After Moliere whom shall we name? Ex cept Racine, with his pleasing comedy
Dancourt wrote more especially plays in prose dealing with passing events. Two of them, the (Chevalier a la Mode) (1687), and (Les Bourgeoises de Qualite) (1700), evoke the realistic theatre by showing on the stage pleas ure-seekers and parvenus.
The classical epoch is unique in history, not only for the French theatre but for modern dramatic art. With it, dramatic art reaches the same degree of perfection it attained with the Greeks. The century of Louis XIV can only be compared to the century pf Pericles. Racine recalls Sophocles and surpasses Euripides. Moliere is an Aristophanes, with less fanciful imagination but of deeper thought. After such masters there can only be a decline or a revo lution in dramatic art.
In literature, as in politics, the 18th century marked a transitory era. This had its reper cussion on the theatre. We find no great dramatic genius and only a few works of any originality. Classical art became distorted and we see the preparation of romantic art. We witness tragedy bordering on a state of collapse and its final demise, while comedy undergoes a profound transformation, and a new style ap pears — the drama.
Tragedy.—Tragedy is about to disappear and finally does disappear despite all efforts to save it. The framework is apparently retained but in reality there is nothing of that inner spirit which inspired it. It is like a body with out a soul.
Crebillon was the first to endeavor to revive it. To him is attributed the expression "Cor neille appropriated Earth, Racine Heaven, to me there remains Hell .° He aimed at pro ducing an impression of terror on the audience by a succession of horrors. In (Atree et Thy este>
if the father does not actually eat the bodies of his children he nevertheless drinks a cup of their blood. In
nitos, inconceivable situations and theatrical sensations. In a word, we witness all those ingenious expedients which reduce comedy to the level of vaudeville, and tragedy to melo drama.
Voltaire alone in this century understood tragedy. But even he treated it in a superficial manner. His real genius, moreover, was not in the theatre. He composed his numerous works with a facility and celerity to be de plored. His two most interesting plays were (1732) and (1743). In the first we are shown an episode of the Crusades, and the love of a Christian for an infidel; in the second, and more classical piece, we learn the tragic story of a mother who, quite un knowingly, is on the point of killing her own son. But what should he particularly remarked in Voltaire's theatre (in reality rather weak), are the innovations he made. They were not always of a happy inspiration. Like Cr& billon, he used and abused sensational features, especially in the matter of legitimizations. Me rope avowed her child, Zaire is acknowledged by her father thanks to *la croix de ma mere,* which we shall find taken up again in the later melodramas. The characters are not studied with sufficient care. Why? Because (Zaire,) his masterpiece, was written in 17 days, while another of his plays, (Olympie,' was the work of six days. According to Voltaire, it suffices to place the heroes in touching situations to be certain of exciting the emotion of the spec tators.
Moreover, Voltaire sought to renovate trag edy. Timidly emulating Shakespeare, he learned enough from the latter to appreciate unity of action, but he deemed as languid *those long
delivered by an actor semi-hidden in the side scenes. He modified the scenery, paying great attention to the set ting of the stage and the accessories. He varied the choice of his subjects, borrowing from every country and every period: Amer ica, Turkey, even China
de la Chine') are represented in his works. What is more important he did not hesitate to take subjects from the history of his own country, for instance, the Crusades inspired him to write 'Zaire,' and the Hundred Years' War supplied the material for
du Guesclin.' For Voltaire, the theatre became in short one vast rostrum from which he expounded his philosophical and political ideas. In (CEdipe,) and above all in
he makes an at tack on religion and fanaticism, in which con nection we have his famous lines which were frantically applauded: " Les prttres ne sont pas ce qu'un rain people pease Notre criclulite fait touts leur science." ("Priests are not what foolish people think Our credulity makes all their science.")