MR. STEPHEN PHILLIPS AS A WRITER OF TRAGEDY 1 33 



Miriam attests that our author can depict a woman. A review of 

 Herod would be still more convincing as to his abiHty to depict a man 

 who is fitted to be a hero of tragedy. In the characters of Miriam 

 and the Judaean king Mr. Philhps was less bound than in the major 

 personages of his other plays, and his success with these must be 

 remembered against his failures. Indeed as to this particular point 

 one finds much encouragement in the Roman play; for the author's 

 treatment of the emperor and of Agrippina shows a touch that is 

 growing in skill, if not in strength. 



In the minor characters it can hardly be maintained that he has 

 achieved equal success, although Antinous in his insolence and 

 splendor, Lucrezia with her thwarted woman thoughts, and Poppaea 

 with the merciless calculation of her witching beauty stand forth to 

 challenge any sweeping condemnation. The fact is that Mr. Phillips 

 in his desire to avoid multiplicity of effect has deliberately minimized 

 the importance of his minor personages and has depicted them 

 accordingly, so that with the three characters named above to attest 

 his power it would be thoroughly unsafe to decide that he will not 

 achieve more satisfactory results in the future. That there is room 

 for iinprovement should be frankly conceded; for our ideal tragedy, 

 without sacrificing the stamp of perfect unity, may include a number 

 of important personages strongly portrayed and contributing to the 

 main action. 



V 



In entering upon the field of Mr. Phillips' language and verse we 

 find fewest differences of opinion. It is true that an occasional line 

 is dismally prosaic. For instance, in the new play, as a translation 

 of "Schnell und unbegreiflich schnelle," said of the circling earth, 

 we have "Swift, beyond understanding quite," probably because 

 the line has to rhyme with "night," and in the earlier plays it has 

 been easy for the reviewers to point out similar defects. We actually 

 encounter one tall statement that he is "careless and slipshod in his 

 literary methods"; but even the more acrimonious fault-finders 

 concede the faint praise that he is a successful "phrase-maker." 



