I
Most modern tragedy is depressing; classic tragedy is elevating.
That the best tragic art of the past, in spite of the calamities it
presents, elevates the spirit is obvious; but the cause of the “lift”
it produces is obscure. If the cause were technical and formal beauty,
_Ghosts_ ought to be more inspiriting than _Macbeth_. If it were wholly
the melody of verse--which most modern drama has foregone--no great
classic tragedy could endure translation. But Greek tragedies can
still powerfully exalt an audience, though presented in the English
renderings of Campbell and Potter!
The problem seems particularly to have appealed to the German
metaphysical mind. Hegel thought tragedy a transcendental
reconciliation of opposites. Schopenhauer found in it resignation to
loss of individuality and return to the universal Will. Nietzsche
turned the latter’s pessimism into the semblance of optimism by
defining the spirit of Dionysus as an intoxicated joy in annihilation
and union with nature.
But one hardly need resort to metaphysics, since the experience seems
sufficiently explained by psychology. It is in my opinion chiefly
the result of admiration. Every tragedy grows from a struggle of the
individual against circumstance; but this emotional elevation we are
discussing, as distinguished from more melodramatic thrills, seems to
arise not from the mere struggle but from an impressive exhibition
of will. The spectator is inspirited because in tragedy he sees an
exhibition of convincing heroism. The tragic hero achieves a spiritual
victory in spite of a physical defeat. “To affect the soul, and excite
the passions, and above all to move admiration,” says Dryden, “is the
delight of serious plays.”[37]
In some respects the reverse of this view is the neo-classic doctrine
of poetic justice, which is still held by some critics. According to
poetic justice it is not the hero whom we are to admire, but the moral
law which destroys him. Thus Mr. Ludwig Lewisohn writes: “Traditionally
the serious drama deals with the transgressions of an immutable moral
law by a self-originating will.... In each instance the destruction of
the protagonist reconciles the spectator to a universe in which guilt
is punished and justice is upheld.” That some such view governed the
_intentions_ of religious dramatists like Æschylus or Racine we must
admit; but for the modern sceptic at least their plays are inspiriting
in proportion as the struggle exalts the endurance, if not the goodness
of the hero. That such was even the intention of other dramatists,
Shakespeare in particular, is more than doubtful.
Other critics like Mr. Joseph Wood Krutch foretell the extinction of
tragedy because it is dependent on an anthropocentric view of the
universe. It is the “tragic fallacy,” says Mr. Krutch, to fancy that
one’s “passions are important throughout all time and all space.”
Though we may agree that they are not, to conclude from that rather
obvious fact that tragedy is dead seems not wholly logical. Whatever
the nature of the world, human greatness remains important for human
beings; and Mr. Krutch would seem to give away his case by so plainly
admiring greatness in the very tragedies whose passing he deplores.
The ethical victory of the tragic hero is not a vindication of a moral
order in the universe; neither is it a victory for an elaborated system
such as religion fosters. Macbeth is wicked but admirable. Something
primitive and universal in mankind responds to courage, fidelity,
endurance, even for evil ends. Such admiration rises spontaneously
from our strongest impulses, those toward survival and success. In
the theatre to behold a man steadfast in his will even to death is to
feel our own natures enhanced and to discover in ourselves unrealised
powers. Such heroic manifestation of will is essential to tragedy of
the great tradition, and is found in Sophocles, in Shakespeare, in
Corneille alike.
Several influences have combined in destroying heroic tragedy. It
was the tradition of the Renaissance to make the hero a prince, the
mere semblance of nobility securing a deferential response from the
audience. Modern democracy has changed all that. Industrialism,
furthermore, has fostered the feeling that success is synonymous
with getting rich. And science has not only helped destroy popular
traditions that might have nourished a modern spirit of admiration,
but has fostered a wintry air of scepticism, making man appear not an
imperfect angel but a super-educated monkey. Psychology in particular
has been industriously cutting at the root of heroism, the belief in
free will, by exhibiting the mechanical causes for conduct.
The writer of tragedy who succumbs to these influences finds himself
thus in a dilemma. Unable to believe in greatness, he cannot inspire
others. If he would gain elevation, he must falsify his beliefs; if
he would express his candid view of life, he must forego the tragic
lift. Heroic tragedy was the outcome of a view perhaps pessimistic
about things in general, but always optimistic about the human quality
of individuals. The modern view is pessimistic about everything. As
Hardy expressed it, the prospect most harmonious with the temper of
the thinking modern would be a gaunt waste in Thule. As a result the
dilemma of the naturalist poet is this: _He cannot be both honest and
sublime._[38]