Over the weekend, for some reason, I found myself thinking about a question I had on an exam over 30 years ago. The test was on “Twelfth Night,” and the question was “Did Malvolio get what he deserved?” I’m pretty sure I said yes, because he refused to be reconciled with the other characters at the end of the play, but it could reasonably go either way.
From that jumping-off point, I deconstructed centuries of Western thought about the condition of mankind into the following table:
Justice In the World Arbitrary Outcomes
Optimism Enlightenment philosophy/theology Comedy
Pessimism Protestant sects Tragedy
“Comedy” falls under “Arbitrary Outcomes” because the characters behave foolishly, but receive a better outcome than they deserve. In “Tragedy,” on the other hand, flawed but essentially admirable people are punished regardless of the purity of their intentions. “Enlightenment philosophy/theology” would include Marxism, a range of 18th and 19th Century idealist philosophies, and some relatively new religious sects. Any Protestant religion influenced by Calvinism would likely fall under Justice/Pessimism.
The thread uniting “Comedy” and “Tragedy” explains why it is possible for a single playwright to be proficient at both.
If you are an Enlightenment/Optimist in this country, you are almost certainly a liberal Democrat. If you are a Protestant/Pessimist, you are probably a reactionary Republican. The other two, politically, fall in the middle.