Humanism and America

[37] I have considered the tragic emotions more fully in an article, “Melodrama and Tragedy,” Publications of the Modern Language Association, September, 1928.

[38] Since this paper was written my attention has been called to “Humanism and Tragedy,” an admirable article by Mr. F. McEachran (Nineteenth Century and After, July, 1929). Based on Professor Babbitt’s three levels of human conduct, naturalistic, human, and religious, Mr. McEachran’s thesis is that tragedy, since it demands an assumption of human dignity, cannot develop in a naturalistic age like the present, and is difficult in a religious one. The age of Pericles, of Elizabeth, and of Louis XIV were humanistic; they were followed by naturalistic decadence in which man and nature were equated and tragedy became impossible. Mr. McEachran’s “human dignity” and my “heroism” seem equivalent.

[39] It is to be noted, as further illustration of the anti-heroic tendency of modern thought, that critics have sought to explain Hamlet as not a hero but a psychopath. What Shakespeare wished his audience to feel, however, seems open to no doubt.

[40] From Roan Stallion, Tamar, and Other Poems, Boni & Liveright, 1925.

[41] Should I remind the reader that in thus generalising I admit exceptions? One such, whom I have discussed elsewhere (Sewanee Review, April, 1929) is, in my opinion, Joseph Conrad.