The foreign debt of English literatureTucker, T. G. (Thomas George)
History
The foreign debt of English literature
Tucker, T. G. (Thomas George)
Comparative literature; English literature -- History and criticism
who read Shakespeare and then turn to Athenian tragedies are puzzled.
They do not understand those Attic creations. They think them rather
cold, with somewhat slender plot, containing few surprises. Italians
and Frenchmen can understand them; the average Englishman cannot. The
poetry is often admirable, but the action appears strangely simple, and
for the most part over obvious. The very name “tragedy” seems sometimes
misapplied. But by “tragedy” the Greeks did not necessarily mean a play
which ends in death and disaster. Such an end was, indeed, usual, and
hence the modern meaning of the term. But the _Eumenides_ of Aeschylus
ends happily, as do the _Alcestis_ of Euripides and the _Philoctêtes_
of Sophocles. The Greeks meant rather the working out of some great and
powerful situation affording occasion for sensations of pity and fear.
Here was “the luxury of grief.” The spectators knew that there would
be some climax in the drama; but whether it would issue in good or
evil depended on the poet; they only knew that their feelings would be
powerfully worked upon by great poetry greatly delivered. For the rest,
they required no startling ingenuity of plot or variety of incident.
The three great dramatists in artistic sequence are Aeschylus, Sophocles,
Euripides. These were all alive together, but Aeschylus was old when
Euripides was young. The appearance of all these in one epoch is exactly
paralleled by the cluster of superlative dramatists in the Elizabethan
age or in the France of Louis XIV. Of Sophocles it has been said that he
represented men as they ought to be, and of Euripides that he represented
them as they were. The dictum is hardly true, and, if it were, it must
be noted that, whereas to “hold the mirror up to nature” is as much the
function of Greek tragedy as of English, it is no function of Greek drama
to be a literal copy of literal everyday human experience. In Aeschylus
all is in the grand style of an awe-inspiring simplicity. Take his
_Prometheus Bound_. We have a majestic Titan figure bound to a desolate
rock, there to remain in punishment for an offence against the law of
Zeus. He had bestowed fire and other boons on mortal men. Therefore Zeus
pinioned him on Caucasus for tens of thousands of years. In one way,
and one only, could he gain his freedom—by disclosing to Zeus a certain
secret of fate. But Prometheus would not repent of having exercised his
benevolent freewill against the decree of Heaven. He gloried in his
action; he refused to deliver up the secret. Now during the whole play
the figure of Prometheus does not move: he is fixed fast. There is no
action on his part, nothing but speech. Different gods, demigods, and
a mortal visit him, condole with him, advise him, or threaten him. He
remains firm to the end, the spectacle of an utterly resolute heart
rebelling against fate.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account