Shakespeare, Fletcher and Racine. On the Renaissance and Baroque Tradition

It is incomprehensible to us how Fletcher, who according to current criticism cannot even compete with lesser-known playwrights of the time such as Middleton, Webster, or Ford, could throughout the 17th century be counted alongside Shakespeare and Johnson in the "triumvirate of the spirit" and even completely overshadow the name of Shakespeare for at least a generation. This can hardly be explained solely by the "bad taste" of a more elegant and frivolous public, from which - due to the hostility of the Puritan bourgeoisie to the arts and the transition to smaller, closed theatres with correspondingly higher prices - the broad masses, one of the mainstays of Shakespeare's theatre, were gradually excluded. Obviously, Fletcher, with his vision and his themes, responded better to the needs of the time than Shakespeare, with his Renaissance mentality. For Fletcher, although a mediocre poet, is an original and independent mind, and although he outwardly follows the stage technique of Renaissance drama, he is the first who categorically found the way to a new inner form of drama - the Baroque drama. And even those of his own generation who imitated him most could not discover this inner form, but only repeated its external effects. This is the main reason for the great respect paid to him during the time of the nascent Baroque; but it is at the same time and the reason for the extreme disfavor into which he now falls. Baroque drama in England, even in the hands of its greatest representative, John Dryden (1631-1700), is not particularly appreciated by a people nourished on the spirit of Shakespeare's Renaissance theatre, and Fletcher is now regarded not as a pioneer seeking new paths appropriate to his time, but as a renegade from the sound traditions of the Renaissance. Not that any substantial reassessment of Fletcher's work can be expected or even desired. Fletcher is not a great dramatist, but he is an interesting figure: and if his dramas are far inferior to those of Shakespeare, the reason lies rather in the skill of the two dramatists than in the dramatic form itself. The important thing is to understand that this is after all a different kind of drama.