At the
opening of the last chapter I was premised that, as the novel great deal of
what would be said about the former would be found equally applicable to the
latter. We are now in a position to realise the force of this statement. The
general principle of criticism which we have laid down for the study of plot,
characterisation, dialogue, local and
temporal sitting, and interpretation of life, in prose fiction hold good, for
most part, a will be seen, in respect of the same constituents in a play. I
talking up the study of the drama, therefore, we shall discover that ground is
all already broken, and that many question of valuation, have been answered by
anticipation. But it was future pointed out that, though their elements are
identical, the novelist and dramatist work under very dissimilar condition, and
for this reason have to manipulate their material dissimilar ways. Hence the
immense difference between novel and play in everything that pertains to
technique. This difference is starting pointed of our present inquiry. Other
matters will be dealt whit later, which, though involved in the analysis of the
novel no less than in that of the play, have been held over tell now because they
can more easily considered in this part of our study. But our first business
will be whit some of the elementary characteristic of the drama, as in the
phrase is already used –a specific form of literary art.
It is important at the
outset to understand that what we call the principle of dramatic construction
and the law of dramatic technique arise out of and are imposed by the
requirement, which, owing to the very circumstances of its existence, the drama
is compelled to meet. The ancient epic was composed for recitation the modern
novel is written to be read; the drama is designed for representation by actors
who impersonate the characters of its story, and among whom the narrative and
dialogue are distributed. While, when, the epic and novel relate and report,
the drama imitates by action and action and speech; and it is by reference to
the fundamental necessities entailed by such imitation that the structural
features of the drama have to be examined and examined and explained. Because
its serves to remind us that to literary art of drama is organically bound up
whit its histrionic condition – there is to be much said in favour of the good
old name for drama –stage play.
It may of course be assumed
that the essential difference in technique between the novel and the drama is
commonly recognized in theory by every reader of the one or other. But its
practical bearing for the student of literature are, I believe, very seldom
appreciated to the full, and to these, therefore, some attention should be
given.
The novel is contained; that
is, it provides whiten its own compass everything that the writer deemed
necessary for the comprehension and enjoyment of his work. The drama, on the
other hand, when it reaches us in the form of print, and when we read it as
literature, in the same way as we read a novel, is not in this sense
self-contained. It implies everywhere the 1111co-operation of elements outside
itself, and for the moment these elements are lacking. What we read is, in
fact, little more than a bare outline which the playwright intended to filled I
by art of actors and the business of the boards a literary basic for the stage
representation opon which he calculated for the full execution of his design.
In there mere perusal of the play as a play, therefor, labour under certain
drawbacks and difficulties, for want of its effect is likely to be lost upon us
foe want of those continual appeals to the imagination those description,
explanation, and personal commentaries, which in a novel help us to visualise
scenes, understand people, estimate motives, grasp the ethical import of
action. For this reason, the comprehension and enjoyment of a play as piece of
litrerature.
