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.

 r