arranged a sqjaration between theaternand its metaphysical origins, with notncompletely satisfactory results. Over thencourse of time, theater has waffled backnand forth between its ritualistic originsnand the desires of its promoters to createna theater suitable for the moment.nWhether reaching back to its religiousnpast, or storming the parapets of indifferencenfor the latest cause celebre, theaternhas always been the mirror of its time.nRecalling the medieval jester, Shakespearencuts quite near the core of theaternwhen he has a character say:nInvest me in my motley.nGive me leave to speak my mind.nTheater speaks its mind not so muchnwith the words it says but by the wordsnit chooses, the scenery it displays, thenbuildings, if any, that it houses itself in,nthe gestures of its performers. Its mediumnis its message.nThus, today’s theater can serve as anparadigm for our time. What does it say?nAs might be expected, no single movementndominates the boards. Theaternspeaks with a multitude of voices. Thenabsurdists decry the meaniuglessness ofnexistence while the Brechtians seek tonscore political points through alienationnand didacticism. Meanwhile, those likenHarold Pinter continue to explore thensubtie nuances of character and language.nThrough this experimentation, the massnof people have responded, not to lonesconand Genet, but to the plays of Neil Simon.nWhile it is impossible to predict preciselynwhere the theater is going, there isnone certainty. No matter what shape ornform it takes, the “Magic Circle” willncontinue to have a human center.nTheater takes the temperature of itsntime. During Shakespeare’s youth andnmiddle age, Elizabeth reigned. It was annera of expansion, enlightenment, exuberance,nand Shakespeare’s plays morenthan those of any other captured the essencenof the age. Following Elizabeth’sndeath, James I mounted the throne. Anpuritanical, unattractive, waspish ruler,nhe personified a great state’s decline.n24inChronicles of CulturenEngland’s power waned. Its taxes rose.nThe vistas of endless possibility that enticednElizabethans seemed to retreat towardsnthe horizon. As a darker, smaller,nmore pessimistic era took hold, a newndrama rose to express the perceptionsnof the age’s poets. It is this drama thatnLee Bliss examines in The World’snPerspective.nThe greatest of the Elizabethan dramatists,nShakespeare, also proved to benthe first of the major Jacobean ones. Innplays such as Measure for Measure,nAntony and Cleopatra, and Coriokmus,nthe Bard quickly sized up the possibilitiesnlying in the new sense of disenchantmentnand forged them to serve his art.nWhereas dramatic heroes such as Hamletnand Macbeth managed to maintain bothnnobility and even a certain positivism inntheir fells, what can we say for the vainnCoriolanus, who tells us that he is:nA thingnMade by some other deity than naturenThat shapes man better.nClearly, Coriolanus is no “sweet prince.”nWhereas the tK^c hero in ElizabethannShakespeare gains stature and selfawarenessnthrough his attempts to scalenimpossible heights, the protagonists ofnJacobean Shakespeare plays are far lessnlikely to have learned anything ofnsignificance.nWhen Shakespeare left the theaternin 1610, it marked the passing of an age,na termination dramatically symbolizednwhen the Globe burnt down in the tnid-nnndle of a performance of the Bard’s lastnplay, Henry VIII. Happily for dramatic literature,na new playwright arose to take hisnplace, a new author whose vision wasnmore cynical, more conscribed, morendespairing. His name was John Webster.nVirmally nothing is known about hisnlife. litfle is known about his works. Onlynthree plays, The White Devil, The DuchessnofMalfl, and The Devil’s Law Case arendefinitely his. The last is a poorly constructed,nentertaining trifle. The first twonrest among the supreme accomplishmentsnof world drama.nIf Shakespeare and such minor scribesnincluding John Marston and GeorgenChapman su^ested the Jacobean Weltanschauung,nit was Webster who embodiednit. In both White Devil zndMalflna Calvinistic world prevails. There is nonnobility. Nor are there heroes. Mostncharacters are motivated by greed, ambition,nor lust. Even the protagonists, asnLee Bliss points out, are antiheroes whon”spend their plays learning that they havena humanity to betray.” And yet, despitenthe blackness of vision, there is hope.nHope in Webster’s woik is not the promisenof salvation. It is, rather, the hope ofnunderstanding. For Webster, moral survivalnin the world is an illusion, a vanity.nThe only comprehension that matters isnthat which takes place in the worldnwithia As Bliss says, “Webster dramatisesnthe old paradox of strength and humannpotential bound with weakness.” In othernwords, Webster deals with original sin.nGiven his times, Webster is honest. Hendoes not pretend that mankind can overcomenits limitations. However, he doesnnot ignore those limits but posits thatnman can come to see ^diatlie is and why.nThat must suffice.nWebster’s message is not attractive.nGiven the content of his drama, therencan be little wonder that his plays arenrarely seen. Yet it must be said that if thenkey figures of our age—the variousnUtopians—had understood man’s restrictionsnas well as his possibilities, this wouldnhave been a happier era. These times arennot totally unlike Webster’s; he speaksneloquently to both. Dn