The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-12-15
TIE FAN URE or MODERN IRA GEDY
ON THE STAGE.

From tie London Saturday ReDiet0.
That the tragedies of modern poets, when
produced on the stage, fail to excite the SYM
pathies of the audience-that even the best
are received with dissatisfaction, not only by
the many, but perhaps in still greater de-
gree by the few-is now almost among the
platitudes of criticism. The fact is recog-
nized, but there is still disagreement with
regard to its cause.
No doubt-to mention one among the
many causes of the fact-a deeper apprecla-
tion of the more subtle beauties of poetry has
grown among us, and with it an always iu-
creasing demand that none of these beauties
shall be lost in the representation. We de-
sire to see the conclusions at which we our
selves have arrived through careful study
confirmed in the actors conception and ex-
ecution Of his part; or, if there Is some
character in the piece which we in our read
ing have felt ourselves unable to grasp COM
pletely, we expect that the actor will throw
stronger light upon it, and hel us to under
stand it better. That such expectations
are in general disappointed, most of us have
learnt by experience. One or two characters
may, it is possible, realize our wishes we
may find our ideal in the actors representa-
ton; we may learn something that will
enlarge our ideal or give us better in its
place. 1t is seldom that even the most skilful
actors satisfy us entirely; but they often pro-
vide us with useful suggestions, and direct
our attention to what may otherwise have
escaped our notice; and we will grant that,
when we see a great tragedy performed
by good company, we are
pleased ON the whole with one
or two Of the characters This, however, is
the utmost that we can reasonably expect;
at the best, the greater part of the play will
be mangled by gaucherie and ignorance; and
we shall return home saying, as and
otbarS NAV often hp said bafora that he
best stage for great play is the readers own
mind. His conception may be sadly made
quate, but there is at any rate more harmony
and completeness in it than he can hope to
find In theatrical representation.
This may in part explain the fact that few
thoughtful men witness tragedy on the mod
ern English stage with unmixed enjoyment.
But the reasoning applies no less to the plays
Of Shakespeare than to the plays of more
modern poets. Shakespeare is still produced
with some success-with only partial success
it is true, but with greater success than the
best plays of our later poets. We want some
theory which will account for the complete
failure on the stage of works like Mr.. Brown
ing's Blot In tie 'ScUtcheOB and Strdf0rd
That the fault, if there be any fault, is not
entirely on the side of the public is sufi.
ciently evident, since it does not altogether
refuse hearing to Shakespeare. Let us con-
slider what there is in such plays which dis
tinguishes them from the Elzabethan drama,
and prevents them from gaining the public
ear at all.
The question has often been debated: and
it has often been settled by an appeal to that
most dangerous and fallacious of canons,
''poetical inspiration Of the highest order is
impossible in an age of criticism" When
the first unconscious efforts of genius have
ceased, we are told, man begins to analyze
that which he has accomplished and the prin-
ciple that prompts him to analyZe once within
him. he can no longer create-poetry in the
most elevated sense of the word is at an end.
The poet will no longer write what will
awaken the sympathies of his fellow-men,
educated and uneducated alike. The vigorous
simplicity and uncouded truth which charac-
terize the earliest poetry, and which every
one can appreciate, have gone from among
us. We shall still have poets; but they will
not do more than write each for more OIL
less limited circle of readers whereas the
first poets wrote for the whole of humanity
This last statement is true. 1t is true that
later poetry is less universal, in one sense OF
the word, than that which precedes it. The
kind of universally or generality which
arises from a comparative simplicity in the
environment of the poet and his public, ani
which we find in the oldest poetry of the
world, is generally lost as poetry continues
its advance through higher stages of develop
ment. The ants diverge more aud more frou
one another; they become more and NOR,
specialized; and as they increase in speciality
they proceed further from the kint
of generality that we have mentioned
always however approaching another anC
higher kind of generality. The progress il
fromthat universally which arises from tn
fact that the world in which the artist move
is still TO great degree homogeneous, to
knowledge of the infinite universal relation
which determine and constitute the indi
vidual. How this bears upon the question O
the failure of modern tragedies we shall Sc
presently. 1t will be sufficient to remark her
that the advance of the poetical art in tn
direction of greater speciality is not matte
of reproach: and, further, if it be so, that tn
growth Of criticism is not to blame. The ag
of Shakespeare is in fact by no mean
marked by the absence of criticism. 1t
principles were indeed less clearly understoo
than they are in the present day, but tn
spirit of analysis-and this is what the rea
soners of whom we have spoken declare {
be inimical to true pOetry-was already il
existence. The truth is that criticism
always attendant upon, and correlative ia
artistic production. The earliest efforts ar
undoubtedly on the side of the artist, be
cause there must be something to criticis
before criticism is possible; but when crit
cism has once come into being, its develop
ment is on the whole parallel with that q
the other arts. False canons of criticism ma
for a time arrest the progress of art, bu
there is no essential antagonism betwee
criticism on the one side and poetry, pain
ing, and music on the other; it is in generi
not only beneficial, but necessary.
1t may be urged, on the other hand, th,
thn I.,~a IL, Oh, 4