South Atlantic Modern Language Association

Treatment of Character in Harold Pinter's "The Homecoming"

Author(s): William J. Free
Source: South Atlantic Bulletin, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Nov., 1969), pp. 1-5
Published by: South Atlantic Modern Language Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3196956
Accessed: 01-05-2020 02:10 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

South Atlantic Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to South Atlantic Bulletin

This content downloaded from 203.150.54.87 on Fri, 01 May 2020 02:10:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 South Atlantic Bulletin
Vol. XXXIV, No. 4 SOUTH ATLANTIC MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION November, 1969

Treatment of Character in Harold Pinter's "The Homecoming"

Harold Pinter's plays still puzzlecharacter on stage who can present seek an explanation for the change
audiences and critics after almost a no convincing argument or infor- in conduct from sanity to madness.
dozen years of acquaintance with mation as to his past experience, his It may have received clues from
his work. In spite of a growing bodypresent behaviour or his aspirations, earlier impressions which explain
of criticism, there are perhaps more nor give a comprehensive analysis the apparent contradiction (in a
unanswered questions about Pinter of his motives, is as legitimate and previous scene the character may
than about any other major con- as worthy of attention as one who, have stated that he would feign
temporary playwright. Moreover, alarmingly, can do all these things."4 madness) or the audience may form
there is less uniformity in the re- However, Esslin goes on to link the a tentative explanation to be re-
sponse of an audience to Pinter than problem of verification of character jected or verified by subsequent
to most playwrights whose work is with Pinter's language. No one has impressions of the same character
so widely produced. The reaction of looked systematically at Pinter's (it may later learn that he has in-
individual playgoers varies from treatment of character and its effect deed gone mad).
anger to disgust, from boredom to on the total impression of his plays. The pleasure of the play comes
adulation. Reviewers have reacted
Critics disagree violently concern-in part from this act of unifying
in a similar range.1 ing how Pinter presents character. contradictory impressions. A char-
Are we to view his characters as
Critics generally agree that Pinter acter who behaves uniformly in
falls within that branch of contem- real people or as devices calculated each appearance is a dull character,
porary theatre which Martin Esslin to provoke the desired emotional and if he dominates the play he
calls "theatre of the absurd." They reaction and possessed of a mini- imparts to it a dull, static quality.
disagree concerning the techniques mum of real human psychology? On the other extreme, the character
which he uses to achieve his vision Are his plays character studies whose actions are so contradictory
of absurdity and about the quality which "progressively reveal the that the audience is not given or
of his achievement. Most critics inner nature of their characters"5 cannot find adequate explanation
focus on his use of language. Some or exercises in pure dramatic for them confuses the audience and
say that Pinter presents a height- action? Are his characters moti- leaves it dissatisfied.
ened, yet clinically accurate, picturevated, either through the text or The usual technique through
of everyday life which emphasizes through a consistently maintained which the playwright enables us to
the absurdity of colloquial speech.2 "sub-text" or are we "never fully unify character is dramatic irony.
Others deny that Pinter's language told the motives of a character in J. L. Styan in his provocative book
is realistic. F. J. Bernhard has char- a play by Pinter?"6
The Elements of Drama defines the
acterized Pinter's dialogue as In this paper I will examine the conventional "true irony of the
"something more like poetry treatment
than of one character in Pin- drama" as "the steady and insistent
anything else for which we have a ter's most controversial play, The communication to the privileged
name" and has catalogued a number Homecoming, in hope of finding a
spectator of a meaning hidden from
of verbal devices through which usable approach to Pinter's treat- the characters." He goes on: "The
Pinter lifts colloquial conversation ment of character. First, some gen- texture of the play will become
into subtile and effective dramatic
eral principles. finer in proportion as its author can
dialogue.3
Character in drama consists of a say more to the spectators through
The emphasis of scholarly criti- sequence of impressions communi- the ironic management of the actors.
cism on language has, I believe, cated from the actor to the audi- The actors perform two functions:
drawn attention from a more im- ence. A character becomes interest- they act and talk to themselves, and
portant technique, the treatment of ing and dramatically significant they act and talk to the audience."7
character. Esslin mentions the lack when the sequence of his actions
of motivation in Pinter's characters Through such conventional irony
gives the impression of being incon-the playwright presents a strongly
and quotes from Pinter's note in the sistent or contradictory and we, theunified treatment of character. For
program of a 1960 performance in audience, are forced to restore unity
which the playwright says: "A example, in Act III, scene iii, of
by perceiving the causes of the in- Othello, Iago, contradicting his pre-
consistency. Let us suppose, for
1. Compare the negative reactions to vious words and actions, speaks to
example,
Pinter's The Homecoming of Robert Brustein, that a character in a playOthello in a most friendly and de-
New Republic, CLII (June 26, 1965), appears
30 and in two successive scenes.
Ronald Bryden, "The Stink of Pinter," New ferential way:
Statesman, LXIX (June 11, 1965), 1096-97 In the first he talks and acts like a
to the more appreciative reviews of Richard O, beware, my lord, of jealousy!
Gilman, New York Times, D. (Jan. 22, 1967),rational person; in the second, he
3, 5 and Henry Hewes, "Pinter's Hilarious is irrational. The audience must It is the green-eyed monster,
Depth Charge," Saturday Review, L (Jan. 21, which doth mock
1967), 51.
2. The Gilman review is an example of this 4. Quoted in Esslin, Theatre of the Absurd, The meat it feeds on. That
viewpoint. To a lesser degree, it is the viewp. 206. cuckold lives in bliss
of Martin Esslin: The Theatre of the Absurd 5. John Russell Brown, "Mr. Pinter's Shake-
(New York, 1961), pp. 198-217.
speare," Critical Quarterly, V :3 (Autumn, Who, certain of his fate, loves
3. "Beyond Realism: The Plays of Harold 1963), 254.
Pinter," Modern Drama, VIII (Sept., 1965), 6. J. L. Styan, The Dark Comedy (Cam-
185.
bridge, 1962), p. 236. 7. The Elements of Drama (Cambridge,
1963), pp. 49, 51.

This content downloaded from 203.150.54.87 on Fri, 01 May 2020 02:10:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Page Two SOUTH ATLANTIC BULLETIN November, 1969

South Atlantic Bulletin not his wronger; the spectator. Thus the audience is
But O, what damned minutes forced out of its traditional role as
THE SOUTH ATLANTIC BULLETIN tells he o'er privileged spectator and into a new
established under the editorship oi role as outsider, a position analog-
Sturgis E. Leavitt in 1935, is the Who dotes, yet doubts--sus-
official publication of the South pects, yet strongly loves! ous to the plight of a guest who is
Atlantic Modern Language Associa- (III.iii.165-70) made the butt of an inside joke be-
tion. It is published at Chapel Hill tween host and hostess.
N. C., in January, March, May and His words would strike us, on face
November and is circulated to all value, as contradicting his earlier The Homecoming is Pinter's most
members of the Association. extreme use of this device. In this
expressed hatred of the Moor. In
EDITOR reality, of course, such an interpre-play the characters act and talk to
tation never occurs to us, for Shake-one another with a communication
FRANK M. DUFFEY, University of that is devastating and accurate;
North Carolina.
speare has provided unmistakable
motivation which enables us to per- but they talk and act in patterns
ASSOCIATE EDITORS which ironically exclude the audi-
ceive not contradiction but irony.
FRmDsoN BOWERS, University of from the early scenes
We have seen ence from the privilege of com-
Virginia. munication. We sense their destruc-
of the play that pretended friend-
EDWARD W. BRATTON, University ship is part of Iago's plot against tive hostility toward one another,
of Tennessee. but never understand the motives
FRANCIS C. HAYES, University of Othello, and when we examine the
for their actions and words. The
Florida. above speech in sequence with
JOHN ESTEN KELLER, University Iago's soliloquy in Act II, scene iii, dialogue is a game the characters
of Kentucky. we realize that the real motive of play to avoid admitting their moti-
GEORGE 0. MARSHALL, JR., Uniiver- vation to each other or to the audi-
sitt of Georgia. the speech is to plant the ideas of
SAM M. SHIVER, Emory University. jealousy and cuckoldom in Othello's ence. At one point in the second
LAWRENCE S. THOMPSON, Univer- mind so that Iago can skillfully play act, Ruth says:
situ of Kentucky. on them during the rest of the scene. You've forgotten s omething.
JOHN R. WELSH, University of
South Carolina. The audience is privy to informa- Look at me. I ... move my leg.
C. BEAUMONT WICKS, University tion hidden from Othello, who That's all it is. But I wear . . .
of Alabama. underwear . . . which moves
knows nothing of Iago's scheme.
The South Atlantic Modern Lan- Had the audience been as ignorant with me . . . it . . . captures
guage Association is an organization as Othello of the motivation behind your attention. Perhaps you
of teachers, scholars, and laymen in
the states of Alabama, Florida, Iago's speech, Iago's conduct would misinterpret. The action is
Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North have been a mystery to be cleared simple. It's a leg . . . moving.
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, up later, not an intensely ironic My lips move. Why don't you
Virginia, West Virginia, and the experience. Moreover, the ironic restrict . . . your observations
District of Columbia dedicated in
management of character enables us to that? Perhaps the fact that
general to the cause of the hu-
manities and in particular to the to see the movement of tragic fate they move is more significant
advancement of scholarship and in Othello's life and to estimate the S... than the words which come
teaching in English and modern nature and meaning of his subse- through them. You must bear
foreign languages and literatures.
Dues for membership in the Associ- quent fall. The chief kind of privi- that . . . possibility . . . in
ation are $3.50 per year and should leged information possessed by the mind.8
be sent to Edward W. Bratton, audience is its understanding of Throughout the play, what we
Executive Secretary, Box 8410, U.
T. Station, Knoxville, Tennessee character - that is, its ability to vaguely sense to be happening be-
37916. unify seemingly contradictory im-
neath the words is dislocated from
pressions. what overtly happens on the sur-
PRESIDENT I dwell on a simple and obvious face. The underwear is more ag-
FREDSON BowERs, Universitiy of
Virginia. example at such length because it gressive than the leg, but it is hid-
VICE-PRESIDENT represents a type of irony pervasive den from sight. Our attention is
in drama yet almost totally absent drawn back and forth between sur-
JosEm RYSAN, Vanderbilt Univer-
from Pinter's plays. Pinter's treat- face actions the meaning of which
sity.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ment of character is to push it as is never explained and a sub-text
EDWARD W. BRATTON, University
near confusion as possible. Char- which is suggested but never com-
of Tennessee. acters talk and act in unexpected municated. Thrown into this world
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE and unexplained contradictions. without normal continuity, we are
Communication from character to forced to look in a new way in
JOHN E. KELLUZER, University of order to receive communication
Kentucky. audience is thwarted. The effect,
however,
T. WALTER HERBERT, University of from the play.
is not the familiar tech-
Florida. nique of mystery in which both Ruth is the central character in
EUGENE CURRENT-GARCIA, Auburn characters and audience lack under- the play. It is she, in reality, who
University. is returning home. She redefines the
standing until a later event. Pinter's
J. WOODROW HASSELL, JR., Univer- characters communicate with each family relationships and establishes
situ of Georgia.
JAMES B. MmRI\ETER, University other but not with the audience. The a new order with herself at the cen-
of South Carolina. irony of his plays comes from the ter. At the same time, she is the
LELAND RICHTER PHiLPs, Dukefact that the audience senses the most ambiguous and difficult char-
Unii'ersitt. presence of a communication acter in the play.
among
GEORGE C. S. ADAMS, WOford Cot-
lege. the characters which is stronger 8. Harold Pinter, The Homecoming (Lon-
FLOYD C. WATKINS, Emory Univer- than can be accounted for by the don, 1966), pp. 52-853. Subsequent references
placed in the text will be from this, the
siy.t information which the play gives Methuen paperback, edition.

This content downloaded from 203.150.54.87 on Fri, 01 May 2020 02:10:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 November, 1969 SOUTH ATLANTIC BULLETIN Page Three

Ruth enters a situation in which the scene and colors our tentative burst of violence against Joey and
the normal family relationships judgment of Ruth's motive. We have Sam, she joins him in a clich6 do-
have failed. It is a parody of a already seen the hostility present mestic
in conversation:
family. Father and son, brother and the family circle and we can share MAX You a mother?
brother, are set snarling against Ruth's fear at the prospect of en- RUTH Yes.
each other. In the scenes before the countering her in-laws. MAX How many you got?
first blackout in Act I, Pinter estab- In the next scene, with Lenny, RUTH Three. (43)
lishes an atmosphere of hostility. Ruth's passiveness continues. He Her control of her emotions in these
Lenny and Max quarrel over cut- does most of the talking, and his everyday lines suggest that her re-
ting something out of the paper, words threaten her with sexual ad- action to Max's vituperations is one
over the food, over Lenny's knowl- vances and violence. As in the of superior acceptance rather than
edge of horses; Max and Lenny dialogue with Teddy, she answers growing anger.
ridicule Sam's pride in being a good in two or three word phrases as he In Act II, Pinter further compli-
driver and Max baits him over his chatters about his tic, his assault on cates our impression of Ruth. Early
love life; Max rebuffs Joey when the prostitute, his encounter with in the act, he stirs our sympathy for
the latter comes home hungry and the old lady and her iron mangle. the woman in two encounters. In
later over his prowess as a boxer. His anecdotes imply threats directedthe first he uses his characteristic
These arguments are overlaid with against Ruth. Her stillness and si- device of the trivial symbol which
a cynical pose of loving family ties. lence reinforce our earlier impres- communicates powerful emotion.
Ruth's first appearance conveys sion of her withdrawal. The symbol works in contrast to
the impression of stillness and quiet. Then, suddenly, in the business Teddy's fumbling hesitation in de-
Her inactivity is set in contrast to over the water glass, our impression scribing Ruth's happiness at the
Teddy's agitated excitement. The is undercut by a new and contra- university: "It's a great life, at the
stage directions, juxtaposed in dictory element. She unexpectedlyUniversity ... you know .. . it's a
sequence, emphasize her passive very good life. We've got a lovely
shifts from passivity to aggressive-
quality and his movement: "She ness. In a few short lines she be- house . . . we've got all . . . we've
does not move. .... He goes into comes
the the threatener, Lenny the got everything we want. It's a very
hall, looks up the stairs, comes back. threatened. stimulating environment." (50) This
... He goes up the stairs, stealthily. LENNY ... Just give me that speech prepares us to sympathize
RUTH stands, then slowly walks glass. with Ruth's conflicting evaluation
across the room. TEDDY returns. RUTH If you take the glass of her life:
... She looks at him. ... TEDDY . I'll take you. RUTH . . . I was born quite
walks about. .... RUTH sits. ... He Pause. near here.
walks about the room." (20-23) The LENNY How about me taking Pause.
dialogue suggests that her stillness the glass without you Then . . . six years ago,
comes from her withdrawal from taking me. I went to America.
the family symbolized by the room
RUTH Why don't I just take It's all rock. And sand.
in which she finds herself. From the you? It stretches . . . so far
beginning we sense that she does Pause. (34) ... everywhere you look.
not wish to be in Teddy's family The pauses indicate Ruth the victor And there's lots of in-
home. "No one's here," she says in in each exchange as Lenny searches sects there.
her first speech, and it causes us to for a new ploy. He is on the defen- Pause.
read reluctance into her cryptic sive. She follows her advantage And there's lots of in-
answers to Teddy's subsequent with a series of verbal assaults with sects there.
questions: Cold? "No." Something obvious sexual connotations and Silence. (53)
to drink? "No, I don't want any- leaves Lenny shouting nervously The repeated insect image, punctu-
thing." Tired? "Just a little." Again, after her, "What was that supposed
as in the pantomime, Pinter con-
ated and emphasized by the silence,
to be? Some kind of proposal?" suggests
(35) a far deeper revulsion than
trasts her taciturn replies with The new impression of Ruth
Teddy's agitated chatter about his
a mere insect can inspire. It sym-
forces us to revaluate our earlier bolizes the sum of whatever inward
boyhood, his home, and his family.
judgment of her motives. She is discontent motivates Ruth. It is our
Finally, Ruth suggests her true obviously not withdrawn. She is
mood with the question, "Do you aggressive. But we search in vain clue to the unity of her character,
want to stay?" She clearly does not. for means to reconcile this new ele-
but it is a clue which is never fully
developed.
The pauses in her next speech indi-
ment of her character with the Ruth This dialogue and the passage
cate that she is grasping for an we saw earlier. Pinter, having which follows in which Ruth de-
excuse to leave: "I think . . . the broken the unity of Ruth's charac- scribes her earlier happiness as a
children . . . might be missingter, us."leaves us dangling.
Finally she flees the room to "have photographer's model produce a
Throughout the rest of the play sympathy with Ruth which momen-
a breath of air" over Teddy's re- the unity of Ruth's character eludes tarily satisfies our sense of her char-
peated protests, which consume a us. In Act I, Pinter alternates her
full page of the text. acter. We judge her to be an un-
passive acceptance with her active
happy woman whose alternating
Pinter gives us no overt motive domination of the family and gives
stillness and aggression come from
for Ruth's behavior in this scene. Is us no ground on which to reconcile her imperfect adjustment to her
she shy? frightened? bored? We can the opposites. During Max's revilingcircumstances. We are ready to ac-
only guess. Teddy's more obvious her as a "stinking pox-ridden slut" cept her as the sympathetic heroine
apprehensiveness sets the mood for she stands quietly. After Max's out- of the play.

This content downloaded from 203.150.54.87 on Fri, 01 May 2020 02:10:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Page Four SOUTH ATLANTIC BULLETIN November, 1969

Having achieved our sympathy or of our sympathies. The audiencethe iron mangle. Teddy is pathetic
for Ruth, however, Pinter destroys has experienced the irony of having
and ineffective, and Joey never rises
it by showing her in a sequence of been excluded from Ruth's mind above the stereotyped flatness of the
increasingly more shocking and re- and is left, like Teddy, to go its own
stupid prizefighter. Only Ruth be-
pulsive actions. We may at first try way, only half understanding what trays us into a false judgment of her
to reconcile them with our sym- it has seen. character.
pathy: her dance and her kiss with Teddy is, in fact, the closest anal- This fact itself is an important
Lenny may be the natural actions ogy in the play to the position of element of Pinter's technique. Ex-
of a frustrated woman whose hus- the audience. He is a philosopher, cept where Ruth is concerned, the
band is weak. But her treatment of one given to understanding as the play presents its characters con-
Joey is less excusable. Not only does audience is accustomed to under- ventionally. For example, Max and
she turn promiscuously to the third stand the play it is watching. In a Sam play a bitter game over Jessie's
brother, but she turns out to be "a fumbling, pathetic attempt to assert affair with MacGregor. If we look
tease." The final destruction of our his own superiority, he says: at the following actions in sequence
sympathy comes with the cold- I'm the one who can see. That's we can see Pinter building our
blooded way in which she accepts why I can write my critical understanding of the affair: Max
their proposition that she become works. Might do you good . .. speaks of Mac in a laudatory and
the family prostitute. Frustration have a look at them ... see how Jessie in a derogatory tone; Max
and unhappiness are no longer ade- certain people can view . . . taunts Sam about "having a good
quate explanations for her conduct. things . . . how certain people bang on the back seat" of his limou-
can maintain . . . intellectual sine, which Sam emotionally denies,
Pinter, however, will not let even
our judgment of Ruth's corrupt na- equilibrium. Intellectual equi- saying he is not like "other people";
ture pass unmixed. When Max first librium. You're just objects. Sam admits to having escorted
begins to explain the arrangements You just . . . move about. I can Jessie around town and suggests
observe it. I can see what you that Max wouldn't have trusted Mac
to her, Ruth reacts ambiguously. As
Teddy tells her the family would
do. It's the same as I do. But to do so. These speeches, all in the
like her to stay, she replies: you're lost in it. You won't get first scene of the play, prepare the
me being . . . lost in it. (62) audience to accept without shock
How very nice of them. the revelation that Mac had Jessie
But Teddy does not see and under-
MAX It's an offer from our
stand any better than the audience on the back seat of Sam's car. We
hearts.
does. His uncertainty, made clear by are accustomed to receiving such
RUTH It's very sweet of you. hints from a play and to using them
the pauses and the false starts,
MAX Listen . . . it would be
parallels our own uncertainty at in our preception of meaning. But
our pleasure. Ruth's actions. Pinter does not relate the business
Pause. (75)
Nothing in the play suffices to with ac- Jessie to Ruth's decision or
Max's words are obviously ironic: count for why Ruth acts as she does. use it in any way to enlighten our
we can judge them in the light of Pinter sets her actions in several understanding of the central action
the plans he has made with Lenny contexts which enrich our under- of the play. Pinter is able to give us
and Joey before she enters. But standing of what she does. She is the illusion of meaning by treating
what of Ruth's? Is this pleasant paralleled to Max's dead wife, peripheral characters and scenes
naivete or deliberate irony on her Jessie: she is the only woman in the conventionally and, at the same
part? Pinter gives us nothing on house since Jessie died; like Jessie, time, destroy the dramatic illusion
which to base a judgment. For a she is an unfaithful wife; like Jessie, of causal necessity between the cen-
moment we sense that Ruth may be she has probably borne illegitimate tral action and character, thus de-
being innocently drawn into a cor- sons (Max asks Teddy if his sons stroying our means of judging the
rupt scheme. But this possibility are all his; Lenny taunts Max with play's meaning.
soon vanishes behind the hard busi- questions about the night he was In the place of dramatic illusion,
ness details of flat, maid, allowance,made, ironically suggesting that Pinter gives us a new and startling
and w r i t t e n agreements. Ruth Max didn't make him); like Jessie, technique-juxtaposition from cause
knows what she is getting into. At she will dominate the household. unknown. We cannot say that Ruth's
the end of the play, she is in com- But these parallels do not tell us progression from the silent charac-
mand, the situation turned to her why. Pinter never explains her ac- ter of her first appearance to the
advantage. The family is sprawled ceptance of their proposition and dominant mother-whore figure of
about in homage to her as the cur- her using it coldly to her advantage. the end is necessary or probable be-
tain closes. Whatever sympathy we It is a shocking action by a person cause Pinter has not given us suffi-
may have had for Ruth as the whom we have come to like-the cient insight into her character to
wronged and unhappy woman Pin- only sympathetic character in the make such a judgment. On the other
ter has destroyed in this final pic- play. hand, we cannot dismiss the pro-
ture of Ruth. We can guess the Moreover, she is the only charac- gression as incoherent and damn the
future from Max's words: "Listen, ter whose actions are so violently play as inartistic because Pinter has
I've got a funny idea she'll do the contradictory. Max is consistently created enough dramatic illusion
dirty on us, you want to bet? She'll abusive; Lenny's cynical corruption and suggested enough undercurrent
use us, she'll make use of us, I can is evident from the first dialogue of causality among the other char-
tell you! I can smell it!" (81) with his father and is particularly acters and other actions of the play
As with the images of Ruth in apparent to us in the comic contrast to tease us into believing that there
Act I, Pinter gives us no motivation of formal style and brutal violence is more here than meets the eye.
for the sudden shift of her character in his tales about the prostitute and One critic has said that Pinter offers

This content downloaded from 203.150.54.87 on Fri, 01 May 2020 02:10:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 November, 1969 SOUTH ATLANTIC BULLETIN Page Five

us "situations for which the ordin- and disturbed by the suspicion that
the impression of absurdity not by
ary meanings of words are inade- they have somehow been had. Most presenting us that idea through con-
quate and language that conveys of us are uncomfortable when forced ventional dramatic technique as do,
something other than the meanings into a world in which there are no for example, the plays of Sartre,
of its words."9 What he really offers assignable causes and values, par- but by making absurdity the essence
is a carefully contrived illusion ticularly when that world is in the of dramatic technique itself. That
which makes it impossible for us to is why his plays are so disturbing
theatre where we are long accus-
judge his plays in conventional tomed to find causes and values. To
and controversial and why, I be-
terms. watch Pinter with justice, we must
lieve, we must ultimately judge the
The effect of Pinter's method is tosurrender to the play's existence quality of his. achievement not from
force a new attention on audiences rather than search for its meanings.the subject matter of his plays and
dulled by exposure to traditional The fact that the leg moves and thethe relative "realism" of his dia-
dramatic technique. We find it diffi-lips speak is more important than logue but from the essentials of
cult to be indifferent to Ruth or to what either say. technique itself. We must learn to
Such a denial of dramatic mean-
dismiss her as commonplace. Most take a fresh look at Pinter's char-
playgoers leave the theatre angry ing is analogous to the philosophical
acters.
at her unresolved inconsistencies denial of real meaning and value
which holds that the world is ab- WILLIAM J. FREE,
9. Bernhard, "Beyond Realism," 185. surd. Pinter's plays communicate University of Georgia.

Prince Andrey as Epic Hero in Tolstoy's "War and Peace"

Commentators on War and Peace Subsequent readings of the Iliad, which will be described later,
who emphasize what seem to them both in translation and in the but with which I began the
the epic qualities of Tolstoy find original, seem to have enhanced novel, I needed a brilliant
support in the authority of the Tolstoy's appreciation of Homer and young man to be killed. Later
author, who defined his masterpiece to have influenced his conception in the novel I needed only the
as "Homeric." Tolstoy further in- of heroism. With the depiction of old Bolkonsky and his daughter.
sisted that War and Peace was a Prince Andrey as epic hero, modeled But since it is awkward to de-
new Iliad. Likenesses between the in some respects on Achilles, in scribe a character not connected
two epics have been discovered by other respects on St. Matthew's with anything in the novel, I
critics in mood, theme, and style. Christ, this paper is chiefly con- decided to make the brilliant
However, a more plausible simi- cerned. It may not be amiss to sug- young man a son of the old
larity seems to lie in the conceptgest of that the evolving characteriza- Bolkonsky. Then he caught my
heroism inherent in Homeric tradi- tion of Prince Andrey follows interest, a role appeared for him
tion. This concept appears early in closely the evolution of the author'slater in the novel, and I took
War and Peace, though ultimately own ideational development. mercy on him, only wounding
Tolstoy's attitude toward heroism him severely instead of killing
Unlike many of the other char-
is antithetical to Homeric tradition. him.2
acters for whom the author found
Repeatedly Tolstoy has acknowl- living prototypes, Prince Andrey isSignificantly, in the early sections
edged indebtedness to the Homeric of the book describing events cul-
entirely fictitious. With the appear-
archetype with which he became ance in 1869 of the last volume of minating in the defeat of forces
acquainted early in his literary War and Peace, a vast epic in the opposing Napoleon at the battle of
career. When in 1857 Tolstoy first writing of which the author had Austerlitz in 1805, the influence of
read the Iliad, in translation, he wasbeen engaged for almost six years, Homeric epic seems most apparent.
greatly impressed. The biographer it became apparent that Tolstoy had But more significant is the fact that
Maude tells us that when Tolstoy modeled many of his characters the salient example of Homeric
finished reading "the inexpressiblyupon kinfolk or acquaintances, upon heroism is the fictional character
beautiful conclusion of the Iliad," those he knew personally or Prince Andrey, who stands as a
he compared Homer's resolution of transitional figure revealing the au-
through study of records. In general,
the epic to that of the Sermon on members of Tolstoy's father's familythor's concept of heroism, exempli-
the Mount, and moved by the are represented by the Rostovs and fying first Homeric, then Christian
beauty of both works, he regretted members of his mother's family byideals. Although the early Andrey
that there was no connection be- the Bolkonskys. For instance, And- has a number of Homeric attributes,
tween them.' However, the concept rey Bolkonsky's sister, Princess he dies a Christian hero.
of heroism represented in War and Marya, is modeled upon Tolstoy's Perhaps Tolstoy's family and
Peace suggests an unremitting effort mother, who was an only child. But friends, to whom he read the initial
on the part of the author-no doubt for Prince Andrey Bolkonsky thepart of the book and who delighted
a subconscious effort-to reconcile author found no familial prototype. in seeing themselves portrayed as
two disparate views of heroic tradi- characters, identified no member of
In a letter addressed to L. I.
tion, that of the Iliad and that of the group with Prince Andrey be-
Volkonskaya, who had asked the
the Gospel according to St. Mat- cause of the inconsistency resulting
thew. author who was represented by the
character named Andrey Bolkon-from the author's own dilemma.
sky, Tolstoy replied: Tolstoy's wife, who copied the man-
1. Aylmer Maude, The Life of Tolstoy: First
Fifty Years (London, 1908), I, 172. In the Battle of Austerlitz, 2. Letter to L. I. Volkonskaya, May 3, 1865.

This content downloaded from 203.150.54.87 on Fri, 01 May 2020 02:10:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms