Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 7.djvu/450

430 430 DRAMA [ENGLISH. igress of, edy L ledy ore ike- are. This period of our drama, though it is far from being one of crude effort, could not therefore yet be one of full con summation. In tragedy the advance which had been made in the choice of great themes, in knitting closer the connec tion between the theatre and the national history, in vindi cating to passion its right to adequate expression, was already enormous. In comedy the advance had been less decisive and less independent ; much had been gained in reaching greater freedom of form and something in enlarg ing the range of subjects : but artificiality had proved a snare in the one direction, while the licence of the comic stage, upheld by favourite &quot; clowns,&quot; such as Kemp or Tarleton, had not succumbed before more exacting demands. The way of escaping 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 real 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. Shakespeare s 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 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 national character, expanded 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 pro gress of our national drama divides itself in very unequal proportions into a direct and an indirect one. To the former alone reference can here be made. Already the first editors of Shakespeare s works in a collected form recognized so marked a distinction between his plays taken from English history and those treating other historical subjects (whether ancient or modern) that, while they included the latter among the tragedies at large, they grouped the former as histories by themselves. These histories are in their literary genesis a development of the chronicle histories of Shakespeare s predecessors and contem poraries, the taste for which had greatly increased towards the beginning of his own career as a dramatist, under influences naturally connecting themselves with the general current 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 gave to the entire series an inner harmony which has not unnaturally inspire 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 add to it more than an occasional supplement. None of them was 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, 2 the national historical drama in Shakespeare reached at once its perfection and its close. The ruder form of the old chronicle history for a time survived the advance made upon it but the efforts in this field of T. Heywood, 3 S. Rowley, 4 and others are, from a literary point of view, anachronisms. Of Shakespeare s other plays the several groups exercised Shake- a more direct influence upon the general progress of our f jj &amp;gt;eavo dramatic literature. His Roman tragedies, though follow- y^j^ ing their authorities with much the same fidelity as that of traged the English histories, even more effectively taught the great lesson of free dramatic treatment of historic themes, and thus pre-exuinently became the perennial models of the modern historic drama. His tragedies on other themes, t raged v 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 exhi bited with the same fulness the struggle between will and obstacle, character and circumstance 1 Where is mirrored with equal power and variety the working of those passions in the mastery of which over man lies his doom 1 Here, above all. Shakespeare as compared with his predecessors, as well as with his successors, &quot; is that nature which they paint and draw.&quot; 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 pro claimed 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 and comedies of Shakespeare accordingly refuse to be tabulated comedy in deference to any method of classification deserving to be called precise ; and several of them are comedies only accord ing to a purely technical use of the term. In those in which the comic interest asserts itself to the instinct of reader or spectator as supreme, it is still of its nature incidental to the progress of the action ; for it seems a just criticism (and one agreeing with what we can conclude as to Shake speare s process of construction) that of all his comedies but one 5 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. hole 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 Shakespeare s diction and versification upon those of the English drama in general can hardly be over-rated, though it would be next to impossible to state them definitely. lu these points, Shakespeare s manner as a writer was progressive ; and this progress has been deemed bufficiently well traceable in his plays to be used as an aid in seeking to determine their chronological sequence. The 1 Henry VII f. 2 Ford, Perkin Warleck. 3 Edward IV.; If 1 va Know Xot Me, &c. 4 llmry VIII. fl The Merry Wives of Windsor