THE dawn of the nineteenth century was illumined by the last
flickers of the red torch of the French Revolution; and its earlier
years were filled with the reverberating cannonade of the Napoleonic
sonquests. It was not until after Waterloo that the battle-field
of Europe became only a parade-ground; and this is perhaps one
reason why there was a dearth of dramatic literature in the first
quarter of the century and why no dramatist of prominence flourished,--excepting
only the gentle Grillparzer far away in Vienna. In war-time the
theaters are filled often enough, but the entertainment they
proffer then is rarely worthy of the hour. Although the drama
must deal directly with a contest of human souls, id does not
flourish while there is actual fighting absorbing the attention
of the multitude; but when great captains and their drums depart,
then are the stronger spirits again attracted to the stage.
Despite their survival in the Austrian theaters Grillparzer's
pleasing plays are no one of them epoch-making; although they
had more life in them than the closet-dramas upon which British
bards like Byron and Shelley were then misdirecting their efforts.
Throughout Europe during the first score years of the century
the acted drama was for the most part frankly unliterary and
the so-called literary drama was plainly unactable, proving itself
pitifully ineffective whenever it chanced to be put on the stage.
In Germany the more popular plays were either sentimental or
melodramatic; and sometimes they were both. In England the more
serious dramas were frequently adapted or imitated from the German,
while the comic plays--like those of the younger Colman--were
often little better than helter-skelter patchworks of exaggerated
incident and contorted caricature. In France tragedy was being
strangled in the tightening bonds imposed by the classicist rules;
and comedy was panting vainly for a larger freedom of theme and
of treatment. But even in France help was at hand; and in certain
Parisian theaters, wholly without literary pretensions, two species
were growing to maturity, destined each of them to reinvigorate
the more literary drama.
One species was the comédie-vaudeville of Scribe,
with its attempt to enchain the interest of the spectator by
an artfully increasing intricacy of plot; and the other was the
melodrama of Pixérécourt and Ducange, derived more
or less directly from the emotional drama of Kotzbue, but depending
not so much on the depicting of passion as on the linking together
of startling situations at once unexpected by the spectator and
yet carefully prepared by the playwright. THIRTY YEARS OF
A GAMBLER'S LIFE is a typical example of this French melodrama,
none the less typical that one of its most striking incidents
had been borrowed from a German play. The comédie-vaudeville
and the melodrama of the boulevard theaters were fortunately
fettered by no rules, obeying only the one law, that they had
to please the populace. They grew up spontaneously and abundantly;
they were heedlessly unliterary; they were curbed by no criticism,--which
was never wasted by the men-of-letters on these species of drama,
deemed quite beneath their notice.
The comédie-vaudeville of Scribe and the melodrama
of Pixérécourt were alike in that they both were
seeking success by improving the mere mechanism of play-making
and in that they both were willing to sacrifice everything else
to sheer ingenuity of structure. Unpretending as was each of
the two species, its popularity was undeniable; it accomplished
its purpose satisfactorily; and it needed only to be accepted
by the men-of-letters and to be endowed with the literature it
lacked. Nothing is more striking in the history of the French
drama of the first quarter of the century than the contrast between
the sturdy vitality of these two unliterary species, comédie-vaudeville
and melodrama, and the anemic lethargy of the more literary comedy
and tragedy. The fires of the Revolution had flamed up fiercely,
and the French, having cast out the Ancient Régime, had
remade the map of Europe regardless of vested rights; but in
the theater they were still in the bonds of the pseudo-classicism
which had been rejected everywhere else, even in Germany. Comedy,
as it was then composed by the adherents of the classicist theories,
was thin and feeble, painfully trivial and elaborately wearisome;
and tragedy, as the classicist poets continued to perpetrate
it, was even more artificial and void. In fact, so far as classicism
was concerned, comedy was moribund and tragedy was defunct, even
though they neither of them suspected it.
Now, as we look back across the years, we cannot but wonder
why the task of ousting the dying and the dead should have seemed
so arduous or have caused so much commotion. We marvel why there
was a need of a critical manifesto like Victor
Hugo's preface to his CROMWELL or of a critical controversy
over the difference between the Classic and the Romantic. Even
then it ought to have been easily evident that there was nothing
classic about the comedies and the tragedies which continued
to be composed laboriously in accordance with the alleged rules
of the theater; and even the defenders of the traditional faith
might have suspected that there was really nothing sacrosanct
about mere pseudo-classicism.
But few on either side could see clearly. The classicist deemed
himself to be defending the holy cause of Art against a band
of irreverent outlaws, striving to capture the temple of taste
that they might debase the standards and defile the sanctuary.
The romanticist swept forward recklessly to the assault, proclaiming
that he had rediscovered Truth, which had been buried, and boasting
that he was to revive Art, which had long lain asleep awaiting
his arrival. Though the defenders stood to their guns valiantly,
and though they asserted their intention of dying in the last
ditch, they never had a chance against their superb besiegers,--ardent
young fellows, all of them, sons of soldiers, begotten between
two battles and cradled to the mellow notes of the bugle. For
nearly twoscore years the French people had made a profuse expenditure
of energy; and the time was ripe for a new birth of the French
drama.
II
THE younger generation abhorred the artificiality and emptiness
of the plays presented at the Théâtre Français;
and they were bitter in denouncing the absurdity of the rules.
Like all literary reformers, they proclaimed a return to nature;
and they asserted their right to represent life as they saw it,
in its ignoble aspects as well as in its nobler manifestations.
They claimed freedom to range through time and space at will,
to mingle humor and pathos, to ally the grotesque with the terrible,
and to take for a hero an outcast of the middle ages instead
of a monarch of antiquity.
But a critical controversy like this with its spectacular
interchange of hurtling epithets need have little effect upon
the actual theater. Even in Paris the bulk of the playgoers cared
little or nothing about the artistic precepts which a dramatist
might accept or reject; it was only his practice that concerned
them. If his plays seized their attention, holding them interested
and releasing them satisfied that they had enjoyed the pleasure
proper to the theater,--then his principles might be what he
pleased. They neither knew nor cared what party he might belong
to or what rules he might hold binding. And here the broad public
showed its usual common sense, which prompts it ever to refuse
to be amused by what it does not find amusing. The playgoers
as a body wanted in France early in the nineteenth century what
they had wanted in Spain and in England early in the seventeenth
century,--and what, indeed, the playgoers as a body want now
in the twentieth century, what they always have wanted and what
they always will want. What this is Victor Hugo has told us:
they want, first of all, action; then they crave the display
of passion to excite their sympathy; and finally they relish
the depicting of human nature, to satisfy man's eternal curiosity
about himself.
These wants the old fogies of the pseudo-classicism did not
understand, and this is why the public received with avidity
the earlier plays of the romanticists with their abundant movement,
their vivacity, their color, and their sustaining emotion. Alexander
Dumas came first with HENRI III ET SA COUR; Alfred de
Vigny followed speedily with his spirited arrangement of OTHELLO;
and at last Victor Hugo assured the triumph of the movement,
when he brought out HERNANI
with its picturesqueness of scenery, its constant succession
of striking episodes, its boldly contrasted characters and its
splendidly lyrical verse. Significant it is that Hugo and Dumas
were both of them sons of Revolutionary generals, while Vigny
was himself a soldier. Dumas increased the impression of his
early play by producing the TOUR DE NESLE and ANTONY,
marvels of play-making skill both of them, and surcharged with
passion. Vigny won attention again with his delicate and plaintive
CHATTERTON. Hugo put forth a succession of plays in verse
and in prose, all of them challenging admiration by qualities
rarely united in a dramatist's work, and yet no one of them establishing
itself in popular favor by the side of HERNANI, excepting
only RUY BLAS.
The flashing brilliancy of Hugo's versification blinded many
spectators for a brief season and prevented most of them from
seeing what was made plain at last only by an analysis of the
plays in prose, MARY TUDOR, for example. When no gorgeously
embroidered garment draped the meager skeleton it was not difficult
to discover that Victor Hugo was not a great dramatic poet, "of
the race and lineage of Shakespeare."
A great poet he was beyond all question, perhaps the greatest
poet of the century; but his gift was lyric and not dramatic.
He was a lyrist of incomparable vigor, variety, and sonority;
and as a lyrist he had aften an almost epic amplitude of vision.
As a dramatist his outlook was narrow and petty; he could not
conceive boldly a lofty theme, treating it with the unfailing
simplicity of the masters. His subjects were lacking in nobility,
in dignity, in stateliness. His plots were violent and extravagant;
and his characters were as forced as his situations. The poetry
to be found in his plays is external rather than internal; it
is almost an afterthought. Under the lyrical drapery which is
so deceptive at first, there is no more than a melodrama.
Melodrama for melodrama, HERNANI and RUY BLAS,
fascinating as they are, seem now to be less easily and less
spontaneously devised than ANTONY and TOUR DE NESLE.
Dumas was a born playwright with an instinctive felicity in handling
situation; and Hugo, although he was able, by dint of hard work
and by sheer cleverness, to make plays that could please in the
theater, had far less of the native faculty. In their play-making
both Hugo and Dumas were pupils of Pixérécourt
and Ducange; and HERNANI and ANTONY do not differ
greatly in kind from THIRTY YEARS OF A GAMBLER'S LIFE,
however superior they may be in power, in vitality, and, above
all, in style. What Dumas and Hugo did was little more than to
take the melodrama of the boulevard theaters and to make literature
of it,--just as Marlowe had taken the
unpretending but popular chronicle-play as the model of his EDWARD
II.
The French playwrights who supplied the stage of the boulevard
theaters had borrowed from the German playwrights of the storm-and-stress
a habit for choosing for a hero an outcast or an outlaw. Here
again they were followed by the dramatists of the romanticist
movement, who were forever demanding sympathy for the bandit
and the bastard,--Hernani was the one and Antony was the other.
A note of revolt rang through the French theater in the second
quarter of the century; a cry of protest against the social order
echoed from play to play. In their reaction against the restrictions
which the classicists had insisted upon, the romanticists went
beyond liberty almost to license, and they did not always stop
short of licentiousness. They posed as defenders of the rights
of the individual against the tyranny of custom, and thus they
were led to glorify a selfish and lawless egotism. There was
truth in the remark of a keen French critic that the communism
of 1871 was the logical successor of the romanticism of 1830.
To say this is to suggest that a foundation of romanticism was
unsound and unstable. As a whole, romanticism was destructive
only; it had no strength for construction. When it has swept
classicism aside and cleared the ground, then its work was done,
and all that was left for it to do was itself to die.
III
OF all the manifold influences that united to reinvigorate
the drama toward the middle of the century, the most powerful
was that of prose fiction. In France more particularly no stimulant
was more potent than the series of realistic investigations into
the conditions and the results of modern life which Balzac comprehensively
entitled the "Human Comedy." The novel is the department
of literature which was a characteristic of the nineteenth century
as the drama was of the seventeenth; and only in the nineteenth
was the novel able to establish its right to be considered as
a worthy rival of the drama. Until after Scott had taken all
Europe captive, the attitude of the novelist was as apologetic
and deprecatory as the attitude of the playwright had been while
Sidney was pouring forth his contempt for the acted drama of
his own day. In the eighteenth century, when it ought to have
been evident that the drama was no longer at its best, the tradition
of its supremacy survived and it was still believed to be the
sole field for the first ventures of ambitious authors. Men-of-letters
as dissimilar as Johnson and Smollett, both of them hopelessly
unfit for the theater, went up to London, each with a dull tragedy
in his pocket. Steele and Fielding in England, like Lesage and
Marivaux in France, were writers of plays to be performed on
the stage, long before they condescended to be depicters of character
for the mere reader by the fireside.
For years the novel was conceived almost in the manner of
a play, with its characters talking and acting, projecting forward
and detached from their surroundings, as though they were appearing
upon an isolated platform, scant of scenery and bare of furniture.
The personages of prose-fiction were not related to their environment
nor were they shown as component parts of the multitude that
peopled the rest of the world. Only after Rousseau had sent forth
the NEW HÉLOÏSE was there disclosed in fiction
any alliance between nature and human nature; and only after
Bernardin de Saint-Pierre had issued PAUL AND VIRGINIA
did the story-teller begin to find his profit in the landscape
and the weather, in sunsets and rainstorms and the mystery of
the dawn, all phenomena not easily represented in the playhouse.
The novelist was long held to be inferior to the dramatist,
and his pay was inferior also. But when by his resplendent improvisations
Scott was able to settle with his creditors, the European men-of-letters
were made aware that prose fiction might be as profitable as
playwriting. They knew already that it was far easier, since
the technique of the novel seems liberty itself when contrasted
with the rigid economy of the drama. The task appeared to be
simpler and the immediate reward appeared to be larger, so that
the temptation became irresistible for young men to adventure
themselves in the narrative form rather than the dramatic. Yet
not a few of those who took to fiction were naturally more qualified
for success in the theater,--Dickens, for instance; and many
of those who had won triumphs as playwrights sought also to receive
the reward of the story-teller,--Hugo for one and the elder Dumas
for another.
During the middle fifty years of the century it was only in
French that the drama was able to hold its own as a department
of literature; and in every other language it was speedily overshadowed
by prose fiction. Bold and powerful as the French novelists were,
they had as competitors playwrights of an almost equal brilliancy,
variety, and force. In French the drama and the prose fiction
were vigorous rivals for threescore years. But in German literature,
in Italian and Spanish, the novel during this same period was
at least the equal of the drama, whatever its own demerits; and
in English literature the superiority of prose fiction was overwhelming.
In fact, during the second and third quarters of the century
the acted play in English had rarely more than a remote connection
with literature, whereas the novel was absorbing an undue proportion
of the literary ability of the peoples speaking the language.
This immense expansion of prose fiction, and its incessant
endeavor to avail itself of the devices of all other forms of
the literary art, will prove to be, perhaps, the most salient
fact in the history of literature in the nineteenth century.
But the future historian will be able to see clearly that the
obscuring of the drama was temporary only, and that even though,
outside of France, dramatic literature might seem to have gone
into a decline, it bade fair to be restored to health again in
the final quarter of the century. The historian will have to
indicate also the points of contact between the novel and the
play and to dwell on the constant interaction of the one and
the other,--an interaction as old as the origin of epic and tragic
poetry. It is to be seen in English, for example, in the influence
of the contemporary farces and melodramas of the London stage
upon the incidents of Dickens' serial tales.
It is to be seen in French also, of course; just as Lesage
and Fielding had applied to their narratives the method of character-drawing
which they had borrowed from Molière,
so Augier and the younger Dumas were directed in their choice
of subject by the towering example of Balzac. The Elizabethan
playwrights had treated the Italian story-tellers as storehouses
of plots and motives, of incidents and intrigues. But the Parisian
dramatists of the Second Empire were under a deeper debt to the
great novelist who had been their contemporary; it was to him
that they owed, in a great measure, their quicker interest in
the problems of society. They had not Balzac's piercing vision
into the secrets of the heart, but they at least sought to face
life from a point of view not unlike his.
IV
OBVIOUS as is the influence of Balzac upon Augier and the
younger Dumas, especially in their later studies into social
conditions, it is not more obvious or more powerful than the
influence of Scribe. While the romanticists
had been driving out the classicists, and exhausting themselves
in the vain effort to establish their own sterile formulas, Scribe
had gone on his own way, wholly unaffected by their theories
or their temporary vogue. He had been elaborating his technique
until he was able to sustain the spacious framework of a five-act
comedy by means of devices invented for use in the pettier comédie-vaudeville.
In almost every department of the drama, including the librettos
of grand opera and of opéra-comique, Scribe proved
himself to be a consummate master of the art and mystery of play-making.
He devoted himself to perfecting the mechanics of dramaturgy;
and he has survived as the type of the playwright pure and simple,
to be remembered by the side of Heywood and Kotzebue.
His plays, like so many of theirs, are now outworn and demoded.
He is inferior to Kotzebue in affluent emotion and to Heywood
in occasional pathos; but he is superior to both in sheer stagecraft.
The hundred volumes of his collected writings may be consulted
for proof that a play can serve its purpose in the theater and
still have little relation to literature--and even less to life.
His best play, whatever it may be, was a plot and nothing more,
a story in action, so artfully articulated that it kept the spectators
guessing until the final fall of the curtain,--and never caused
them to think after they had left the theater.
Yet there were very few playwrights of the second half of
the nineteenth century who had not been more or less influenced
by Scribe, and who did not find it difficult to release themselves
from their bondage to him. Even Augier and the younger Dumas,
while the content of their social dramas was in some measure
suggested to them by Balzac, went to Scribe for their form; and
what now seems most old-fashioned in the GENDRE DE M. POIRIER
and in the DEMIMONDE is a superingenuity in the handling
of intrigue. No small part of the willful formlessness of the
French drama in the final quarter of the century was due to the
violence of the reaction against the methods of this master mechanician
of the modern theater. Even thoughtless playgoers began in time
to weary of the "well-made" play, with its sole dependence
on the artificial adroitness of its structure, with its stereotyped
psychology, its minimum of passion, its humdrum morality, and
its absence of veracity. But at the height of its popularity
the "well-made" play was the model for most of the
playwrights, not of France only but of the rest of Europe; and
there was scarcely a modern language in which Scribe's pieces
had not been translated and adapted, imitated and plagiarized.
It was in the second quarter of the century that Scribe attained
the apex of success at the very hour when the romanticists were
exuberantly triumphant; and it may sound like a paradox to suggest
that it was the luxuriant abundance of the drama in French that
helped to bring about its decline in the other languages; but
this is no more than the truth. At the moment when the comparative
facility of prose fiction was alluring men-of-letters away from
the theater, the dramatists outside of France had their already
precarious reward suddenly diminished by the rivalry of cheap
adaptations from the French. There was then neither international
copyright nor international stageright; and French plays could
be acted in English and in German, in Italian and in Spanish,
without the author's consent and without payment to him.
As it happened, the French drama was then of a kind easily
exportable and adaptable. The plays of the romanticists dealt
with passion rather than with character; and emotion has universal
currency. The "well-made" plays of Scribe and his numberless
followers in France dealt with situations only; and their clockwork
would strike just as well in London or New York as in Paris.
The TOUR DE NESLE and the BATAILLE DE DAMES could
be carried anywhere with little loss of effect. Few of the emotional
plays or the mechanical comedies had any pronounced flavor of
the soil; and they could be relished by Russian spectators as
well as by Australian. But no foreigner can really appreciate
a comedy wherein the author aims at a profound study of the society
he sees all around him in his own country; and this is why the
FEMMES SAVANTES of Molière and the EFFRONTÉS
of Augier are little known beyond the boundaries of the French
language, while the STRANGER of Kotzebue and the ADRIENNE
LECOUVREUR of Scribe have had their hour of popularity everywhere
the wide world over.
So long as the theatrical managers of the German and Italian
principalities, as well as those of Great Britain and the United
States, could borrow a successful French play whenever they needed
a novelty, without other payment than the cost of translation,
they were naturally disinclined to proffer tempting remuneration
for untried pieces by writers of their own tongue. This was an
added reason why men-of-letters kept turning from the drama to
prose fiction, the rewards of which were just then becoming larger
than ever before, as the boundless possibilities of serial publication
were discovered, whereby the story-teller could get paid twice
for one work.
V
WHEN we consider that novel-writing is not only easier than
playwriting, but that the novelist had the advantage of a double
market, while the dramatist was then forced to vend his wares
in competition with stolen goods, we need not be surprised that
the drama apparently went into a decline during the middle years
of the century everywhere except in France. The theater might
seem to flourish, but the stage was supplied chiefly with plays
filched from the French and twisted into conformity with local
conditions. As most of these hasty adaptations had no possible
relation to the realities of life, there was no call for literary
quality; and thus it was that there impended an unfortunate divorce
between literature and the drama.
By the ill-advised action of certain English poets the breach
between the stage and the men-of-letters was made to appear wider
than it ought to have been. These poets fell victims to the heresy
of so-called closet-drama, which all who apprehend the true principles
of the drama cannot but hold to be only bon à mettre
au cabinet, as Molière phrased it. Averting their
countenances from the actual theater of their own time, the English
poets followed out Lamb's whimsical suggestion and tried to write
for antiquity. Instead of letting the dead past bury its dead,
Matthew Arnold and Swinburne put forth alleged dramas composed
in painful imitation of the Greek plays, which had been originally
planned in complete accord with all the circumstances of the
actual theater of Dionysus. In like manner Tennyson and Browning
spent their time in copying the formlessness of Shakespeare's
chronicle-plays, which were exactly suited to the conditions
of the Elizabethan stage.
This writing of plays which were not intended to be played,
and which had no relation to the expectations of contemporary
spectators, was an aberration for which there is no warrant in
the works of any truly dramatic poet. It was just as absurd for
Tennyson to take as his model the semi-medieval form of Shakespeare,
regardless of all the changes in the circumstances of actual
performance in the theater, as it would have been for Shakespeare
himself to have slavishly followed the traditions of the Attic
stage. It was still more absurd for Arnold to suppose that he
could really get a Greek spirit into a play written by a British
poet in the nineteenth century. Even if it had been possible
for a man thus to step off his own shadow, there was nothing
to be gained by venturing on a vain rivalry with the noble Greek
dramas which have happily survived for our delight.
These unactable dramatic poems, with no bold collision of
will to serve as a backbone, with scarcely any of the necessary
scenes, without the actuality of the real play, intended to be
performed by actors in a theater and before an audience,--these
mistakes of judgment may have their importance in a history of
English literature; but they need not be mentioned in a history
of English drama, any more than SAMSON AGONISTES will
need be mentioned there. Probably even those who most admire
the poetry which has put on the garb of the drama without having
possessed itself of the spirit are not sorry that Milton finally
chose the epic form for PARADISE LOST rather than the
dramatic. There is a taint of unreality about all these misguided
efforts, whatever the genius of the authors themselves; there
is a lack of vitality, due wholly to the fact that these English
poets scorned the actual theater. They yearned to reap the reward
of the dramatic poet without taking the trouble to learn the
trade of the playwright and without being willing to submit to
the conditions he must perforce labor under.
Here Browning, for one, could have profited by the example
of Hugo, who had perhaps no larger share of the native dramatic
gift, but who put his mind to a mastery of the principles of
the dramaturgic art, taking a model in the playhouse itself.
The French had the double advantage over the English that their
men-of-letters kept in contact with the actual theater, and also
that the acknowledged masterpieces of their drama had been delayed
until their stage had become almost modern in its lighting and
in its use of scenery. Molière and Racine
supply excellent examples from whose form their is no need to
vary. Shakespeare unfortunately planned his great plays for a
stage still more or less medieval; and his masterpieces have
to be modified and rearranged before they can conform to the
conditions of the modern theater. It was easy enough to borrow
from him the loose framework of the chronicle-play; but it was
impossible to steal the fire and force of his swifter and more
compact tragedies. It is to be remarked also that we who speak
English have rarely revealed the instinctive feeling for form
which the French seem to have acquired through the Latin from
the Greek. Quite significant of the French inherent regard for
structural beauty is the fact that the gracefully lyric romantic-comedies
of Alfred de Musset, published as closet-dramas, needed only
slight readjustment to fit them for performance.
In the middle years of the century there was a living dramatic
literature only in France. The romanticist drama had withered
away, although its spirit reappeared now and again,--for example
we cannot help discovering in the heroine of DAME AUX CAMÉLIAS
of the younger Dumas a descendant of the heroine of the ANTONY
of the older Dumas. But there is little flavor of romanticism
in the best of the later dramatist's profounder studies of contemporary
manners,--especially in his masterpiece, the DEMI-MONDE,
which shares the foremost place in modern French comedy with
the GENDRE DE M. POIRIER of Augier and Sandeau. The FROUFROU
of Meilhac and Halévy was their sole triumph in the comedy
which softens into pathos, while their lighter plays contained
a fascinating collection of comic characters, as veracious as
they were humorous. The comedy-farces of Labiche had not a little
of the large laughter of Molière's less philosophic plays.
The comedy-dramas of Sardou were the result of an attempt to
combine the contemporary satire of Beaumarchais with the self-sufficient
stagecraft of Scribe.
VI
BUT even in France the rivalry of the novel made itself felt
and its swelling vogue tempted some writers of fiction to take
an arrogant attitude and to assert that the drama had had its
day. Perhaps a portion of their distaste for the acted play was
owing to a healthy dislike for the lingering artificialities
of plot-making, visible even in so independent and individual
a plawright as Augier and obviously inherited from Scribe. Yet
there was a still more active cause for their hostility, due
to their recognizing that the dramatic art must always be more
or less democratic and that the dramatist cannot hold himself
aloof from the plain people. This necessity of pleasing the public
and reckoning with its likes and dislikes was painful to writers
who chose to think themselves aristocratic,--Théophile
Gautier, for example, and the Goncourts.
One of the Goncourts was rash in risking the opinion that
the drama was no longer literature and that in the existing conditions
of the theater nothing more could be hoped from it. Gautier had
earlier complained that the stage never touched subjects until
they had been worn threadbare, not only in the newspapers but
in the novel. Here the poetic art-critic was making a reproach
of that which is really an inexorable condition of the drama,
so recognized ever since Aristotle,--that the playwright must
broaden his appeal, that he cannot write only for the highly
cultivated, that he must deal with the universal. The dramatist
may be a little in advance of the mass of men, but it is not
his duty to be a pioneer, since he can discuss the newest themes
only at the risk of not interesting enough playgoers to fill
the theater. If Goncourt had known literary history better, he
might have remembered that the limitations of the theater had
not prevented Sophocles and Shakespeare
and Molière from dealing with the deeper problems of life.
If he had happened to care about what was going on outside of
France he could have learned that even while he was recording
his opinion, Ibsen was proving anew that
there was no reason why a playwright should not do his own thinking.
The drama was not on its death-bed, as these aristocratic
dilettants were hastily declaring; indeed, it was about to revive
with new-born vigor, although it was not to find the elixir of
life in France. Since the Franco-German war there had been visible
among the defeated a relaxing energy, a lassitude which French
psychologists have regretted as both physical and moral. Whenever
the national fiber is enfeebled the drama is likely to be weakened;
and this is what took place in France in the final years of the
century. Whenever a people displays such sturdy resolution it
is ripe for a growth of the drama; and this is what was to be
seen in Germany in the two final decades when the French were
losing their grip. Whenever a race, however few in number, stiffens
its will to attain its common desires, the conditions are favorable
for the appearance of the dramatist; and this is what happened
in Norway, where Ibsen was coming to a knowledge of his powers.
With the appearance of Ibsen the supremacy of France was challenged
successfully for the first time in the century. Ibsen's plays
might be denounced and derided; but it was difficult to deny
his strange power or his fecundating influence on the drama of
every modern language.
Simultaneously with the natural reaction against the excessive
voge of prose fiction and with the revived interest in the theater
aroused by the occasional performances of Ibsen's stimulating
plays, there was everywhere a revision of the local laws which
had permitted the free stealing of French plays. An enlightened
selfishness, an increasing recognition of the right of the laborer
to his hire, and a growing sentiment of international solidarity
led to such an extension of copyright and of stageright as to
assure the dramatist the control of his own work not only in
his own language but in almost every other. The playwrights of
the rest of the world were relieved from the necessity of vending
their wares in a market unsettled by an abundant offering of
stolen goods; and they also received proper payment when their
own works were translated into other languages to satisfy the
increasingly cosmopolitan curiosity of playgoers throughout the
world.
The new international laws even allowed the dramatist to reap
a double reward by protecting his ownership of his play as a
book also; and thus they enncouraged him to seek the approbation
of readers as well as of spectators. As a result of this wise
legislation the pecuniary returns of the drama were raised again
to an equality with those of prose fiction, so that the writer
who happened to be born with the dramatic gift was no longer
tempted to turn novelist in despair of support by the theater.
The change in the law also brought with it another advantage,
since the dramatist, having complete control of his own writings
abroad as well as at home, soon insisted that they should be
translated literally and not betrayed by a fantastic attempt
at adaptation; and this tended to terminate the reign of unreality
in the theater. So long as French plots were wrenched out of
all veracity in the absurd effort to localize them in all the
four quarters of the globe, even careless playgoers beholding
these miserable perversions must have been struck by their "incurable
falsity," as Matthew Arnold called it,--a falsity which
tended to prevent people from taking the drama seriously or even
from expecting it to deal truthfully with life. No artist is
likely to give his best to a public which is in the habit of
considering his art as insincere and as having no relation to
the eternal verities, ethic as well as aesthetic.
In the final decade of the century there was abundant evidence
that the drama was rising rapidly in the esteem of thoughtful
men and women. This higher repute was due in part, of course,
to the respectful attention which was compelled by the weight
and might of Ibsen's plays. It was due also to the efforts of
the younger dramatists in the various languages to grapple resolutley
with the problems of life and to deal honestly with the facts
of existence. Verga and Sudermann, Pinero
and Echegaray, are names to be neglected by no one who wishes
to understand the trend of modern thought. At the end of the
century the drama might still be inferior to prose fiction in
English and in Spanish; but it was probably superior in German
and in Italian. The theater was even beginning to attract the
poets; and Hauptmann and Rostand, D'Annunzio and Phillips, having
mastered the methods of the modern stage, and having ascertained
its limitations and its possibilities, proved that there need
be no more talk of divorce between poetry and the drama.
When the last year of the century drew to an end, the outlook
for the drama was strangely unlike that of a quarter-century
earlier. Except in France, there was everywhere evidence of reinvigoration;
and even in France there were not lacking playwrights of promise,
like Hervieu. Perhaps everywhere, except in Norway, it was promise
rather than final performance which characterized the drama;
and yet the actual performance of not a few of the dramatists
of the half-dozen modern languages was already worthy of the
most serious criticism. Just as a clever playwright so constructs
the sequence of his scenes in the first act that the interest
of expectancy is excited, so the nineteenth century--in so far
as drama is concerned--dropped its curtain, leaving an interrogation-mark
hanging in the air behind it.
|