fyxuM Hmm^itg Jilr«g THE GIFT OF KZS'jl.OZ ,.. l3./ai... M..\ 1357 Dramatic Unities in England By LOUIS SIGMUND FRIEDLAND REPRINTED FROM Tke Journal of Englisli and Germanic Pnilology VOL. X, No. 1 1911 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013270685 THE DRAMATIC UNITIES IN ENGLAND. For the source of the dramatic unities, as for so many other things, we must go back to Aristotle. The passages that touch upon the unity of action are contained in the Poetics. As trans- lated by Professor Butcher^ these loci run as foUows: "Unity of plot does not, as some persons think, consist in the unity of the hero. For infinitely various are the incidents in one man's life, which cannot be reduced to unity, and so, too, there are many actioifs of one man out of which we cannot make one action. Hence the error, as it appears, of all poets who have composed a Heracleid, a Theseid, or other poems of the kind. They imagine that as Heracles was one man, the story of Heracles must also be a unity." (P. VIII, 1 & 2.)=' "A whole is that which has a beginning, a middle and an end." (VII, 3.) "To define the matter roughly, we may say that the proper magnitude is com- prised within such limits, that the sequence of events, according to the law of probability or necessity, will admit of a change from bad fortune to good, or from good fortune to bad." (VII, 7.) "As therefore in the other imitative arts, the imitation is one when the object imitated is one, so the plot, being the imitation of an action, must imitate one action and that a whole, the structural union of the parts being such that, if any one of them is displaced or removed, the whole will be disjointed or disturbed. For a thing whose presence or absence makes no visible differ- ence is not an organic part of the whole." (VIII, 4.) Of the unity of time Aristotle speaks but briefly: "Epic poetry and tragedy differ, again, in their length, for tragedy endeavors, as far as possible, to confine itself to a single revolu- tion of the sun, or but slightly to exceed this limit, whereas the epic action has no limits of time." (V, 4.) For the purposes of this study it is unnecessary to comment, lEd. of the Poetics (with trans. 1902). 2 Cf . ch. XXIII, 1 & 4, where it is stated that unity of time, Uke unity of person, does not of itself bind events into a unity. (Professor Butcher.) Aristotle's views have added light thrown on them when studied in conjunction with the principles laid down by Plato in the Phaedrus, 2 Friedland at the present moment, on Aristotle's doctrine of the Major Unity, i. e., action.^ One remark of Prof. Butcher's, however, it is desirable to bear in mind throughout our discussion : "Unity in Aristotle is the principle of limit, without which an object loses itsels in the amipov , the region of the undefined, the inde- terminate, the accidental. By means of unity the plot becomes individual and also intelligible." * Because of this service per- formed by the unity of plot or action, it has been admitted, with very generous latitude and with no common acceptance as to meaning, by many dramatists.^ The Greek notion of the unity of time, however, and its companion, of place, require some explanation here. To begin with, these two minor unities are not, strictly speak- ing, a doctrine with Aristotle; they are "a rough generalization as to the practice of the Greek stage." " They are the "scenic" unities, "continuities," as Prof. Moulton calls them, demanded by the exigencies of the Greek theatre. A Greek tragedy began where ours is ready to end, — that is, at the moment of suspense preceding the climax. From this point the catastrophe was rapidly sketched and the action concluded with a swift denoue- ment.'' Thus there was little opportunity for elaboration, for counter-action, or for sub-plot, so that the unity of action was a tangible, distinctive feature of the drama, and not, as with our romantic playwrights, a vague, indeterminate generalization. The minor unities were conserved with equal decisiveness by the Chorus of the Greek tragedy. How the Chorus tended to have this efEect requires no explanation.' It must not be forgotten, 3 Full discussions on this point are found in Butcher 'b Aristotle 'a Themry of Poetry cmd Fine Art (3rd Ed. 1902, pp. 274 ff.); also in Moulton 's The Ancient Classical Brama (1890, pp. 124 ff.). 4 Butcher (op. eit., p. 275). 5 Prof. Lounsbury {Shakespearean. Wars, Vol. 1, Chap. I passim) seems to find for the doctrine a greater currency than it had. In its Aristotelian sense it is certainly far from universal in the practice of the English playwrights. Vd. infra, p. 29. 6 Butcher, as above, p. 277. 7 Butcher (idem) calls this "The simple and highly conoentrated movement of the Greek tragedy." 8 It is to be noted that the stage was never empty. Cf . the French liaison, des scenes, the irresistible result of strict adherence to time and place. Dramatic Unities in England 3 however, as many scholars have pointed out, that in the Greek drama "the time that elapses during the songs of the Chorus is entirely idealized"; and also that the unities of time and place (for the latter was equally a stage practice with the Greeks') are by no means universally observed. It is necessary to remember, furthermore, that in the Greek observance of the unities there is little, if any, thought of "verisimilitude," of restricting the time and place for the purpose of producing the semblance of reality. Certainly the Greeks did not found these stage practices, as the Eenaissance critics did, on any false and shackling notion of vraisemblance. We must look upon them as determined by the conditions of the Greek theatre ;^" yet, may we add that they are the concomitants of an inner, subtler necessity — of the law for unity of effect in all things, in a Gothic cathedral as well as in a Greek temple? Unity underlies all works of art and is an ex- pression of an instinctive desire in man. If, then, the unities of time and place help, in a modest way, to fulfill this desire, may we not be justified in considering them with greater tolerance as, in a measure, connected with the basic principle of Unity? But more of this later. Before coming to the Eenaissance theory and practice it is necessary to bridge, in a few words, the gap between the Greeks and the Italians. That the Eoman dramas are slavish imitations of the Greek is evident enough, but that they knew the Poetics may well be doubted." Horace has an allusion to the unity of action : The reason for Aristotle 's silence on the unity of place is thus commented upon by D'Aubignac (Pratique 1, 86): "J'estime qu'il I'a negUgfi (i. e., I'unitfi de Ueu) a cause que cette unite etoit trop connue de son temps; et que les Choeurs qui demeuroient ordinairement sur le Theatre durant tout le cours d'une Pifice, marquoient trop visiblement 1 'Unite de Lieu." loEaumer (Ueier die Poet, des Arist., 1828, p. 183) holds that the place of a Greek tragedy, as the time, was idealized. "Kann man aber von einer solchen Einheit sprechen wo der Ort so ganz bestimmungslos, so negativ genommen wird, dass er eigentlich gar nicht mitspielt, sondern nur den Baum bezeiehnet, hinreichend, dass Leute dasselbst gehn, stehn und reden kbnnenf " 11 ' ' Ob Seneca oder die Eomer die Poetik des Aristotles gekaniit haben, ist mehr als zweifelhaf t. " (Ebner, Beitrag z. Gesch. der Ein- heiten in It alien, p. SO.) 4 Friedlcmd "Denique sit quidvis, simplex dumtaxat et imum." (v. 33.) Seneca adheres closely to the minor unities. On the other hand, the careful division of his dramas into acts made it possible for a new influence to come in later. In the Senecan plays the Chorus leaves the stage at the end of each act; thus a decided break in the continuity of the action is produced, and a change of scene is easily possible.^^ The next mention of the Poetics is in Averroes' so-called translation.^' This work, which is really a paraphrase^* appear- ing first in 1481, drew attention to the original, and in 1498 came the earliest Latin translation, by Georgius VaUa. Aristotle was now to take his place as a giver of dramatic laws, as he had already established his reputation as a scientist and a philosopher. Eenaissanee scholars eagerly turned to his work for the rules that were to determine the form of the dramatic output in Italy for a great number of years, and in France for many more. The Eenaissanee had its first home in Italy; hence the dramatic uni- ties arose in this land. As Ebner expresses it, "Gerade dieses Land (Italian) also Ausgangspimkt diesen Kegeln xmsere beson- dere Aufmerksamkeit in Anspruch nehmen muss." ^^ The eager interest during the rebirth of learning in all docu- ments of the past, the veneration for the name of Aristotle, 12 Cf. Cunliffe (TTie Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan Tragedy) 1893, p. 37: "The absence of the Chorus duiing the progress of the action lessened Seneca's hold on the so-called unities of time and place." 13 Averroes (Ibn-Eoschd, 1126-1198). As Benan says (^Averroes et I'Averroisme) "Ibn-Hosehd n'a lu Aristote que dans les ancieimes ver- sions f aites du syriaque par Honein Ibn Ihak. ' ' Cited Ebner, o. c. p. 24. By this work in the Miinch. Beitrage, I have benefited largely, in my sum- mary of the unities in Greece and sixteenth-century Italy. Nor must 1 fail to acknowledge my indebtedness to Professor Spingarn's book and to his personal help, cheerfully given, in the matter of bibliography. 1* Averroes did not expound his version as a code of laws for the writers of his land, but drew from it what they could appreciate. As Ebner puts it, "Waren die italienischen Ubersetzer, Kommentatoren und Dichter eben so unbef angen der Poetik des Aristoteles gegeniiber getreten, so wiirden die Eegeln von der Einheiten nicht Jahrhunderte lang den freien Geistesschwung des Genies eingedammt haben. " Cf. with thi», Saintsbury, Hist. Criticism, V. 2, p. 76. 15 Ebner (o. e. p. 3) Cf. Morandi, Voltaire contro Shakespeare, etc., p. 169, ff. Dramatic Unities in England 5 accounts for the large number of Latin and Italian translations and adaptations of the Poetics that appeared in the 16th cen- tury in Italy. But the equally large number of commentaries on the text is accounted for by the very incompleteness of that text. Its precis form, its summary treatment, required expan- sion, elaboration, and was a veritable boon for gentlemen exegeti- cally inclined. Gaspary expresses this well, — "Die vielfach dun- kelen und schwierigen Satze der Poetik, boten immer die Mog- lichkeit, dass jeder darin fand was er brauchte, und um ihre Auslegung hat sich Jahrhunderte lang die literarische Kritik mehr gedreht, als um direkte Betrachtung der Kunst und des Kunstwerkes." " We shall briefly review the progress of Italian thought on the subject of the unities, with the ultimate aim of noting the trend of the criticism and its influence on English ideas. Ebner has found the earliest "modern" reference to dramatic laws in His- toria Betica, a Latin play by Caroli Verardi of Cesena, acted in Eome in 1493. The author in his preface reveals a knowledge of rules for the theatre, but like his fellow-dramatist Eicci, and so many others, he does not choose to follow the laws.^^ The position of the first to refer at some length to the unity of time has been claimed for Giraldi Cintio;^* yet if Trissino's work, published posthumously, was written and known in 1539 (as there is good ground for believing), the credit must be given to the latter critic. In substance Trissino^° repeats Aristotle, — the action is to be una e compiuta e grande; the time he limits "to one period of the sun or little more." For the vague expres- 16 Gaspary, Gesch. der ital. Lit., V. 2, p. 562. Cited also by Ebner. 1' Ebner (p. 162) gives the passage referred to in the text. It does not seem to have exercised any influence on later thought, its great inter- est lying in its early date, at the very threshold of the modern era. On Bicci Vd. infra. 18 Spingarn (Hist. Lit. Crit. in Ben. 1908, p. 91) and others after him. Giraldi 's book dates 1554. The exact date of the completion of his work is April 20, 1543. Trissino (1478-1550) published the first four parts of his Sei IHvisione, etc., in 1529. The two part* dealing with Tragedy and Comedy did not appear till 1563. Several circumstances (discussed by Ebner) make it likely that the later parts were ready simultaneously with the earlier. IB For work, etc., see Bibliography, — as for the other Italians cited. 6 Friedland sioD. — "one period of the sun" — ^this eomineiitator offers no explanation, as he might have done if he had known the edition and commentaries of Eobortelli (1548).^" Of greater importance is the fact that Trissino is perhaps the first to say specifically that the unity of time is a hard and fast rule of tragedy, and that "only ignorant poets" disregard it. This is a sweeping statement indeed, and by no means true. It marks, however, as Professor Spingam points out, "the first dis- tinction between the learned and ignorant poet, based on the test of the observance of the imity of time," which is "an artistic principle with Trissino that has helped to save dramatic poetry from the formlessness and chaotic condition of the Mediaeval drama." ^^ That Trissino's statement regarding "ignorant" poets is illiberal and untrue, is proved by the words of Eicci, a dramatist and contemporary of the critic. In the prologue to his Tre Tiranni (1553)^^ Eicci makes a surprisingly modern attack on the "theatric" laws. He sums up the case against the strict constructionists with spirit and intelligence, and from one point of view leaves little to be added. "It has pleased the author," he says, "to depart somewhat from the customs and rules of the ancients, who represent in their comedies but one action, accom- plished iu a brief time or in a single day. The author has wished that the present play should, according as the action demands, include many days and nights, even a whole year. And while he can frankly say that such was his pleasure, he has, none the less, several reasons to advance in support of his position : as we are now living in the present and not in times long past, and as the demands are different, it seems evident that with these changes should also be altered and renewed according to the time, poetry, and prose, and verse, and style, as well as the art of representation." Here is a sweeping rejection of the dramatic unities. And as Castelvetro first summed up 20 Cf. Ebner, p. 59, who points this out. 21 Spingarn (o. c. p. 93). 22 Cited Ebner, p. 163. I have not read the work, which Ebner calls a Comedy. Dramatic Unities in England 7 completely the case for the unities, so Eicci is the first, as far as is known, to deny them as completely.^* Giraldi Cintio was a dramatist as well as a critic and knew the difficulty of strict adherence to the unities. He at first defends his slight trespassing of the siagle day unity'* and cites Greek and Latin precedent. Going hack to the phrase of Aristotle, he declares himself willing to expand the words, — "& little more" — ^into two days.^^ Later Giraldi seems to have repented his latitude, and he becomes a conformist in practice as well as in theory. In the dramatist's examination of his play Heracleis"^ occurs a statement that may be construed as the first mention of the unity of place. Giraldi shows that the time must be lengthened because of "la lontananza dei luoghi" — an argument we will meet again. Evidently he regards the unity of place not as a law, but as a mere help to the representa- tion, not at all necessary for verisimilitude'^ — though the "dis- tance between places" leads directly to the doctrine of the verisimilar. To Eobertelli belongs the doubtful honor of first giving to the drama an exact time limit, that of the artificial day of twelve hours. In favor of this view he makes the plea that "No work is done at night." '* His opinion is stoutly opposed by another critic, Bernardo Segni, who says that some deeds, such as plottings and murders, naturally belong to the night. The 23 Of course it must be remembered that when Eicci wrote, the uuities had not yet been made gospel by hundreds of critics and by the consenting bondage of as many dramatists. They were still being weighed in the balance, even in Italy. Cf. Bbner, p. 61. 24 In his Discorsi, p. 250 ff., Cf. p. 213. 26 Cf. Spingarn (p. 91), who says, "One day or but little more." Giraldi 's words are, "Le (dramatic poetry) diede piu spatio di uno giorno: & noi con la sua auttorit^ componemneo I'Antile et la Didone di mode, che la lor attkme tocco alquanto di due giomi." 26 See the passage in Ebner. 27 Cf. Giraldi 's discussion of "verisimilitude" in the "Epilogo" to his Bidbne (1543). He was incited to this by the criticism of Bar- tolomeo Cavalcanti on his play. His remarks (given by Ebner, p. 165) should be compared with those of Corneille in his Bisoours. 28 Cf . D 'Aubignae — Pratique, p. 109. EobortelH 's Latin edition and commentary is dated 1548. Segni 's is the first Italian translation. 8 Friedland vnity of place is furtlier commented upon by Maggi, who, by deriTing the nnities strictly from the necessity of preserring verisimUitude, gives the basis of future discussion." It is unprofitable for our purpose to examine into the theories of a number of other Italian commentators. There is no view worthy of attention until we come to Scaliger. This writer makes "no direct statement on the unity of time, — ^but his refer- ence is unmistakable." '" TTis indefinite limit is from six to ei^t hours. Xor does he allow anything on the stage that is not in sMct accordance with verisimUe. When dealing with Ihe story of Ceyz, says this pedant, do not b^;in your play with tiie departure of the ship, as no storm of sufficient fury to sink the vessel can arise within the time allotted. Nor is it within reason to expect that a shipwreck can prove fatal when the vessel is hardly out of sight of land.^^ Such is the narrow, spiritless view of our diyasdust scholar. Let us have perfect adherence to truth, to actuality in aU details, is the burden of his cry. No lies, no deceptions. The deadening effect of such criticism is evident enough. Unfortunately, the influence of Scaliger's ideas, shaekling though they were, was widespread. As Ebner sums it up, "Die allgemeine Hochachtung, die ibTn (Scaliger) also Geldirten g^oUt wurde, hat auch seiner Poetik zu dem Ansehen verholf en das sie nahezu zwei Jahrhunderte lang in Italien, Spanien, Frankreich und Deutschland genossen hat." There remains for consideration the work of but one Italian critic, whose views, of prime importance in tiie formulation of the minor unities, exercised a vast influence on English thou^t. 2« Maggi in his Annotaiioneg (1550) is also the first to hint at a liniitation of time for the epie. Mintnmo (1559 and 1563) narrows the time down to one year. 30 Spingam (op. at. p. 94). 31 Professor Spingam in his citations (p. 96) from Sealiger is some- what misleading. This is l)ecanse of Allure to mention that the Italian eritie points to Ovid's story of Ceyx as his example. What Saintsbary (Hist. Crit., Y. 2, p. 76) says on Sealiger is well worth repeating: "SeaUger did not explicitly enjoin the Three ITnitLes, bat he did mere than any other man has done to inculcate that nnfortonate notion at 'Terisimilitnde' from which, much more than from Aristotle, they were derived. ' ' Dramatic Unities in England 9 This critic is Castelvetro.^^ His reasoning, as Professor Spin- gam has point€d out, is based entirely on stage representation. It ifl the old notion of verisimilitude worked to such absurd extremes as to be fairly ludicrous. As bases for his deductions he propounds questions like the following: How long can the spectator sit out a performance without physical weariness? How many things can be presented him without making the mental strain too intense? Such views can but arouse wonder and despair. Foolish and illogical in the extreme, tiiey barred the theatre to imagination and gave but grudging admittance to sympathy. It i.-; to the perverted ideas of Castelvetro, as deter- mined by his predecessors, that the unities of time and place owe the greatest share of their ill-repute." Having traced the course of Italian theory to the final formu- lation of the unities, we can now sum up the trend of the criti- cism. We shall thu.s be prepared to note the influence of this body of critical ideas upon English specodation on the subject. It has been seen that the unities — all three — originated with the Greeks as stage practice, due to stage necessities. They were certainly not reasoned out by Aristotle on self-concocted premises. With the Italians the case is reversed. Ostensibly fathered on Aristotle,'* they were really the result of a priori »2 8pingam (o. e. p. 97) : " Castelvetro (1570) was the first theoriat to formolate the unity of place, and thos to give the three nnities their final form." Ebner donbts (p. 41) whether Otto, in his Preface to Saul, wa« right in naming Caatelvetro aa ' ' der Formulierer der Ortaeinbeit. ' ' In fact, he names Jean de la TaiUe (1372; for this much-disputed posi- tion. The reasons he advances are by no means convincing or snffieient, and snrely the amount of space given by the Italian critic to the disens- sion of the nnities assures him imdisputed possession of the honor. £buer evidently has not noted the passage cited by Professor Spingam (p. 99). »» Cf. Professor Saintsbury (op. cit. p. 84) ; "And so the Three, the Weird Sisters of dramatic criticism, the vampires that sucked the blood out of nearly all European tragedy, save in England and Spain, for three centuries, make their appearance from the time of Castelvetro. ' ' '* Manzoni (Lettre A M. C. sur I'unite de temps, etc.) well expresses the imagined embarrassment of the Philosopher at the honor thrust upon him: "Si ce philosophe revenait et qu'on lui pr^sent^t nos aziomes drainatiques comme issus de lui, ne leur ferait-il pas le m@me accueil que fait M. de Pourceaugnac t ces jeunes Languedociens . . . dont on vent k toute force qti'il se declare le pJret" 10 Friedland notions, taken from a hint of the ancients and defended and practiced with no consideration for the conditions of the con- temporaneous stage. The Eenaissance critic failed to give the same regard to the exigencies of the Italian stage that the Greek gave to his own, and thus the true lesson of Aristotle's example was lost upon them. What is more, the sixteenth century the- orists, having established their preconceived ideas, turned round to censure the errors of the very ancients upon whom they pro- fessed to found these ideas. This is a method familiar to the neo-classic mind. The a priori notion which really gave rise to the Italian unities is that of "verisimilitude." '° This idea of producing plays that must be faultless in their approximation to reality, of writing so that the result wUl be veridical to the uttermost, is present in aU Italian speculation on the unities, from its earliest mention in this connection by Bartolomeo Cavalcanti (before 1543)'* to the very end of the critical period. As a matter of dogma, "verisimilitude" seems to spring directly from the Eenaissance perversion of the Aristotelian notion of "imitation." Misleading as much of Italian reasoning on the doctrine of "imitation" is, its application to the drama is beyond a doubt one of the saddest instances of neo-classic mis- judgment. In its tendency the principle of verisimilitude is narrowing and shackling in the extreme. Its reaction upon the dramatist and the spectator is most disastrous. It permits the former no free swing of fancy; while it represses and atrophies the imagination of the latter. This is perhaps its most baneful influence upon Italian and French dramatic writings. Such is the tendency that struggled in vain for firm foothold upon English soU. Such is the theory that ComeiUe had to avow with half-hearted allegiance and to defend with quibble and sophistry. Unfortimately there arose no clear thinker to point out that it was not the basic idea of "unity" — ^whether of action, or of time, or of place, — that called for defense; that what the three really needed was liberal interpretation and plain under- standing. And thus the much-maligned doctrine of unity — wrongly derived from an eminently false notion — ^was to suffer 85 The points of contact of this idea with ' ' imitation, ' ' and ' ' de- corum, ' ' and perhaps ' ' realism, ' ' might well repay working out. 38 I am not certain as to this claim of priority. Dramatic Unities in England ll the brunt of the attack that should have been aimed at the underlying misconception. In other words, I do not think it too much to say that the minor unities as interpreted through the medium of the verisimilar, are really a perversion of the unities as understood by Aristotle and the Greek dramatists. That the Greeks regarded them with the latitude of some of our dyed-in-the-wool "romanticists," can admit, I think, of no doubt. The unity of action, however, fared differently at the hands of the Italians. Whereas they succeded in so distorting the minor imities as to render them beyond recognition, they treated the major unity with whoUy disproportionate neglect. Castel- vetro sums up this second tendency — ^no less baneful than the first — by distinctly subordinating the typical Greek unity. Thus the Italian neo-classicists, while making a pretense of reverence for the so-called rules of Aristotle, begin by diverting them from their true significance, and finish by reversing their true and natural order. Here, undoubtedly, the exegesis is at fault, — and not the fundamental idea which the three unities hold in common. With this necessarily brief summary of the earlier evolution of the unities, we are ready to investigate their progress as a theory of dramatic art in England.'' As has been akeady sug- gested, the discussion of the question by English dramatists and critics is taken up at the point where the Italians leave off, — so that the eflfect of the neo-classic tradition is evident. It will be necessary, therefore, to keep constantly in mind the viewpoint of Italian reasoning, and note the extent and the cause of English departure from it. Our subject divides itself into two parts : the first from the beginnings to 1650 approximately; the second from 1650 to the end of the seventeenth century. The latter date, it must be said, is chosen mainly for convenience and Umitation. In the first period, English specidation on the unities is, with the exception of the work of Ben Jonson, merely tentative and largely casual. There is no considerable body of criticism 3' The only survey of the dramatie unities in England is that con- tained in the first three chapters of Professor Ix)unsbury 's Shakespearean Wars, Vol. I, already mentioned. 12 Friedlcmd on the subject coming from this era of literary creation. One must make one's gleanings from a mass of imcorrelated material, finding an allusion here, a reference there, — and at the end the material is all too scanty. Yet the trends revealed by this small volume of criticism are unmistakable. On the one hand, there is a tendency, not too pronounced or dogmatic, toward rigid interpretation of the rules ; on the other, a triumphant disregard of the principle of unity and a complete severing from it. The first is essentially neo-classic in spirit; the second is English, — an assertion of native independence. In the sixteenth century the classic tradition in England was by no means dead or moribund.^' An instance of this is the desire to preserve "decorum" expressed by various dramatists, — a, desire that Jonson was to repeat with characteristic emphasis. An early example is the words of Eichard Edwards in the Prologue to Damon and Pythias (1565) : "If this offend the lookers-on, let Horace then be blamed, Which hath our author taught at school, from whom he doth not swerve, In all such Mnd of exercise decorum to observe. ' ' so 38 Professor Lounsbury (op. dt.) is inclined to underrate the strength of the classic influence at this period. He says, for instance, that Lyly was unacquainted with the doctrine of the unities. The studies of E. Warwick Bond have made it possible to deny this. (Vd. his Ed. of Lyly's plays, 1902, Vol. 2, p. 267, seq.) Mr. Bond says: "All of Lyly's plays require the lapse of a considerable time, with the exception of 'Mother Bombie' and 'The Woman.' ... Of place he is much more careful. In no play are we transported far from the spot at which it opened, save in 'Midas' and in 'Endimion.' Furthermore, Lyly en- deavors fitfully to observe that continuity of scenes which is a corollary from the strict observance of Time and Place." And again (p. 270), "To sum up, Lyly in the matter of Time and Place balances between classical precedent and romantic freedom, obviously aware of the rules and sometimes closely observing them, at others pretending to observe while he really violates, at others frankly disregarding them and claim- ing licenses which the later romantics abandoned." Surely these views of Lyly's are important when we consider his great influence upon Shakespeare's formative period. "In Hazlitt's Dodsley (1874), Vol. 4. Similar references to "decorum" are found in Nathaniel Woodes' The Conflict of Conscience (1581) (Dodsley, Vol. 6, p. 34), in Eobt. Wilmot'a Tancred and Gis- munda, prefatory Address, 1591, and in Florio 'a Diaio^'uea. (Vd. below, p. 19.) Dramatic Unities in England 13 Another, and a more important passage, which is prac- tically a plea for decorum rather than for the unities, is that contained in Whetstone's Dedication to Promos and Cassandra (1578) : "The Englishman in this qualitie (i. e., truth to Nature) is most vaine, indiscreete and out of order : he fyrst groundes his worke on impossibilities ; then in three howers ronnes he throwe the worlde, marryes, gets Children, makes Children men, men to conquer Kingdoms, murder Monsters, and bringeth Gods from Heauen, and fetcheth Diuels from Hel."' *" These words merit some attention as the first English state- ment of an idea that enjoyed surprisingly widespread currency,*' and which Sidney thought fit to make the central point of his attack on the romantic playwrights. There is no play extant, as several scholars have pointed out, from which Whetstone could have drawn the ground for his charge. Professor Lounsbury describes it well as "a piece of rhetorical exaggeration to empha- size an opinion rather than a calm statement of fact." *^ It might with equal truth be urged that because of the wUd extrava- gance of melodrama, all physical action on the legitimate boards should be unduly restricted. In pointing out the extreme of disregard of the rules. Whetstone must not be assumed as plead- ing for a conformity equally extreme. Moreover, this view gathers weight when it is remembered that the critic is no stickler, in his own practice, for adherence to the rules. As a matter of fact, he fails to observe them in any rigid acceptance in his Promos and Cassandra. We can hardly look upon him, then, as influenced to any appreciable extent by the Italian tradition. The doctrine of the three unities enters English criticism with Sidney.*^ His contribution to the discussion is far and *« Given by Gregory G. Smith, EHza. Critical Essays, Vol. 1. *i It is frequently reiterated in England, among others, by Sidney, Jonsou, Fielding (Tom Jones, Ch. V) and by Gildon (see below, note, page 18) ; in Spain by Cervantes and Lope de Vega; in France by D'Aubignac, BoUeau and Voltaire; and in Italy by Ingegneri (1598). *2 Idem, p. 19. *3 Spingam, and others. Sidney 's work was published 1595 and written c. 1583. 14 Friedlcund away the most important that antedates Jonson's, and comeB, of coTirse, in his Apologie for Poetry: "Our Tragedies and Comedies (not without cause cried out against) observing rules neyther of honest ciuilitie nor of sMlfuU Poetrie, excepting Gorboduch . . . (yet) it is faulty both in place and time; the necessary companions of all corporaU actions. For where the stage should alwaies represent but one place, and the uttermost time presupposed in it should be, both by Aristoteles precept and common reason, but one day, there is both many dayes and many places, inartiflcially imagined. But if it be so in Gorboduch^ how much more in all the rest? where you shall haue Asia of the one side, and Affrick of the other, and so many other under-kingdoms, that the Player, when he eonuneth in, must ever begin with telling where he is, or els the tale wil not be conceiued. Now ye shal haue three Ladies walke to gather flowers, and then we must belieue the stage to be a Garden. By and by we heare newes of shipwracke in the same place, and then wee are to blame if we accept it not for a Eock. Vpon the back of that, comes out a hidious Monster, with fire and smoke, and then the miserable beholders are bounde to take it for a Caue. While in the meantime two Armies flye in, represented with foure swords and bucklers, and then what harde heart will not receiue it for a pitched fielde? Now, of time they are much more Uberall, for ordinary it is that two young Princes fall in loue. After many trauerces, she is got with childe, deliuered of a f aire boy ; he is lost, groweth a man, falls in loue, and is ready to get another ehilde; and all this in two hours' space: which how absurd it is in sence euen sence may imagine, and Arte hath taught, and all ancient examples iustified, and, at this day, the ordinary Players in ItaHe wil not erre in." ** Sidney is evidently making a plea for greater polish in Eng- lish dramatic performances. As a man of education and refine- ment his taste was displeased by the rudeness of the Elizabethan stage. Here we have a further indication of the fact that in <4 Quoted from Smith's ed. (as above), v. 1, p. 196 ff. The critic enforces his plea for the unity of one day by instancing the practice of Plautus and Terence. "Let us hit with him [Plautus] and not miss with him," says Sidney. Dramatic Unities in England 1^ England the "theatre" was for the populace and not for the privileged and cultured few. It is well to note that the critic looks upon the minor unities as derived from "Aristoteles, and common reason," backed by the practice of the ancients and contemporary ItaUan "Players." It has been pointed out by several writers*^ that Sidney owes much in the general tone of his criticism and in his conclusions to Castelvetro, so that in respect to the unities he accepts the neo-classic view.*' His is the first English statement of the doctrine — "one place and one day"; yet it is hard to imagine that Sidney was in sympathy with the Italian hair-splitting on the subject ; his mind was certainly not of that construction. He is, however, undeniably in accord with the minor unities as a principle. In at least one other respect is Sidney's statement of impor- tance. His exposition of the scenic barenness of the English stage touches upon a vital point in the discussion. I refer to the question of "imagination." Our critic is umintentionally amusing in his use of the expression "many places tnartificially imagined"; — the fact is that the Elizabethan dramatist and the Elizabethan play-goer did imagine "martificiaUy," and I have already suggested that the Italian critics refused to permit "inartificial" imagination, or any sort of imagination. This, as I shall attempt to show, is the crux of the question, as regards the Elizabethan dramatist. The latter's appeal is everlastingly to the imagination. He invokes it for his wonder-working; it is for him the staff of Prospero, and the listeners must be Ariels, obedient to his wizardry and themselves dowered with the gra- cious gift of fancy. On it rests his unity and his effect. — It is this influence that Sidney was unwittingly decrying. We have already noted the similarity of the strictures that both Sidney and Whetstone lay on the dramatist who trans- *^ E. g., Spingarn, and Breitinger, Bev. Critique, v. 13, n. s. Vols. 7 & 8. *« Sidney 's indebtedness to neo-elaBsicism is summed up in his advocacy of the three rules. Cf. HameliuB (Die Kritik, etc., p. 14), "Nur eine einzige Eegel der Neoklassiker nahm Sir Ph. Sidney an: er empfahl far das Drama die drei Binheiten des Ortcs, der Zeit, und der Eand- lung." 16; Friedland gresses the unity of time.*' The character of the passage must not be taken as a warranty, as ia the case of Whetstone, that the later critic is not a thorough-going classicist ia this matter. It must be remembered that Sidney began the latter part of his critique with a thesis ia mind, — "that poetry is now despised ia England," and that the practice of the ancients must be revived. This fact is evident ia his reference to the unity of action. True to his thesis he poiats out that Euripides does not begin his play "aboov," heace English dramatists should likewise refraia from begianing too far back ia their story. Sidney's statement, it is well worth noting, is limited ia application to the writers who "will represent history." ** Furthermore, he takes up the poiat at the tail-end of his discussion, and ia the briefest pos- sible manner. We see iu this a subordination of the unity of action — certaialy the result of Italian influence. The next mention of the unities is but an iadireet reference. It occurs in Florio's Dialogue in Italian and English,*" and is, in effect, a plea for decorum : G. After dijmer we wiH go see a play. H. The plaies that they play in England are not right comedies. T. Yet they do nothing else but plaie every daye. H. Yea, but they are neither right comedies, nor right tragedies. "Ct. Chas. Gildon {Laws of Poetry, etc., 1721, p. 174): "Like Webster in his Dvohess of Malfi, bring in a child just bom in the begin- ning of the play, and before the end of it show hiTn a man not only full grown, but also in years, than which I think there can be nothing more absurd." The similar absurdity of complete disregard of the unity of place is shown in a like strain by Angelo Ingegneri {Biscorso delta Poesia Bappresentativa, 1598). H& takes a play having for its scenes some five or six places in different parts of the world. As the act ends every time there is a change of scene, says our critic, the play therefore has fifteen or twenty acts! 48 Thus Sidney thinks that "histories" were most subject to the neglect of the unity of action, as he vmderstood that unity. The critic links it certainly with Greek stage practice. Cf. the passage, "Lastly if they will represent a history, they must not, as Horace saith, begin 'ab ovo, ' but they must come to the principal point of that one action which they will represent" (p. 49 Cook's ed.). This connects with Professor Schelling's "epic-unity" of the chronicle-play. See his The English Chronicle Play, 1902. 49 Cited Malone : Variorum Ed. of Sh. 's Plays, 1821, Vol. 3, p. 41, note. The date of the dialogue is 1591. Dramatic Unities in England 17 G. How would you name them, then? H. Sepresentations of histories, without any decorum. A far richer passage, though not a direct discuBsion of the subject, is foimd in Dekker's Old Fortunatus (pr. 1600). Its importance lies in the stress it places on the imaginative powers demanded of the spectators. In spirit, the lines cited below are singularly like those in Shakespeare's Henry Y. Both dramatists express the same reManee on the "winged thought" of the spectator, and both evince a tacit but deep-seated antago- nism to the rules as commonly accepted. This is truly Eliza- bethan and native, — its spirit is legitimately descended from the mysteries and miracle plays of the Middle Ages. The first locus is in the Prologue to Dekker's play : ' ' And for this small Circumference must stand For the imagind Sur-face of much land Of many Kingdomes, and since many a mile Should here be measured out: our muse intreats Your thoughts to help poore Art, and to allow That I may seme as Chorus to her scenes; She begs your pardon, for sheele send me foorth, Not where the lawes of Poetry doe call But as the storie needes; your gracious eye Gines life to Fortunatus historie. ' ' 5" Again, before the second "scene," the Chorus says: ' ' The world to the circumference of heauen, Is as a small point in Geometric, Whose greatness is so little, that a lesse Cannot be made: into that narrow roome. Your quicke imaginations we must charme. To turn that world: and (tum'd) again to part it Into large kingdomes, and within one moment To carry Fortunatus on the wings Of actiue thought, many a thousand miles." In a similar strain the Chorus speaks at his next appearance : ' ' If your swift thoughts clap on their wonted wings. In Genoway may you take this fugitiue. Where hauing cozened many Jewellers, "Thos. Dekker, The Comedy of Old Fortunatus, p. 54 (in Munch. Beitriige, etc., 1901, No. 21). 51 Idem, p. 76. 18 Priedland To England backe he comes; He clasps her [Agripyne] in his armes, and as a Rauen, Griping the tender-hearted Nightingale, So flies he with her, wishing in the ayre To be transported to some wildernesse. Imagine this the place: see, here they come." 52 We are now ready to examine the views of Shakespeare, whose attitude, as already hinted, is distinctly English and Elizabethan. He nowhere expresses in so many words an acquaintance with the unities. Professor Lounsbury has argued at some length to prove that the poet was not in ignorance of the doctrine, — cer- tainly, it would appear, a view that can admit of little doubt. The passage of special interest for our purpose is the lines already referred to, in Henry V : "But pardon, gentles all, The flatunraised spirits that have dared On this unworthy scaffold to bring forth So great an object: can this cockpit hold The vasty fields of France? or may we cram Within this wooden the very casques That did affright the air at Agincourt? 0, pardon! since a crooked figure may Attest in little place a million; And let us, ciphers to this great accompt. On your imaginary forces work. Suppose within the girdle of these walls Are now confined two mighty monarchies. Whose high upreared and abutting fronts The perilous narrow ocean parts asunder: Piece out our imperfections with your thoughts; Into a thousand parts divide one man. And make imaginary puissance; Think, when we talk of horses that you see them Printing their proud hoofs i' the receiving earth, For 'tis your thoughts that now must deck our kings, Carry them here and there; jumping o'er times, ' Turning the accomplishment of many years Into an hour-glass: for the which supply, Admit me Chorus to this history. ' ' 58 62 Idem, p. 112. 63 Prologue, 11. 8 ff. Dramatic Unities in England 19 And again, the Prologue to Act II : "Linger your patience on, and we'll digest The abuse of distance, . . . The King is set from London; and the scene Is now transported, gentles, to Southampton; There is the playhouse now, there must you sit: And thence to France shall we convey you safe. And bring you back, charming the narrow seas To give you gentle pass. ' ' 54 The essential inadequacy of his stage for the representation of the "hugeness" of things is thus expressed by the dramatist : "Of such as have [read the story] I humbly pray them to admit the excuse Of time, of numbers, and due course of things, "Which cannot in their huge and proper life Be here presented. ' ' 65 It is in a precious passage such as this that the gi-eat drama- tist, in a momentary indulgence of self-revelation, opens for us the guarded portals of his artistic consciousness. While, indeed, one gets no direct expression of Shakespeare's knowledge of the unities, the implication is thoroughly convincing. Nor need we harbor doubts as to the master's attitude. Addressing him- self to the sophisticated and critical part of his audience, he begins with what is surely an interrogation of verisimilitude ; and he goes on to reiterate, with insistence, Dekker's abiding faith in the quickening imaginations of his spectators. One may find here, too, Shakespeare's pronouncement on the essential irre- concilability between the vaguer unity of the historical or chronicle play, and the definite, classic unity that he must have known. In addition to the passages already given, one or two others may be quoted from Shakespeare in connection with the dramatic unities. °* In the Winter's Tale the playwright expresses his 54 Prologue, Act II, 11. 31 S. esProl., Act V; 11. 2 fe. 56 Professor Lounsbury (o. c.) believes that "scene individable, or poem unlimited, ' ' refers to the unities. Vd. Hamlet, II, 2, 418. With this should perhaps be connected the lines in the Spanish Tragedy (IV, 1, 158): 20 Friedland consciousness of the fact that the story must jump an interval of sixteen years : "Impute it not a crime To me or my swift passage, that I slide O'er sixteen years and leave the growth untried Of that wide gap. ' ' bt And again, in Gymbelme: "The swiftest harts have posted you by land; The winds of all the corners lds»'d your sails, To make your vessel nimble. ' ' 68 It may be added that allusions, similar to the last, to the quick flight of time are of frequent occurrence in the plays. This leads one to the conclusion that Shakespeare was at least conscious of the necessity to preserve a certain propriety, though not a verisimilitude of time. A play like The Tempest places this beyond peradventure. Another independent is Marston. In the Argumentum to his Dutch Courtezan^" he frankly coniesses to having included a sub-plot. He further identifies himself with the romanticists by his statement in What You Will (1607) :"" "Know rules of art Were shaped to pleasure, not pleasure to your rules. ' ' Marston implies here, it seems, that "rules of art" were being urged, — and indeed they were, forcibly and vociferously, for the urging was done by no other than "rare Ben Jonson," — "Master Ben." Jonson argued for the rules so often and at such HIEBONIMO : The Italian tragedians were so sharpe Of wit that in one houres meditation They would performe any-thing in action. LOEENZO: And well it may, for I haue scene the like In Paris, mongst the French tragedians. On the relations between Samlet and the Spanish Tragedy, consult the article by Professor A. H. Thomdike in Pub. Mod. L Hedelin, or Eapin;™ He leaves to learned pens such labour'd lays, You are the rules by which he writes his plays/* Ftom musty books let others take their view. He hates dull reading, but he studies you. Among his friends here in the pit he reads Some rules that every modish writer needs. He learns from every Covent Garden critic's face, The modem forms of action, time and place."" For a prose, though by no means a prosaic, statement of the same idea, we have Farquhar's Discourse upon Comedy" (1703). In spirit, and often in letter, this work is of a piece with the views of the nameless critic whose polemic against Col- lier we have rated so highly. There is the same superb confi- ™ Sam'l Butler, Upon Critics Who Judge of Modern Plays Pre- cisely iy the rules of the Antients (1678) forestalls Farquhar in this independence. He says, "Reduce all Tradegy by Kules of Art Back to its Antique Theatre, a Cart," etc Cited in Spingarn, Grit. Essays, etc. "Cf. Garrick's prologue to Whitehead's play, supra. " Cf . The Epilogue to Congreve's Double Dealer, cited above; and see Dramatic Wks. of Farquhar, 1892 (ed. A. C. Ewald, vol. I, p. 339.) The same note is struck by Sewell in his Prologue to Betterton's The Sequel of Henry IV: — "If sometimes devious from old rules he strays, And treads a-wry from Aristotle's ways, 'Tis but to show he dar'd to give offense. And laugh'd at slavish Ties in any Sence. '"In a Letter to a Friend, Works, 1711, p. 62 seq. Dramatic Unities in England 65 dence in the native genius ; the same willingness to find autho- rity in "the Pit, Box and Galleries"; and the same angry im- patience with the flatulent theorizing of "the learned". Farqu- har is out of humor with "Our new author who first chooses a single Plot, because most agreeable to the Eegularity of Criticism, no matter whether it affords Business enough for Diversion or Surprize. He wou'd not for the World introduce a Song or Dance, because his Play must be one entire Action. We must expect no Variety of Incidents, because the Exact- ness of his three Hours won't give him time for their Prepara- tion. The Unity of Place admits no Variety of Painting or Prospect, by which mischance perhaps we shall lose the only good Scenes in the Play."" Then comes the insistence upon the lesson to be gained from precedent: "The Eules of English Comedy," says Parquhar, "don't lie in the Compass of Aristotle, or his followers, but in Pit, Box and Galleries We must consult Shakespeare, Jonson, Fletcher, and others We shall find these Gentle- men have fairly dispenc'd with the greatest part of Critical Formalities; the decorums of Time and Place, so much ery'd up of late, had no force of Decorum with them ; the Aeconomy of their Plays was ad libitum, and the extent of their Plots only limited by the Convenience of Action."" Farquhar then takes a fall out of verisimilitude. "We can expect", he writes, "no more Decorum or Eegularity in any Business, than the Nature of the thing will bear; now if the Stage cannot subsist without the Strength of Supposition, and Force of Fancy in the Audience, why should a Poet fetter the Business of his Plot, and starve his Action for the Nicety of an Hour, or the Change of a Scene since the Thought of Man "p. 62. " p. 73. Farquhar goes on to say, "I would willingly understand the Regularities of Hamlet, Harry the Fourth and of Fletcher's plays; and yet these have long been the Darlings of the English Audience, and are like to continue with the same Applause, in Defiance of all the Criticisms that ever were publish'd in Greek or Latin." He is against rambling plays, however: Vd. p. 78. 66 Friedland can fly over Hours and Ylears with the same Base and in the same Instant of Time, that your Bye glances from the figure of six to seven on the Dial-plate; and can glide from the Gape of Good Hope to the Bay of St. Nicholas, which is quite across the World, with the same Quickness and Activity, as between Covent Garden Church and Will's Goffee-Hotise."" This completes the citations from the critics and dramatists of the 17th century, to the end of which period we have fol- lowed the evolution of the theory of dramatic unity. We have witnessed the rather fruitless efforts of Jonson to acclimatise an exotic plant, and the more (though never uniformly) suc- cessful attempts of later critics under the compelling guidance of the French. Nor was the wordy fight given up with the end of the century, — for the question is still a moot one in the next. In retrospect, too, it is possible to see the rise of the spirit that led eventually] to the overshadowing, for a time at least, of the unities. The origin of this spirit we have found in Medi- aeval England, and both Farquhar and the anonymous oppon- ent of Collier, are but 17th century exemplars of the early tra- dition militating against undue restraint. It is to be noted that at the end of the 17th century, with the growth and final voicing of the Bnglish freedom, comes a new impetus to the appreciation of Shakespeare and his Blizabethan co-workers. As an accompaniment of this is, of necessity, the rejuvenance of the imagination. Yet the unities, once freely admitted, were not to be cavalierly dismissed. As a matter of fact, they have never since died out in Bngland, as they never have been super- seded in Prance, — nor is it in the nature of the drama for them to become a dead issue in either country. As Professor Posnett says, "The truth is that under an aspect conventional, pedantic, and therefore repulsive alike to creative and critical freedom, the unities conceal an attempt to solve certain problems involv- ing the highest efforts of philosophic inquiry. The need of dramatic limitation in space, time and action, is no mere whim of critical fancy. It rests on truths which the evolution of "p. 79. Cf. the note in Pye's A Oommenta/ry etc., cited above. Dramatic Unities in England 67 man, socially and individually, establishes, and which his ani- mal and physical environments amply confirm.'"" This leads directly to the question — are the unities extinct in the English drama of today? Prof. Lounsbury would have us believe that they are." He says, "it is equally evident that it is Shakespeare's practice which is the one followed upon the modem stage. Stress is no longer laid upon the unity of time and place. In regard to these the doctrine is now so thor- oughly discredited in theory and discarded in practice, that there are playwrights of our day who, so far from accepting it, do not even know of its ever having had an existence. Ac- cordingly it might seem an unnecessary slaying of the slain to consider it here at any length"" But, looking far into the future, Professor Lounsbury is able to speak of "some pe- riod in the revolution of the ever-changing" canons of taste and "° Comp. Lit. 1886, p. 35. "And compare what Professor Thorndike says in his Tragedy 1908 (which I read after this article was in the hands of the editor) : "Even the unities, whether as observed in the Greek Theatre or aa defined by French and Italian critics, may, after generations of debate, be safely relegated as nonessential." (p. 7). But cf. p. 10 ff: "Though the action of modern tragedies has usually been less simple than that of the Greeks — the tendency today seems to he toward a return to the simplicity that Aristotle had in mind." Professor Thorndike, who seems ever ready to put accepted views to the test, discusses Ibsen's unity of action (p. 11 idem) and on p. 313 points out that "in practice the unities are likely to result in u. counterbalancing defect, in a concentration of incident improbable and artificial." "Op. oit., p. 13. Prof. Lounsbury cites Browning's plays as preserving the unities, and adds, "But plays like these — never acted or unsuccessful if act«d — are not representative of the dominant in- fluences which now affect the English stage." (p. 15). Against this it may be urged that Browning's plays are not unactable because they preserve the unities, — any more than Tennyson's which disregard them in general. ''Cf. Brunetifere: La Loi du Th^Atre (Preface to Les Annates du ThMtre, par E. Noel et E. StouUig, p. V) "Mais, la vrai verity c'est qu'il n'y a pas de r6gles, en ce sens; il n'y en aura jamais. II n'y a que des conventions, qui sont necessairement changeantes, puisqu'ellea 68 Friedlcmd criticism", when "the doctrine of the unitiea may, for awhile at least, come again into fashion. It is improbable, to be sure ; it is by no means impossible."" With Prof. Loimsbury's opinion I am unable to agree. In this study it has been several times implied that in their strict- est acceptance — that of "critics of a dissecting turn of mind"" — the unities are indefensible. But, viewed broadly, the rules, having their basis in a by no means contemptible desire for limitation, are closely connected with the unity of all art works. It is true that this unity is a higher and nobler thing" than Boileau or Eapin or Bossu ever dreamt of, or than Corneille, perhaps, ever conceived. Whether one calls it, with Lessing, moral unity, or with some others unity of imagination" or yet again, unity of interest, or impression, or appeal," — it is, in the final analysis, the unity of Michael Angelo, — "the purgation of all superfluities." And the unity of action, and even those of time and place — if one could forget the discredit into which Italian and French theorizing has brought all three — ^belong of right to the drama, and have work marked out for them. n'ont pour objet que de rfialiser le caractfere essentiel de I'oeuvre dramatique et que les moyens d'y rfiussir varient selou les lieux, les moments, et les hommes." " Cf. p. 23, "There are indeed certain subjects, or certain ways ol treating a subject, which may be said to exact" (the observation ol the unities.) Prof. Lounsbury instances Gammer Owrton's Needle for place, and Randolph's Muses' Looking-Glass for time. ''Schlegel, Vorlesungen uber dram. Kunst, xvii. "Cf. Schlegel, idem, "Far, therefore from rejecting the law of a perfect unity in tragedy as unnecessary, I require a deeper, more instrinsic, and more mysterious unity than that with which most critics are satisfied. This unity I find in the tragic comjpositions of Shake- speare, in quite as great perfection as in those of Aeschylus and Sophocles." "Cf. Courthope, Life im Poetry, Lam in Taste, pp. 48 & 65. "For the knowledge of, and references to, these three terms, as for many other valuable suggestions, I am indebted to the kind interest that Professor A. L. Bouton of New York University has taken in this paper. Dramatic Unities in England 69 At this day the unities are coining to their rightful heritage. In more than one important phase of contemporary drama they are demanded, — and what is most significant — demanded by the exigencies of the stage. Just so did they arise to exercise their rightful functions in the Greek theatre. In particular, two features of the modem drama tend to conserve the unities : the employment of Scenery, and the para- mount interest in Character. Scenery is to the modern stage what the Chorus was to the Greek — an ever-present, limiting force. It permits of few changes, and if there ever was a pow- erful factor in preserving the veridical, this is it. Scenery is verisimilitude objectified and made visible. Hence arises its greatest draw-back — it clips the wings of imagination. But scenery is an outer, a palpable feature of the stage. The other is an inner, subtler, and more potent effect, — the prying into the moods of men, the laying bare of the springs of action. If a connection were established between scenery and character, it would, from a certain viewpoint, scarcely be a fancied one. The spectator, his imagination once atrophied and rendered use- less by elaborate scenery, turns perforce, to follow curiously and questioningly, the actors. From the actions of men he turns to the motives of these actions, — from Plot, he turns to Character. Nor is the change wholly lacking in compensation, for the spec- tator's mind is now centered upon human beings, coping with forces and problems that to him are usually comprehensible, and always familiar. This is, of course, not the whole of our drama of to-day — but it is assuredly one significant phase of it. Perhaps, too, it will be increasingly our drama of to-morrow. At any rate, the dramatic unities — whether or not playwrights know the phil- osophy and the sophistry of them — show unmistakably the signs of renewed vigor. One can but hope that vacuous theorizing will not be their portion again. Louis Sigmund Feiedland. New Yorh, April, 1910. PR ezs.FgT"""""""^'""'* Dramatic unities in Engiand. 3 1924 013 270 685 ."W