The sun., 1908-03-22

To the readers Of this work il will be
patent that the English drama in the reign
Of Queen Elizabeth and the reigns Of her
two SUCCESSORS was made up Of tw o strands,
namely, the scholarly and academic drama
on the one hand, and on the other the plays
that fourshed in the popular playhouses.
Although the two types are at all times
distingushable and are even sharply con-
trasted, their interrelations owing TO the
royal patronage Of theatrical entertain
ments throughout the three reigns, were
close and their influence upon each other
was unintermittent. -The ideals OF court
life involved elegance, display and costli-
ness; those OF the people, the appeals OF
terror, humor and realistic truth, Hence,
while the Inns Of Court and the universities
pondered on the precedence OF the ancients
and writer's who we're more or less cour-
tiers consulted the practices Of the con-
temporary French and Italian stage, the
popular theatres we're independent Of these
let's and hindranoes, and the vernacular
drama was developed with a freedom and
an unrestraint unparalleled in the history
of literature" II was not, however, until the
Spanish Armada had come and gone It's
way to destruction that vernacular drama
worthy to compare with that which was
already f1ourishing at court and in the
universities can be said 10 have come into
existence. Lyly was wholly OF the academic
school and the only predecessor OF Shake
speare' Of whom this can be said. Daniel
was no less wholly OF that school. although
in later Shakespearian times, and 30 was
Fulke Greville. The only other name
which Prof Schelling thinks worthy OF
standing beside theirs in the academic cate
CORY il that OF Thomas Randolph, who
although assuredly 10 be classed as one OF
the sons OF Ben seems otherwise TO have
lived, and written in peculiar freedom from
popular contemporary dramatic influences
Our author points out that 10 the academic
school the drama owes the Senecan craze,
out Of which momentous things came Ia
pass. To the same school must be cred.
tied the pastoral and the mass, although
within their stricter limitations those
exotics would have remained unfHiitful but
for the vitalizing influence which the vernac-
ular drama exercised upon them.
In the utmost contrast to the academic
dramatsts we're the popular playwrights,
whose salient traits were the eoleoticism
Of their practice and an unorthodoXy
as to the precepts Of Aristotle and the ex-
amples Of Euripides which set the teeth OF
the delicately bred scholarship on edge.
As a matter OF fact, save for Jonson,
Chapman. Marston and few otherB-the
dramatists OF conscious effort, as Prof,
Schelling calls them-the great Elizabeth
ans cared no jot or title for the theories
Of Aristotle or any other critics; much less
did they concern themselves with an at.
tempt at a compromise between ancient
and modern art or with the counter olai ms
OF c,asao OF other Ideals. II tsere he
trait, says our author, more prominent
than any other in group Of writers the
multiplicity Of whose gifts presages nearly
every quality that can grace and distinguish
literary art, that trait is their fine spon-
taneousness and abandon; a spontaneous
ness that has ever the right word, the nat
ural solution, the rational outcome; an
abandon that carries them lightly over
difficulties that would wreck self-conscious-
ness and achieves great things apparently
"a easily as tne merest trin,F,