<< Looking For A Fight | Front Page | "A certain deceptive variation in these fancy chapter titles": Wimsatt & Beardsley... and Indie Rock >>
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
And give to dust that is a little gilt …
One more on Shaw. As mentioned in this post, I started with "Ibsen Ahead!" because I'm interested in what Shaw thought of Troilus and Cressida. "Ahead!" is - by unstated implication - a retrospective self-reproach. But before we get to that, let's start with this page for some background.The beginning of a reversal of almost three centuries of neglect [of Troilus and Cressida] can perhaps be dated with some precision: February 29, 1884. That evening, London's New Shakespear Society heard an address written, but not delivered, by George Bernard Shaw. The acerbic young critic and novelist, who had not yet tested his own developing theories of drama by writing a play, went over the plot of Troilus and Cressida, which may not have been familiar to even these Shakespeare enthusiasts after the play's long absence from the stage. Shaw was interested in the development of Shakespeare's career, particularly in 'considering carefully the great gap between Henry V and Hamlet.' Shaw was convinced that 'there must be a bridge across that great gap. And the only bridge which fits it is Troilus and Cressida, with its cynical history at one end and pessimistic tragedy at the other.'
By positing the neglected Trojan play as the mediator between two of Shakespeare's most popular stage hits, Shaw strongly suggested that it deserved a stage life of its own. Moreover, he spotlighted a number of stage-worthy incidents in the text, which had never been produced in his lifetime, and accurately predicted how effective they could be in performance. Shaw returned to Troilus and Cressida often in his later critical writings as he championed a new theater for the new century that would build on the achievements of European realists. In an 1896 essay, "Ibsen Ahead!," he pointed to Troilus as Shakespeare's nearest approach to the naturalism of the most daring of the modern dramatists: "Shakespear (sic) made exactly one attempt, in Troilus and Cressida, to hold the mirror up to nature; and he probably nearly ruined himself by it. At all events he never did it again; . . ."
Now my first question for you, dear reader, is can you - can anyone - provide me with the text of the 1884 talk, or some fuller account of it? I would like to know, specifically, what passages Shaw singled out as promising stage material. (Some record of the talk must exist, if these paraphrases exist.)
But as I was saying, "Ibsen Ahead!" is something of a self-criticism. Shaw appears to have recanted his optimism about Troilus and Cressida, in a way that would - frankly - dovetail with a thesis I would like to push. Here is what he writes:
I began my dramatic career by writing plays in which I faithfully held the mirror up to nature. They are much admired in private reading by social reformers, industrial investigators, and revolted daughters; but on one them being rashly exhibited behind the footlights, it was received with a paroxysm of execration, whilst the mere perusal of the others induces loathing in every person, including myself, in whom the theatrical instinct flourishes in its integrity. Shakespeare made exactly one attempt, in "Troilus and Cressida," to hold the mirror up to nature ...
One touch of nature makes the whole world kind - namely, it takes unkindly to a touch of nature. I am not sure how seriously to take the implication that, in 1884, Shaw must have been reading Troilus and Cressida as ... well, the sort of thing that he would later decide only appeals to revolted daughters and industrial investigators. Because it is actually an unstageable shambles. (This is interesting to me because I think the play is often read in this way - as an implicit protest against hypocritical sex-roles and modern 'war on a time-table' and such. I think this seems to make sense, but then again you find yourself stuck with a baggy monster that won't live up to these reformist ideals. Whole scenes and sections go terribly slack.) Is Shaw being serious? As my previous post shows, sometimes it's hard to tell. I would like to hear more about what he said in 1884.
Here's an article that might help me - if my institution had Project Muse access, that is. By Jay Tunney, "The Playwright and the Prizefighter: Bernard Shaw and Gene Tunney" SHAW The Annual of Bernard Shaw Studies - Volume 23, 2003, pp. 149-154. (Anyone care to help me out? [UPDATE: Thanks! The Valve gets results! No one else send it, please.]) The Gene Tunney connection is intriguing. See here, for example:
On Thursday 22 December 1927, I...had a long talk with the champion heavy-weight boxer of the world, Joseph J. Tunney of New York, universally known as Gene Tunney. I knew he was fond of reading Shakespeare. I told him that I was teaching Shakespeare at Yale, and that during the coming Spring term I should be very glad to have him address my class. He immediately agreed....
Tunney told us how he came to enjoy Shakespeare. It was when he was a private soldier in the World War. There was a comrade who was always talking about Shakespeare; and Tunney, becoming interested, made up his mind he would read him. He had the bad luck to begin with The Winter's Tale. He read it through from beginning to end and it made no impression. I think most adventurers would have stopped there. Not so Tunney. He read through Winter's Tale ten times...
On 23 April Tunney addressed my Shakespeare class. The large auditorium was jammed, with crowds standing up. Tunney used no notes. He spoke for three-quarters of an hour.... He said his favorite play of Shakespeare was Troilus and Cressida. For it applied exactly in his own case. 'Why have I been invted to speak at Yale? Surely not because I have anything important to say about Shakespeare. I have been invited becauseI am the champion boxer of the world. I am that now, and there is great interest in everything I do and say. I am followed around by crowds. But how long do you suppose that will last? It was last just as long as I am heavy-weight champion. Ten years from now nobody will care what I do or say. It is important to me therefore to make the most of the present moment, for the present is all I have.'
He said Shakespeare understood that situation perfectly. Hector was the heavy-weight champion of the Trojans and the only man among the Greeks who could stand up to him was Achilles. But Achilles would not fight. He sulked in his tent. And yet he was angry when Ulysses and the other Greeks put up Ajax to fight Hector; and all their cheers were for Ajax. 'Now Ajax,' said Mr. Tunney, 'was a big powerful man without much brains, just like Jack Sharkey.'
"The next day a reporter called up Sharkey at his training-camp and said 'Tunney says you are like Ajax.' It is possible that Mr. Sharkey thought Ajax was some kind of disease, for he responded, 'You can tell Tunney there is nothing the matter with me at all.'
For us lovers of complex irony, there's a lot to work with here. Not to mention there's this great Gene Tunney page where you can get pages and pages of Gene Tunney comics! (I've really got to get to work, photoshopping Ulysses' great 'alms for oblivion' up-and-at-em pep talk into some of these frames.)