certainly they had none for the morality of their plays. If the authors had regard for the art of their dramas the audience had none, for they judged a play entirely from a personal point of view. Emotionally the people had a low standard of judgment; if the sentiments of the stage suited their stout British prejudices, a roar of approval burst from young John Bull; if the sentiments were not to their fancy, hoots and projectiles were hurled upon the miserable actors. This was but natural since with the loss of the artist's vital power had vanished artistic appreciation from among the people.

A

IV

PLAYS AND OPERAS

The signifi

cance in the number of

pastorals.

BIRD'S-EYE view of the bibliography reveals the bewildering multiplicity of pastoral plays even in this degenerate period. Lyrics are usually to be expected in abundance, but this profusion of plays can, at first sight, scarcely be credited. Increasing out of all proportion to their popularity, in their ill-formed, ill-planned multiplication lay one indication of the degeneration which had set in. From 1584 to 1660 there are some two score dramatic pastorals; from 1660 to 1798 some four score. An examination of a third of the pastoral plays composed from the Period of the Restoration to the date of the Publication of the Lyrical Ballads, exposes, more or less accurately, the condition of this phase of the drama.1

Webster's Thracian Wonder forms an interesting link between the traditions of the past pastoral, pseudo-classic, poetic, sensuous, and the coming drama, too often a buffoon given to coarse words, 1 For any bibliographical notes, see Bibliography.

Webster's

Wonder," 1661 (?).

prose, and contemporary "hits." Just when the Thracian Wonder was written, or who wrote it, is not known. Printed in 1661, it ap"Thracian peared with an introduction by Francis Kirkman, to whom, no doubt, we are indebted for its preservation. Dyce, Collier, and Fleay deny Webster's authorship, but since this point has not been definitely established it is best to attribute the play to its usual sources, John Webster and William Rowley.

The Thracian Wonder is uninteresting and disjointed; only a few comical scenes containing the spice of life redeem it from utter commonplaceness. The story turns on the fact that Ariadne, daughter to King Pheander, has clandestinely married Radagon, who is disguised as a menial at the court of Pheander, and is King of "Scicillia." When the marriage is disclosed, the maiden's father at once begins a course of the most tyrannical cruelty. He banishes Ariadne and the little son Eusanius, putting them to sea in a boat; he then proceeds to banish Radagon in the same fashion. Finally, he exiles his own brother Sophos for pleading the cause of Ariadne. As a punishment for the King's sins, a terrible plague attacks the court, an oracle revealing that until the monarch makes retribution, the country shall know neither peace nor prosperity. Overcome with remorse, Pheander goes out as a pilgrim seeking Ariadne. In the mean time the daughter and her little son and Radagon have

come to shore; Radagon and Ariadne, although mutually attracted, do not recognize each other. In the end a recognition takes place, they are discovered by Pheander, and all return happily homeward.

Evidently Francis Kirkman thought this play appropriate for the times, and printed at a propitious moment: "I have several manuscripts of this nature, written by worthy authors, and I account it much pity they should now lye dormant, and buried in oblivion, since ingenuity is so likely to be encouraged, by reason of the happy Restauration of our Liberties. We have had the private stage for some years clouded, and under a tyrannical command." Its ingenuity is not particularly remarkable; the story is involved, and at times. quite as impenetrable as its oracle. The plot very strongly resembles that of Greene's Menaphon, and Shakespeare's Winter's Tale, with a touch of Pericles; in the Menaphon, however, the King banishes his daughter in supposed obedience to an oracle. But in the end the daughter and her husband, their child and the King, all recognize one another in much the same way. In the play and romance, too, are found about the same proportion of coarse scenes, and practically the same characters masquerading in pastoral disguise.

Some of the scenes bespeak at least a smattering of a knowledge of classical idyls, for the pastoral quality is at times closely imitated. The

E

mythological ingredients are further borne out by the appearance of the Goddess Pithia and of a Chorus and "Time." Titterus and Pallemon and a Clown afford the merry element, and very merry and full of coarse jests they are. There is, too, a fisherman among the dramatis persona, an interesting "pastoral-piscatory" touch, and also the usual religious accompaniment of the pastoral play, a priest.

The Thracian Wonder, with its court elements, its heroic elements, its mythological attributes, is not lacking in the conventional shepherd dances. Ariadne is not so overcome with grief, but that in the second act she can take part in such a dance. In its realistic touches the play is kin, although far inferior, to Jonson's Sad Shepherd and Ramsay's Gentle Shepherd. Dishes of apples, nuts, and cheese, and many another homely article, are introduced. Whether or not these authors knew the classics, they knew their Spenser, as the following passage attests: "I must not turn my tale sure from Shepherds' Roundelays to Epithalamiums, and Sonnets, and Ios', and Heighos?" (act ii.). Realistic in some details of shepherd life, in others the authors are ridiculous. Perhaps they intended to be, and did not care to confine all the merriment of this

prose and verse play to Titterus. In act v. the shepherds make the first assault upon the Sicilian troops and beat off the Lords, a remarkable performance which sets one wondering