comedic en France au XVI sicle (Paris, 1862); E. Faguet, La Tragdie francaise au XVI sicle (Paris, 1883); A. Filon, The Modern French Drama (London, I898); V. Fournel, Le Theatre au XVII sicle (Paris, 1892); E. Fpurnier, Le Theatre francais am XVI et au XVII sicle (2 vols., Paris, s.d.); F. Hawkins, Annals of the French Stage (London, 1884); H. Lucas, Hist. philosophique et littraire du theatre franfais depu-is son origine (3 vols., Paris); Parfait, Hist. du theatre fran qais (15 vols., Paris, 1745-1749); L. Petit de Julleville, Le theatre en France depuis ses origines jusquh nos jours (Paris, 1899); E. Rigal, Le theatre franqais avant la piriode classique (Paris, 1901); E. Roy, Etudes sur Ic theatre fran~ais du XV et du XVI siicle (Dijon, 1901).

The connection between the Italian and French theatre in the 57th century is traced in L. Moland, Moliere et Ia comedie italienne (2nd ed., Paris, 1867). See also J. C. Dmogeots, H. von Launs and Saintsburys histories of French Literature.

Of the ample literature concerned with the modern English drama the following works may be specially mentioned, as dealing with the entire range of the English drama, or with more than one of its periods :D. E. Baker, Biographia dramatica (continued to 1811 by J. Reed and S. Jones) (3 vols., London, 18f2); J. P. Collier, History of English Dramatic Poetry, new ed. (~ vols., London, 1879); C. Dibdin, A complete History of the English Stage (5 vols., London, 5800); J. J. Jusserand, Le Theatre en A ngleterre (2nd ed., Paris, 1881);

G. Langbaine, Lives and Characters of the English Dramatic Poets (London, 5699); The Poetical Register: or lives and characters of the English dramatick poets (London, 1719); C. M. Rapp, Studien itber das englische Theater, 2 parts (TUbingen, 1862); G. S. B.

Study of the Prologue and Ejilogue in English Literature (London, 1884); The Thespian Dictionary: or dramatic biography of the i8th century (London, 1802); A. W. Ward, History of English Dramatic Literature to the Death of Queen Anne (2nd ed., 3 vols, London, 1899); see also the histories of English Literature or Poetry, by Warton, Tame, ten Brinck, Courthope, Saintsbury, &c.

The following works contain the most complete lists of English plays :W. W. Greg, A List of English Plays written before 1643 and published before 1700 (Bibliogr. Soc.) (London, 1900); J. 0. Halliwell (-Phillipps), Dictionary of Old English Plays (London, 1860); W. C. Hazlitt, A Manual/or the Collector and Amateur of Old English Plays (London, 1892); K. W. Lowe, Bibliographical Account of English Dramatic Literature (London, 1888) is a valuable handbook for the whole of English theatrical literature and matters connected with it. The unique work of Genest, Sonic Account of the English Stage from 1660-1830 (10 vols., Bath, 1832), includes, with a chronological series of plays acted on the English stage, notices of unacted plays, and critical remarks on plays and actors. A Compleat List of English dramatic poets and plays to 1747 was published with T. Whincops Scanderbeg in that year.

The following are the principal collections of English plays Ancient British Drama, ed. Sir W. Scott (3 vols., London, 1810);

Modern British Drama, ed. Sir W. Scott (5 vols., London, 1811);

W. Bang, Materialien zur Kunde des dlteren englischen Dramas (Louvain, 5902, &c.); A. H. Bullen, Collection of Old English Plays (4 vols., London, 1882); R. Dodsley, A Select Collection of Old Plays, 4th ed. by W. C. Hazlitt (15 vols., London, 1874-1876); Dramatists of the Restoration (14 vols., Edinburgh, 1872-1879); Early English Dramatists, ed. J. S. Farmer (London, 1905, &c.); C. M. Gayley, Representative English Comedies (vol. i., New York, 1903); T.

Hawkins, Origin of the English Drama (3 vols., Oxford, 1773);

Mrs Inchbald, British Theatre, new ed. (20 vols., London, 1824),

Modern Theatre (10 vols., London, 18ff), Collection of Farces and Afterpieces (7 vols., London, 1815); Malone Society publications (London, 1907, &c.); J.M. Manly, Specimens of the Pre-Shakespearean Drama (3 vols., London, 1897); Mermaid Series of Old Dramatists, ed. Havelock Ellis (London, 1887, &c.); Old EnglIsh Drama (2 vols.,

London, 1825); Pearsons Reprints of Elizabethan and Jacobean Plays (London, 187,, &c.).

The following deal with the Elizabethan and Jacobean drama in especial :W. Creizenach, Die Schauspiele der englischen Komodianten (Berlin, 1895); J. W. Cunliffe, The Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan Tragedy (London, 1893); F. G. Fleay, A Chronicle History of the London Stage, 1559-1642 (London, 1890), A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama, 1559-1642 (London, 1891); W. C. Hazlitt, The English Drama and Stage under the Tudor and Stuart Princes, 1543-1664 (London, 1869); W. Hazlitt, Dramatic Literature of the Age of Elizabeth (Works, ed. A. R. Wailer. vol. v.) (London, 1902); A. F. von Schack, Die englischen Dramatiker vor, neben, und nach Shakespeare (Stuttgart, 1893); J. A. Symonds, Shaksperes Predecessors in the English Drama (London, 1884).

As to the Latin academical drama of the Elizabethan age fee G. B. Churchill and W. Keller, Die latein. Universitats-Dramen Englands in der Zeit d. Konigin Elizabeth in Jahrhuch der dentschen Shakespeare-Gesellschaft. For a short bibliography of the Oxford academical drama, 1547-1663, see the introduction to Miss M. L. Lees edition of Narcissus (London, 1893). A list of Oxford plays will also be found in Notes and Queries, ser. vii,, vol. ii. For a list of Cambridge plays from 1534 to 1671, the writer of this article is indebted to Prof. G. C. Moore-Smith of the university of Sheffield.

For an account of the Mask seeR. Brotanek, Die englischen Masken .-,.,~i. Ii7: 4 T ,.-..-.-.\. Li A L.,...- ~.7,..,L 1K

Romans under the Empire, and S. Dills Roman Society in the Last Days of the Western Em~nre (London, 1898). See also L. Friedlander, Darstellungen aus der Sfttengeschichte Roms, 6th ed., vol. ii. (Leipzig, 1889); M. Meyer, Etude sur Ic thdtre latin (Paris, 1847); 0. Ribbeck, Die rmische Tragodie im Zeitalter der Republik (Leipzig, 1875).

The following works treat of the medieval drama, religious or secular, of its origins and of usages connected with it :H. Anz, Die lateinischen Magierspiele (Leipzig, 1905); E. K. Chambers, The Medieval Stage (2 vols., Oxford, 1903), with full bibliography; E. de Coussemaker, Drames liturgiques dii moyen age (Paris, 1861); du Merit, Theatri liturgici quae Latina supersunt monumenta (Caen and Paris, 1849); C. A. Hase, Miracle Plays and Sacred Dramas (Eng. tr.), (London, 1880); Hilarius, Versus et ludi, ed. ChampollionFigeac (Paris, 1838); R. Froning, Das Drama des Mittelalters (3 vols., Stuttgart, 1891, &c.); Edwin Norris, Ancient Cornish Drama (ed. and tr. 2 vols., 1859); W. Hone, Ancient Mysteries Described (London, 1823); A. von Keller, Fastnachtsspiele aus dem 15. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1858); C. Magnin, Les Origfnes du the dtre moderne, vol. i. only (Paris, 1838); F. J. Mone, Schauspiele des Mitielalters (2 vots., Karlsruhe, 1846); A. Reiners, Die Tropen-, Prosen- ii. Prafations-Gesange (Luxemburg, 1884); J. de Rothschild, Le Mistre du Viel Testament, ed. J. de Rothschild (6 vols., Paris, 1878-1891); M. Sepet, Le Drame chretien au rnoyen dge (Paris, 1878); Origines catholiques du thtre moderne. Les drames liturgiques (Paris, 1901); T. Wright, Early Mysteries and other Latin Poems of the 12th and 13th Centuries (London, 1838); C. A. G. von Zezschwitz, Das mittelalterliche Drama (Leipzig, i88j).

For French medieval drama in particular:L. Cldat, Le Thidtre en France au moyen age (Paris, 1896); E. Fournier, Le Thitre franqais avant la Renaissance (Paris, 5872); Miracles de Noire Dame rar personnages, ed. G. Paris and U. Robert (8 vols., Paris, 1876-1893); L.. J. N. Monmerqu and F. Michel, Thidtre francais au moyen dge (Paris, 1839); L. Petit de Julleville, Histoire dii thdtre en France au moyen dge (5 vols., Paris, 1880-1886); E. L. N. Viollet-te-Duc, Ancien Thidtre francais (10 vols., Paris, 1854-1857).

For the medieval Italian in particular:A. dAncona, Sacre rappresentazioni dci secoli XIV., XV. e XVI. (Florence, 1872).

For medieval English in particular :Ahn, English Mysteries and Miracle Plays (Trves, 1867); S. W. Clarke, The Miracle Play in England (London, 1897); F. W. Fairholt, Lord Mayors Pageants, 2 vols- (Percy Soc.) (London, 1843-1844); A. W. Pollard, English Miracle Plays, Moralities and Interludes (3rd ed., Oxford 1898); Chester Plays ed. T. Wright, 2 vols. (Shakespeare Soc.) (London, 1843), re-ed. by H. Deimling (part only) (E.E.T.S.) (London, 1893); Coventry Plays, Ludus Coventriae, ed. J. 0. Halliwell (-Phillipps) (Shakespeare Soc.) (London, 1841); Coventry Plays. Dissertation on the pageants or mysteries at Coventry, by T. Sharp (Coventry, 1825); Digby Plays, ed. F. J. Furnivall (E.E.T.S.) (London, 1896); Towneley Mysteries, ed. G. England and A. W. Pollard (E.E.T.S.) (London, 1897); York Plays, ed. L. T. Smith (Oxford, 1885).

For the German in particular:F. J. Mone, Altteutsche Schauspiele (Quedlinburg, 1841); H. Reidt, Das geistliche Schauspiel des Mittelalters in Deutschland (Frankfort, 1868); E. Wilken, Gesch. der geistlichen Spiele in Deutschland (Göttingen, 1872).

The revival of the classical drama in the Renaissance age is treated in P. Bahlmanns Die Erneuerer des antiken Dramas md ihre ersten dramatischen Versuche, 1314-1478 (Munster, 1896); A. Chassangs Des essais dramatiques imits de lantiquit am XIV ci XV sicle (Paris, 1852); and in V. de Amitis LImitazionelatina ucla commedia del XVI. secolo (Pisa, 1871).

Both the medieval and portions of the later drama are treated in W. Cloetta, Beitrage zur Liitraturgeschichte des Mittelalters find der Renaissance (2 vols., Halle, 1890-1892); W. Creizenach, Geschichte des neueren Dramas, vols. i.-iii. (Halle, 1893-1903); R. Prolss, Geschichte des neueren Dramas (3 vols., Leipzig, 1881-1883). See also L.-V. Gofflot, Le Theatre au college, dii moyen age a nos jours, Preface par Jules Ctaretie (Paris, 1907).

The history of the modern Italian drama, in its various stages, is treated by A. dAncona, Origini del teatro italiano (2nd ed., 2 vols., Turin, 1891); J. Dornis, Le Theatre italien contem~orain (Paris, 1904); H. Lyonnet, Le Theatre en Italie (Paris, 1900); L. Riccoboni, Histoire du theatre italien (2 vols., Rome, 1728-1731); J. C. Walker, Historical Memoir on Italian Tragedy (London, 1799). See also A. Gaspary, History of Early Italian Literature, transl. by H. Oelsner (London, 1901).

Some information as to the modern Greek drama is given in R. Nicotai, Geschichte der neugriechischen Literatur (Leipzig, 1876).

Modern Spanish drama :M. A. Fee, Etudes sur lancien theatre espagnol (Paris 1873); A. Gassier, Le Theatre espagnol (Paris, 1898); G. H. Lewes, The Spanish Drama (London, 1846); H. Lyonnet, Le Theatre en Espagne (Paris, 1897); A. Schaffer, Gesch. des spanischen Nationaldramas (2 vols., Leipzig, 1890); L. de Viel-Castel, Essai sur Ic theatre espagnol (2 vols., Paris, 1882). See also G. Ticknor, History of Spanish Literature (3 vols., London, 1863).

Modern Portuguese :H. Lyonnet, Le Theatre au Portugal (Paris, 1898),; see also K. von Reinhardstoettners Portugiesische Literaturgeschichte (Sammlung Gschen) (Leipzig, 1904), which contains a useful bibliography.

Regular French drama (tragedy and comedy) :F. Brunetibre, ~ ,I,, ~ f-,,;~ ~ (P-..-a, ~ n rr~.,.,r...,

La Comedic en France au XVI sicle (Paris, 1862); E. Faguet, La Tragdie francaise au XVI sicle (Paris, 1883); A. Filon, The Modern French Drama (London, I898); V. Fournel, Le Theatre au XVII sicle (Paris, 1892); E. Fpurnier, Le Theatre francais am XVI et au XVII sicle (2 vols., Paris, s.d.); F. Hawkins, Annals of the French Stage (London, 1884); H. Lucas, Hist. philosophique et littraire du theatre franfais depu-is son origine (3 vols., Paris); Parfait, Hist. du theatre fran qais (15 vols., Paris, 1745-1749); L. Petit de Julleville, Le theatre en France depuis ses origines jusquh nos jours (Paris, 1899); E. Rigal, Le theatre franqais avant la piriode classique (Paris, 1901); E. Roy, Etudes sur Ic theatre fran~ais du XV et du XVI siicle (Dijon, 1901).

The connection between the Italian and French theatre in the 57th century is traced in L. Moland, Moliere et Ia comedie italienne (2nd ed., Paris, 1867). See also J. C. Dmogeots, H. von Launs and Saintsburys histories of French Literature.

Of the ample literature concerned with the modern English drama the following works may be specially mentioned, as dealing with the entire range of the English drama, or with more than one of its periods :D. E. Baker, Biographia dramatica (continued to 1811 by J. Reed and S. Jones) (3 vols., London, 18f2); J. P. Collier, History of English Dramatic Poetry, new ed. (~ vols., London, 1879); C. Dibdin, A complete History of the English Stage (5 vols., London, 5800); J. J. Jusserand, Le Theatre en A ngleterre (2nd ed., Paris, 1881);

G. Langbaine, Lives and Characters of the English Dramatic Poets (London, 5699); The Poetical Register: or lives and characters of the English dramatick poets (London, 1719); C. M. Rapp, Studien itber das englische Theater, 2 parts (TUbingen, 1862); G. S. B.

Study of the Prologue and Ejilogue in English Literature (London, 1884); The Thespian Dictionary: or dramatic biography of the i8th century (London, 1802); A. W. Ward, History of English Dramatic Literature to the Death of Queen Anne (2nd ed., 3 vols, London, 1899); see also the histories of English Literature or Poetry, by Warton, Tame, ten Brinck, Courthope, Saintsbury, &c.

The following works contain the most complete lists of English plays :W. W. Greg, A List of English Plays written before 1643 and published before 1700 (Bibliogr. Soc.) (London, 1900); J. 0. Halliwell (-Phillipps), Dictionary of Old English Plays (London, 1860); W. C. Hazlitt, A Manual/or the Collector and Amateur of Old English Plays (London, 1892); K. W. Lowe, Bibliographical Account of English Dramatic Literature (London, 1888) is a valuable handbook for the whole of English theatrical literature and matters connected with it. The unique work of Genest, Sonic Account of the English Stage from 1660-1830 (10 vols., Bath, 1832), includes, with a chronological series of plays acted on the English stage, notices of unacted plays, and critical remarks on plays and actors. A Compleat List of English dramatic poets and plays to 1747 was published with T. Whincops Scanderbeg in that year.

The following are the principal collections of English plays Ancient British Drama, ed. Sir W. Scott (3 vols., London, 1810);

Modern British Drama, ed. Sir W. Scott (5 vols., London, 1811);

W. Bang, Materialien zur Kunde des dlteren englischen Dramas (Louvain, 5902, &c.); A. H. Bullen, Collection of Old English Plays (4 vols., London, 1882); R. Dodsley, A Select Collection of Old Plays, 4th ed. by W. C. Hazlitt (15 vols., London, 1874-1876); Dramatists of the Restoration (14 vols., Edinburgh, 1872-1879); Early English Dramatists, ed. J. S. Farmer (London, 1905, &c.); C. M. Gayley, Representative English Comedies (vol. i., New York, 1903); T.

Hawkins, Origin of the English Drama (3 vols., Oxford, 1773);

Mrs Inchbald, British Theatre, new ed. (20 vols., London, 1824),

Modern Theatre (10 vols., London, 18ff), Collection of Farces and Afterpieces (7 vols., London, 1815); Malone Society publications (London, 1907, &c.); J.M. Manly, Specimens of the Pre-Shakespearean Drama (3 vols., London, 1897); Mermaid Series of Old Dramatists, ed. Havelock Ellis (London, 1887, &c.); Old EnglIsh Drama (2 vols.,

London, 1825); Pearsons Reprints of Elizabethan and Jacobean Plays (London, 187,, &c.).

The following deal with the Elizabethan and Jacobean drama in especial :W. Creizenach, Die Schauspiele der englischen Komodianten (Berlin, 1895); J. W. Cunliffe, The Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan Tragedy (London, 1893); F. G. Fleay, A Chronicle History of the London Stage, 1559-1642 (London, 1890), A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama, 1559-1642 (London, 1891); W. C. Hazlitt, The English Drama and Stage under the Tudor and Stuart Princes, 1543-1664 (London, 1869); W. Hazlitt, Dramatic Literature of the Age of Elizabeth (Works, ed. A. R. Wailer. vol. v.) (London, 1902); A. F. von Schack, Die englischen Dramatiker vor, neben, und nach Shakespeare (Stuttgart, 1893); J. A. Symonds, Shaksperes Predecessors in the English Drama (London, 1884).

As to the Latin academical drama of the Elizabethan age fee G. B. Churchill and W. Keller, Die latein. Universitats-Dramen Englands in der Zeit d. Konigin Elizabeth in Jahrhuch der dentschen Shakespeare-Gesellschaft. For a short bibliography of the Oxford academical drama, 1547-1663, see the introduction to Miss M. L. Lees edition of Narcissus (London, 1893). A list of Oxford plays will also be found in Notes and Queries, ser. vii,, vol. ii. For a list of Cambridge plays from 1534 to 1671, the writer of this article is indebted to Prof. G. C. Moore-Smith of the university of Sheffield.

For an account of the Mask seeR. Brotanek, Die englischen Masken .-,.,~i. Ii7: 4 T ,.-..-.-.\. Li A L.,...- ~.7,..,L 1K

(London, 1897); W. W. Greg, A List of Masques, Pageants; &c. (Bibhogr. Soc.) (London, 1902).

As to early London theatres see T. F. Ordish, Early London Theatres (London, 1894).

Some information as to puppet-plays, &c., will be found in Henry Morleys Memoirs of Bartholomew Fair (London, 1859).

Among earlier critical essays on the Elizabethan and Stuart drama should be mentioned those of Sir Philip Sidney, G. Puttenham and W. Webbe, T. Rymer and Dryden. For recent essays and notes on the Elizabethan drama in general, see, besides the essays of Coleridge, Lamb (including the introductory remarks in the Specimens), Hazlitt, &c., and the remarkable series of articles in the Retrospective Review (1820-1828), the Publications and, Transactions of the Old and New Shakespeare Societies (1841, &c.; 1874, &c.), which also contain reprints of early works of great importance for the history of the Elizabethan drama and stage, such aS Henslowes Diary, &c., the Jahrbuch dee deutschen Shakes peare-Gesellschaft (1865, &c-), as well as the German journals Anglia, Englische Studien, &c., and the Modern Language Review (Cambridge).

The later English drama from the reopening of the theatres (1660) is treated in L. N. Chase, The English Heroic Play (New York, 1903); C. Cibber, Apology for the Life of C. Cibber, written by himself, new ed. by R. W. Lowe (2 vols., London, 1889), who has also edited Churchills Rosciad and Apology (London, 1891); J. Doran, Their Majesties Servants: annals of the English Stage (3 vols., London, 1888); A. Filon, Le Thdtre anglais: hier, aujourdhui, demain (Paris, 1896); W. Hazlitt, A View of the English Stage (Works, ed. A. R. Wailer, vol. viii.) (London, 1903); W. Nicholson, The Struggle for a Free Stage in London (Westminster, 1907).

The following treat of the modern German drama in particular periods :R. Prlss, Gesch. der deutschen Schauspielkunst von den Anfangen bis i8io (Leipzig, 1900); R. E. Prutz, Vorlesungen iiber die Geschichte des deutschen Theaters (Berlin, 1847); R. Fronirig, Des Drama der Reformationszeit (Stuttgart, 1900); C. Heine, Des Schauspiel der deutschen Wanderbiihne vor Gottsched (Halle, 1889); J. Minor, Die Schicksalstragodie in ihren Hauptvertretern (Frankfort, 1883); M. Martersteig, Des deutsche Theater im XIX Jahrh. (Leipzig, 1904). See also G. G. Gervinus, Geschichte dee deutschen Dichtung (5th ed., 5 vols., Leipzig, 1871-1874); and the literary histories of K. Goedeke (Grundriss), A. Koberstein, &c. A special aspect of the drama in modern Germany is dealt with in P. Bahlmann, Die lateinischen Dramen von Wimphelings Stylpho bis zur Mitte des XVI Jahrhunderts, 1480-1550 (Munster, 1893), and the same authors Jesuiten-Dramen der niederrheinischen Ordensprovinz (Leipzig, 1896).

The standard history of the modern German stage is Eduard Devrient, Gesch. der deutschen Schauspielkunst (2 vols., Leipzig, 1848-1861); see also R. Prdlss, Gesch. dee deutschen Schauspielkunst von den Anfangen bis i85o (Leipzig, 1900); 0. G. Fluggen, Biographisches Bhnen-Lexikon dee deutschen Theater (Munich, 1892).

A good account of the history of the Dutch drama is F. von Heliwalds Geschichte des hollandischen Theaters (Rotterdam, 1874). See also the authorities under J. van den Vondel.

Information concerning the Danish drama will be found in the autobiographies of Holberg, Ohlenschlager and Andersen; see also vol. i. of G. Brandess Main Currents in Nineteenth Century Literature (Eng. tr., London, 1901). As to the modern Norwegian drama see the same writers Ibsen-Bjrnson Studies (Eng. tr., London, 1899); also E. Tissot, Le Drame norvigien (Paris, 1893).

The Russian drama is treated in P. 0. Morozovs Istoria Russkago Teatra (History of the Russian Theatre), vol. i. (St Petersburg, 1889); see also P. de Corvin, Le ThMtre en Russie (Paris, 1890). A. Bruckner, Geschichte dee russischen Literatur (Leipzig, 1905), may be consulted with advantage. Information as to the dramatic portions of other Slav literatures will be found in A. Pipin and V. Spasovichs Istoria Slavianskikh Literatur (History of Slavonic Literatures), German translation by T. Pech (2 vols., Leipzig, 1880-1884). (A. W. W.)

Custom Search

Encyclopedia Alphabetically

A * B * C * D * E * F * G * H * I * J * K * L * M * N * O * P * Q * R * S * T * U * V * W * X * Y * Z

Advertise Here


- Please bookmark this page (add it to your favorites)
- If you wish to link to this page, you can do so by referring to the URL address below.


This page was last modified 29-SEP-18
Copyright © 2018 ITA all rights reserved.