[37] I have considered the tragic emotions more fully in an article,
“Melodrama and Tragedy,” _Publications of the Modern Language
Association_, September, 1928.
[38] Since this paper was written my attention has been called to
“Humanism and Tragedy,” an admirable article by Mr. F. McEachran
(_Nineteenth Century and After_, July, 1929). Based on Professor
Babbitt’s three levels of human conduct, naturalistic, human, and
religious, Mr. McEachran’s thesis is that tragedy, since it demands an
assumption of human dignity, cannot develop in a naturalistic age like
the present, and is difficult in a religious one. The age of Pericles,
of Elizabeth, and of Louis XIV were humanistic; they were followed by
naturalistic decadence in which man and nature were equated and tragedy
became impossible. Mr. McEachran’s “human dignity” and my “heroism”
seem equivalent.
[39] It is to be noted, as further illustration of the anti-heroic
tendency of modern thought, that critics have sought to explain Hamlet
as not a hero but a psychopath. What Shakespeare wished his audience to
feel, however, seems open to no doubt.
[40] From _Roan Stallion, Tamar, and Other Poems_, Boni & Liveright,
1925.
[41] Should I remind the reader that in thus generalising I admit
exceptions? One such, whom I have discussed elsewhere (_Sewanee
Review_, April, 1929) is, in my opinion, Joseph Conrad.
_An American Tragedy_