pening of the
seventeenth century onwards, Hardy, author of some six or seven
hundred pieces, of which forty-one remain, reigned as master of the
stage.[1] A skilful improvisor, devoid of genius, devoid of taste,
he is the founder of the French theatre; he first made a true appeal
to the people; he first showed a true feeling for theatrical effects.
Wherever material suitable for his purposes could be caught
at--ancient or modern, French, Italian, or Spanish--Hardy made it
his own. Whatever form seemed likely to win the popular favour, this
he accepted or divined. The _Astree_ had made pastoral the fashion;
Hardy was ready with his pastoral dramas. The Italian and Spanish
novels were little tragi-comedies waiting to be dramatised;
forthwith Hardy cast them into a theatrical mould. Writing for the
people, he was not trammelled by the unities of time and place; the
mediaeval stage arrangements favoured romantic freedom. In his
desire to please a public which demanded animation, action, variety,
Hardy allowed romantic incident to predominate over character; hence,
though he produced tragedies founded on legendary or historical
subjects, his special talent is seen rather in tragi-comedy. He
complicated the intrigue, he varied the scenes, he shortened the
monologues, he suppressed or reduced the chorus--in a word, the drama
in his hands ceased to be oratorical or lyrical, and became at length
dramatic. The advance was great; and it was achieved by a hack
playwright scrambling for his crusts of bread.

[Footnote 1: Or thirty-four pieces, if _Theagene et Cariclee_ be
reckoned as only one.]

But to dramatic life and movement it was necessary that order,
discipline, regulation should be added. The rules of the unities were
not observed by Hardy--were perhaps unknown to him. But they were
known to others. Jean de Schelandre (the pseudonym formed from the
letters of his name being Daniel d'Ancheres), in his vast drama in
two parts, _Tyr et Sidon_, claimed all the freedom of the mysteries
in varying the scene, in mingling heroic matter with buffoonery. In
the edition of 1628 a preface appears by Francois Ogier, a learned
churchman, maintaining that the modern stage, in accordance with
altered circumstances, should maintain its rights to complete
imaginative liberty against the authority of the Greeks, who
presented their works before different spectators under different
conditions. Ogier's protest was without effect. Almost imme