THE SAINT'S TRAGEDY: OR, THE TRUE STORY OF ELIZABETH OF HUNGARY, LANDGRAVINE OF THURINGIA, SAINT OF THE ROMISH CALENDAR. PREFACE TO THE SAINT'S TRAGEDY. BY THE REV. F. D. MAURICE, M.A. THE writer of this play does not differ with his countrymen generally, as to the nature and requirements of a Drama. He has learnt from our Great Masters that it should exhibit human beings engaged in some earnest struggle, certain outward aspects of which may possibly be a spectacle for the amusement of idlers, but which in itself is for the study and sympathy of those who are struggling themselves. A Drama, he feels, should not aim at the inculcation of any definite maxim; the moral of it lies in the action and the character. It must be drawn out of them by the heart and experience of the reader, not forced upon him by the author. The men and women whom he presents are not to be his spokesmen; they are to utter themselves freely in such language, grave or mirthful, as best expresses what they feel and what they are. The age to which they belong is neither to be contemplated as if it were apart from us, nor is it to be measured by our rules, neither to be held up as a model, nor to be condemned for its strangeness. The passions which worked in it must be those which are working in ourselves. To the same eternal laws and principles are we, and it, amenable. By beholding these a poet is to raise himself, and may hope to raise his readers, above antiquarian tastes and modern conventions. The unity of the play cannot be conferred upon it by any artificial arrangements; it must depend upon the relation of the different persons and events to the central subject. No nice adjustments of success and failure to right and wrong must constitute its poetical justice. In some deeper way than this, if at all, must the conscience of the readers be satisfied that there is an order in the universe, and that the poet has perceived and asserted it. Long before these principles were reduced into formal canons of orthodoxy, even while they encountered the strong opposition of critics, they were unconsciously recognized by Englishmen as sound and national. Yet I question whether a clergyman, writing in conformity with them, might not have incurred censure in former times, and may not incur it now. The privilege of expressing his own thoughts, sufferings, sympathies, in any form of verse is easily conceded to him; if he liked to use a dialogue instead of a monologue, for the purpose of enforcing a duty, or illustrating a doctrine, no one would find fault with him; if he produced an actual Drama for the purpose of defending or denouncing a particular character, or period, or system of opinions, the compliments of one party might console him for the abuse or contempt of another. But it seems to be supposed that he is bound to keep in view one or other of these ends: while to divest himself of his own individuality that he may enter into the working of other spirits; to lay aside the authority which pronounces one |