A treaty between two stages
What should one national stage concede in order to gain what the other does well? The terms are set out as an exchange: English playwrights give up breaking the unities and killing people in view of the audience, French playwrights give up declamation for action and hold their rules more loosely.
Neither theatre is told to convert. The classical rules the French keep and the English break are treated as habits with costs rather than laws of nature: a unity held too tightly stiffens a play, and a corpse dropped in front of the audience buys a shock at the price of the illusion. The trade runs both ways, each stage importing what the other has and surrendering what it has overworked. It is the author of the Enquiry turning a theory of the passions on a craft that has to be practised in front of a room of people.
- dramatic theory
- dramatic unity
- dramatic propriety
- imitation
- naturalism
- drama
- theater
- tragedy
- taste
Enter a dialogue
- Your treaty asks each stage to trade its faults, but why should a playwright surrender a habit an audience plainly enjoys?
- Someone trained under strict rules now suspects they are only habits. How should they tell a discipline that still works from one merely inherited?
- What does the English stage lose along with its corpses and its broken unities, and is the illusion gained worth more than the shock?
- Nothing in the fragment tells either theatre to convert. Isn't a compromise between two national habits simply a way of offending neither?
- Where does holding a rule loosely end and abandoning it begin, once the French are asked to keep the unities without stiffening the play?