Taylor Lach

Mark Lococo
THTR 366
9/13/16
Miss Julie: Tragic Heroine?
Stockenstrom tackles August Strindburgs assertion that his play, Miss Julie, is
a modern psychological drama in the form of a tragedy. First, Stockenstrom
identifies two types of tragedy as it was defined before Naturalism came about:
Greek tragedy and Shakespearean tragedy. He refers to both types throughout the
article as he dissects Miss Julies tragic elements. Strindburgs preface to his play
defines the aesthetic precepts of Naturalism and how it seeks to study man in a
scientific manner, calling them La bete humaine: Helpless victims of heredity,
social and animal instinct, molded by the pasts ideals and conventions. This
description differs from the Greek tragedys dramatist who believed in human
dignity and the opportunity to exert free will to make a moral choice and gain
redemption.
Stockenstrom invites critical support for these differences between
Naturalism and tragedy by citing Ferdinand Brunieres similar argument and Zolas
scientific perspective of theatre. Stockenstroms article jumps around a lot in its
content, and the Zola paragraph is no exception. Here, he goes off on a detailed
description of the acting style preferred by Strindberg as well as the stages setup. I
could see where he could go with this information by connecting it to Greek
tragedys conventions of staging or acting style, but he never went there. In the
end, he concedes that Miss Julie is a victim of heredity and society and that the
structure of the play falls within the general conventions of a tragedy. Patriarchal
order is a frame for the action in Miss Julie just as common Myths were frames for
the action in Greek tragedy. Stockenstrom draws a vague conclusion that Miss Julie
gravitates toward being a modern type of tragedy where the hero is guilty but not
responsible for their demise. Finally, he questions if tragedies can even be staged
and understood in modern society because the different belief systems that govern
the characters fate and free will.