Tragedy (1908)

'e*^ *. .io'' <^ 'V ••IT..' aO- V ''^^^"^• r,' <^^ •*«. « e • OV a •» o ^ "^ €l)e €ppe^ of €nsli$t^ literature EDITED BY WILLIAM ALLAN NEILSON TRAGEDY BY ASHLEY H. THORNDIKE TRAGEDY BY ASHLEY H. THORNDIKE PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH IN COLUMBIA UNIVEBSITT AUTHOR OF "THE INFLUENCE OF BEAUMONT " AND FLETCHER ON SHAKSPERE BOSTON AND NEW YORK HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY (Cbe laiter^iUe pttssy CambcitigE 1908 -^^ fwo Oopies rtwiiv.^.i IViAY 2 1908 JLAS» A / COPYRIGHT I90S BY ASHLEY H. THORNDIKE ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Published May iqoS bo' PREFACE ^ This book attempts to trace the course of English tragedy from its beginnings to the middle of the nineteenth cen- -j tury, and to indicate the part which it has played in the ^ history both of the theatre and of literature. All tragedies of the sixteenth century are noticed, because of their historical interest and their close relationship to Shakespeare, but after 1600 only representative plays have been considered. The aim of this series has been kept in view, and the discussion, whether of individual plays or of dramatic conditions, has been determined by their importance in the study of a literary type. Tragedy in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries has attracted very little critical attention, and in those fields the book is something of a pioneer. The Elizabethan drama, on the contrary, has been the subject of a vast amount of antiquarian, biographical, and literary research, without which such a treatment as I have attempted would be almost impossible. In order, however, to keep the main purpose in view, it has been necessary to omit nearly all notice of the processes of research or the debates of criticism, and to give only what seem to me the results. To indicate at every point my reliance on my own investigations or my indebted- ness to the researches of others would, indeed, necessi- tate doubling the size of the book. Its readers will not require an apology for its brevity, but I regret that I can vi PREFACE offer only this inadequate acknowledgment of the great assistance I have received not merely from the studies mentioned in the Bibliographical Notes, but also from many others that have directly or indirectly contributed to my discussion. I am indebted to Dr. Ernest Bernbaum, who very kindly read chapters viii and ix, and made a number of suggestions. I have also the pleasure of expressing my great obligations to Professors Brander Matthews, Jeffer- son B. Fletcher, and William A. Neilson, who have read both the manuscript and the proof-sheets and given me the generous benefit of their most helpful criticism. A. H. T. New York, March, 1908. CONTENTS Chapter I. Definitions 1 Chapter II. The Medieval and the Classical / Influences 21 Chapter III. The Beginnings of Tragedy ... 48 ^J ^ Chapter IV. Marlowe and his Contemporaries . 77 Chapter V. Shakespeare and his Contemporaries 136 y Chapter VI. Shakespeare 181 / Chapter VII. The Later Elizabethans .... 196 Chapter VIII. The Restoration 243 Chapter IX. The Eighteenth Century .... 281 Chapter X. The Romantic Movement .... 326 Chapter XI. Conclusion 366 Index 379 TRAGEDY CHAPTER I DEFINITIONS HERE is little difficulty in selecting the plays that should be included in a history of Eng- lish tragedy. Since the middle of the sixteenth century there have always been plays commonly received as tragedies, and others so closely resembling these that they require consideration in any comprehensive study. ;ttow far these plays present the common characteristics of a type, how far they consti- tute a clearly defined form of the drama, and how far they may be connected from one period to another in a continuous development — are questions better answered at the book's end than at its beginning. Some questions of the definition of tragedy, however, may well be prelim- inary to a study of its history. The very term " English tragedy" involves two precarious abstractions. It separates tragedy from the drama of which it is a part, and it separates English tragedies from those of other lan- guages to which they are related in character and origin. In attempting a definition, we may question the reality of these abstract separations by which our later dis- cussions are to be conveniently limited; for a definition can be attained only through the distinction of tragedy 2 TRAGEDY from other forms of the drama, and through a consideration of the varying conceptions of tragedy in different periods and nations. We may begin very empirically with an element common to all tragedies and roughly distinguishing them from other forms of drama; noticed, indeed, in all theoretical definitions, though its importance is often blurred and it receives only scant attention from Aristotle. He refers to the third part of the plot as " the tragic incident, a destructive or painful action, such as death on the stage, bodily agony, wounds, and the like." If his meaning of "a destructive or painful action" is extended to include mental as well as physical suffering, we have a definition of an indispensable element in tragedy and a conspicuous distinction from comedy. This definition has had ample recognition in practice and in popular opinion, as in the sixteenth-century idea of a tragedy as a play involving deaths, and in the present common conception of tragedy as requiring an unhappy ending. These uncritical opinions, however, introduce amendments that are not quite corollaries. The happy ending has never been completely excluded. Aristotle, while pronouncing in favor of the unhappy ending as best suited to producing tragic effect, recog- nized the possibility and popularity of a conclusion that limited punishment to the vicious. In modern times the salvation of the virtuous in tragedy has had warm de- fenders, including Racine and Dr. Johnson; and the essentiality of either an unhappy ending or of deaths DEFINITIONS 3 has been generally denied. Evidently either is a natural but not inevitable accompaniment of suffering and dis- aster. A tragedy may permit of relief or even recovery for the good, or it may minimize the external and physical elements of suffering; but its action must be largely unhappy though its end is not, and destructive even if it does not lead to deaths. Our working definition, however, does not attempt to indicate the qualities necessary to excellence in tragedy or to particularize in respect to the treatment of the action. It offers no distinction, where recent critics have been careful to make one, between tragedy and what we to- day call melodrama.^ The relation between the two is similar to that between comedy and farce. Melodrama is more sensational, less serious; it attains its effects by spectacles, machines, externals, while tragedy deals with character and motive; it reaches its conclusions throilgh accidents and surprises, while tragedy seeks to show the* cause of every effect. But the distinction is general and relative rather than specific and absolute. The use of witches to foretell actions and characters would of itself be a melodramatic device, and so it is in Middleton*s " Witch," but not in " Macbeth." Congreve's " Mourning Bride" is a melodrama, judged by our standards at present, but for many years it was considered one of the great tragedies in the language. A stage presentation, in fact, almost presupposes external, spectacular, and sen- ^ For a discussion of an earlier meaning of the term "melodrama" and the origin of its present use, see chap. x. 4 TRAGEDY sational effects, which must vary according to the the- atrical conditions and the taste of the day, as well as in response to the artistic purpose and treatment. The distinction between melodrama and tragedy, in short, is hardly more than between bad tragedy and good, or between a lower and a higher type. So far as a separation of the two has been made, it has been the result of centuries of experience. It cannot readily be fixed by rule or definition ; it requires historical treatment. Our definition, again, affords a rough rather than an exact separation from comedy. The two species cannot, indeed, be absolutely distinguished. In the theatre to- day there are many plays which one hesitates to classify as either tragedy or comedy. And there have always been, even in the Greek theatre, classes of plays recog- nized as neither the one nor the other. Again, a play presenting various persons and incidents is necessarily complex in material and emotional effect, and may mingle suffering and ruin with happiness and success, so that whether its main effect is tragic or comic may depend on its point of view or its general tone. The divisions of tragedy and comedy are neither mutually exclusive, nor are they together inclusive of all drama. Theoretically, there is perhaps ground for doubting whether other divisions might not be established more essential and more comprehensive. Comedy in particu- lar comprises plays differing so widely in every respect that almost no common characteristics can be found. Yet tragedy and comedy have long been, and still are. DEFINITIONS 5 accepted as the main divisions of the drama. The very names of the other forms, " tragicomedy," " Sdiaus'piely'* "emotional drama," "social drama," *'drame,'* or merely "play," by their lack of distinctiveness, testify to the significance of the division of dramatic action and effects into the two classes, tragic and comic. From merely a theoretical point of view, indeed, we may recog- nize that a dramatic action, through its brevity and its stage presentation, if for no other reasons, has a suit- ability for these effects not possessed by other forms of literature. But the importance and definition of the two forms, and especially that of tragedy, depend less on theory than on historical origins and development.

Load more