FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148  
149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   >>   >|  
A Poet!--He hath put his heart to school, Nor dares to move unpropp'd upon the staff Which Art hath lodg'd within his hand,--must laugh By precept only, and shed tears by rule. Thy Art be Nature! the live current quaff, And let the groveller sip his stagnant pool, In fear that else, when Critics grave and cool Have kill'd him, Scorn should write his epitaph. How doth the Meadow-flower its bloom unfold? Because the lovely little flower is free Down to its root, and in that freedom bold; And so the grandeur of the Forest-tree Comes not by casting in a formal mould, But from its _own_ divine vitality. WORDSWORTH. Which naturally starts the question, how or why the Shakespearian Drama came to take on a form so very different from that of the Classic Drama. This question has been partly disposed of already, in speaking of the freedom and variety which the historical branch imported into the sphere of dramatic production. Still it may be asked how, if the Classic form is right, as all admit it to be, can we avoid concluding the Shakespearian form to be wrong? The answer of course is, that the form differs, and ought to differ, just as much as the life does; so that both forms may be right, or at least equally so. Formerly it was the custom to censure the Poet greatly, if not to condemn him utterly, because, in his dramatic workmanship, he did not observe what are called the Minor Unities, that is, the Unities of Time and Place. The controversy indeed is now all out of date, and there need not a word be said by way of answering or refuting that old objection: no interest attaches to the question, nor is it worth considering at all, save as it may yield light and illustration in the philosophy of Art, and in the general matter of art criticism. On this account, it may be worth the while to look a little further into the reason of the difference in question. I have already said that religion or religious culture has always been the originating and shaping spirit of Art. There is no workmanship of Art in which this holds more true than in the English Drama. Now the religious culture of Christian England was essentially different from that of Classic Greece; the two being of quite diverse and incommunicable natures; so that the spirit of the one could not possibly live in the dramatic form of the other. In other words, the body of the
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148  
149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
question
 

Classic

 

dramatic

 
flower
 
freedom
 
workmanship
 

Unities

 

Shakespearian

 

culture

 

spirit


religious
 
observe
 

Greece

 

Christian

 

called

 

essentially

 

England

 

possibly

 

censure

 

Formerly


custom
 

natures

 

utterly

 
diverse
 

English

 
greatly
 
condemn
 

incommunicable

 

equally

 

illustration


religion

 

philosophy

 
general
 
reason
 

account

 
difference
 

matter

 

criticism

 

attaches

 

interest


controversy

 

objection

 
originating
 

refuting

 
shaping
 
answering
 

imported

 

Critics

 
stagnant
 

current