Determinism and Voluntarism in Shaw and Shakespeare

Author(s): Friedhelm Denninghaus and John J. Weisert

Source: The Shaw Review, Vol. 19, No. 3 (September, 1976), pp. 120-131
Published by: Penn State University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40682427
Accessed: 20-02-2016 07:10 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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.

Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Shaw Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 139.80.123.48 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:10:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Determinismand Voluntarism
in
Shaw and Shakespeare
Friedhelm Denninghaus, trans, by
John J. Weisert1

plays ifyou have nothingmore to say or shew

Whatis theuse of writing
than was said and shewn by Shakespeare?
Three Plays forPuritans2

Artalwaysabstracts. It does notmirrorlifein itsentirety,

butonly
one of its aspects.A mirrorhas one dimensionless than the world
whichit reflects,and thislimitationcannotbe ignoredto evaluate
accurately theanthropology and sociologyofShaw'sdramaturgy. His
of
way seeingthings is not the onlypossibleway. That willbecome
especiallyclear when we confrontthe philosophicalcontentof his
dramaswiththecorresponding contentof Shakespeare'sdramas.
Suchjuxtapositioncan bringto lightonlythebasiccontrasts be-
tweenShaw'sdramaticpracticeand thatofShakespeare.Moredetailed
comparisonsof playsby Shaw and Shakespeare,such as are often
undertaken, are notreallypractical.The dramaticconceptionsofthe
twoplaywrights, whichcan be attributed totheirepochs'differ-
finally
ent viewsof the world,are too different. Hendersonwrites,very
correctly:
So fundamentallydo Shakespeare, the universal tragic dramatist,and Shaw, the
cosmic comedie playwright,differfrom each other in technique, view of life,and
subject matter,thatdetailed comparison would prove fruitless.Juxtapositionof one
withthe other would require, unavoidably,a comparison of the Elizabethan withour
own age.3
One mightbegin the confrontation in this way,that Shaw's and
Shakespeare'sdrama can be byourobserving
contrasted thesubjectsof
theplotsin theplays.The drivingforceof thedramaticmovement in
The individualis dramatically
Shawissociety. only
significant so faras

'ProfessorDenninghaus is Professorof Englishat Bochum Universityin WestGermany.

The article is adapted from a chapter of his book, Die dramatische
KonzeptionGeorge
BernardShaws.UntersuchungerzurStrukturderBuhnengesellshaftundzumAufbauderFiguren
in derStuckenShaws (Stuttgart:Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1971). Essentially,the theory
propounded is that Shaw's determinismin his plays is a dramatic workingout of the
historicalmaterialismformulatedby Marx. The translator,ProfessorJohnJ. Weisen, is
Chairman of Modern Languages at the Universityof Louisville.
2
Prefaces,p. 750.
3 Archibald Henderson, BernardShaw:
Playboyand Prophet.New York, 1932, p. 167.

120

This content downloaded from 139.80.123.48 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:10:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
he is a socialbeingand embodiessocialforcesthroughhischaracter
and actions.All purelyprivatematters are beyondthefieldof vision.
Dramaticconflicts inShaware socialconflicts, as theyexistin thebody
ofsociety betweenthevarioussocialand politicalgroups.The conflicts
withinthesoul of theindividualpersonsare merelyreflexesof those
externalsocial-suprapersonal conflicts,intowhichtheconcernedper-
son fallsthroughbelongingto thisor thatbattlingsocialgroup.
The drivingforceofthedramaticmovement in Shakespeareison
thecontrary theindividual, or betterphrased,the singleindividuals,
whosecharacterand actionsappearfreeofeverysocialdetermination.
No sociological investigation ofthestageworldofa Shakespearianplay
can satisfactorily explain, for example,whyMacbethand Banquo,
Brutusand Cassius,Hamletand Fortinbras feel,thinkand actthusand
nototherwise. Shakespeare'sheroes, unlike Shaw's,in theirdramati-
callysignificant actions do not stand under the imperiouscompulsion
of externalpowers;theydo notembodywaysof thought,prejudices
andinterests ofdefinite socialgroups.Theircharacteristic peculiarities
appearas naturaland innate:Caesar is "constantas the NorthStar";
Antonyis"an artistic nature";Brutusis"an honorableman";Cassiusis
easily enflamed and egocentric;all withoutfindinga causal factorin
socialcircumstances. WhenShakespeareshowsconflicts and struggles
withinhis characters, these are not, as in Shaw's world,rooted in
society;on thecontrary, they are the cause of thatwhich happensin
society. It is theprocesses in the soulof a Lear, a Macbeth and Richard
thatbringconfusion tothestate,and nottheotherwayaround.It isnot
theconfusion in thestatethatcausesthestormsin thesoulofa Lear,a
Macbethand.a Richard.Goddardis therefore completelyrightwhen
he saysof Shakespeare:
Here,writlarge,wasthetruththatchaosinthestateispartand parcelofchaosinthe
problemisonceand foralla function
thatthepolitical
mindsandsoulsofindividuals,
of thepsychological
problem.4
WhetherGoddard is rightin general, we will leave undecided.
Whether, as Goddardbelieves,thepoliticalproblemsare a function of
thepsychological thatthepsychological
problems,or vice-versa, prob-
lemsarea function ofthepoliticalproblems, isa questionwhichwewill
referto thephilosophers.In anyevent,Goddardcorrectly sees cause
and effectof eventsin Shakespearein thepublicand privatesphere.
The politicaleventsand conflictsin Shakespearearise fromthecon-
and entwinedinterestsof the individualheroes. Whilewith
flicting
Shawitisthesocialmovements and struggles thatdeterminethefateof
theindividualheroes,in Shakespeare, on the contrary,it is theindi-
vidualheroesand theirpersonaldecisionsthatdeterminethefateof
society.If, withrespectto the relationof individualto societyin it,

4 HaroldC. Goddard,TheMeaningofShakespeare
. Chicago,1951. I, 29.

121

This content downloaded from 139.80.123.48 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:10:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Shaw'sdramais calledsocial-deterministic, one couldcall Shakespeare's
dramaindividual-voluntaristic.
Naturally, in playswithhistorical materialas basis,thefundamen-
tal differencesbetweenShaw and Shakespeareappear especially
clearly.Whoeverlike Shakespearemakesthepersonalthe beginning
pointof his dramaticactionand conceivesof thesocialactionas the
directconsequenceof personalactions,mustoverlookthe peculiar,
time-bound, historical qualityin thenatureofman.ForShakespeareit
is of no significance whetherhisactiontranspires in Italy,Greeceor
England and whether his charactersare his contemporaries or crea-
turesofa quitedifferent historicalage. Essentiallyhe deals withprob-
lemsthatare "beyondtime,"and "purelyhuman";and withpersons
who could have lived at any time.The temporalcoloringas it is
presentedin thenamesofthescenesand characters is purelyexternal.
In their dramaticallyessential characteristicsand problems,
Shakespeare'scharactersare all contemporaries; theirproblemsand
conflicts appear as the "eternal" human problemsand conflicts of all
timesand situations.Even Shakespeare'shistory plays are in
historic
name only.
The oppositeapplies to Shaw's plays.His people do not make
history butare shaped byhistory, and therefore theyclearlybear on
theircharacterthestampofthespecialand uniquehistorical energies
of theirtime.Despiteanysurfacesimilarity to VivieWarren,Joanof
Arcis no suffragette or "New Woman,"but immutably an historical
person who embodies the nationalism and protestantism of hertime.
To be sure,herjudges are people of thechurchlikeSoames and the
bishopofGetting Married, butas thebearersoftheideasoftheRenais-
sance completely different fromthese.The SwissBluntschliand the
BulgarSergius in their charactersand actionscorrespondonlyto the
specialsituation ofthe Europeand theBulgariaoftheseyears,whichis
faithfully and preciselyworkedout historically by Shaw withall the
essentialattributes and evenexternalmarkings. Whilein Shakespeare
theindividualcharactersand theirproblemsappear as essentialand
unique,and thehistorical backgroundon theotherhandas unessential
and interchangeable, in Shaw,on thecontrary, thehistoricalperiod
and thepeculiarconstellation of thesocialforcesin thissituationare
essentialand unique,whilethe individualpersonis unessentialand
interchangeable. The drama Macbethdoes not changeessentially, if
one plays it before another "historical"backdrop,just as the
dramatizedreckoningof the accounts of feudalismwith rising
nationalism and protestantism wouldnotlookessentially otherwise,if
one mountedit withJan Hus insteadofJoan.
The differing structureof theirworldsof the stageand of the
anthropologies of its people leads the dramatists to illuminatetheir
charactersfromquitedifferent sides.Shakespearemustoccupyhim-

122

This content downloaded from 139.80.123.48 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:10:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
selfthoroughly withintimate spiritualprocesses.The unlimitedfree-
dom fromexternalcompulsion,whichhis charactersseem to enjoy,
compelshimtouncoverthesourceofthemotivation in thedeep levels
of the soul and to describeexhaustively those emotionalconflicts,
whichfinally determine theactionsoftheconcernedcharacter.On the
otherhand,Shawdoes notneed to concernhimselfwiththeintimate
processesofthesoul.He canignoreeverything intimate and concealed
in thesoul'sdepths,sincehischaracters are motivatedfromoutside.
Shaw'sstandpoint is thatofthepublicist5whodescribesthepublic
lifeof a societyand carefully reportsall utterances whichexplainthe
public actionsof these people and the social interestsembodiedin
them.Shawdoes notallowhisCaesarand hisSartoriusto expatiateon
theirintimatehopes,doubtsand desires,as a Macbethand a Shylock
do. Shaw'spoliticians and businessmen offerthemselves to thepublic
withtheirdeclarations and seektojustifytheirattitudewithgenerally
acceptablearguments, as thatcustomarily happensin publiclife.We
learnonlyquiteaccidentally ofinteriorattitudesin Shaw'scharacters.
For example,Sartoriusat thebeginningof thelastact confessesin a
conversation withhisdaughterthathe is disgustedwiththerolehe has
to play in life; and in Act IV of Genevait becomesapparentfora
momentthatBattler,ostensibly brutaland pompous,at thebottomof
hisheartisfondofanimals.These introspective passagesinShawyield
littleinsightintothemotivating forcesoftheactionin theplaysunder
discussionas, in reverse,the publicutterancesof a^Cassius and an
Antonyin Shakespearegivelittleor no insightintotherealspringsof
actionforthesefigures.
The differing structure of thedramaturgies and anthropologies,
however,conditionsas wella differing structure of theirworldsin a
moral-ethical respect.In theworldofShaw,in so faras theindividual
personsare determinedin theircharacterand theiractionthrough
social forces,everypersonalresponsibility
is takenfromthem.The moral
forwhatSartorius,
responsibility Mrs.Warren,Joan'sjudges,and also
whatJoandoes in themilitary
sphere,fallsupon thesocietiesoftheir
times,whichcompelthemto actthusand nototherwise. On theother
hand,Macbeth,Hamlet, Claudius and Othello,who mustdecidefree
of all external compulsion,alone and personallyare responsible
for their
actions.Only in Shakespeare,therefore,can one speak of genuine
tragedy in thesenseofthefalloftheheroas a resultofhisownguilty
action.Shaw did not desire,and, was not able, to writea tragedy
becauseofthespecificstructure ofhistheatrical
world.Notbychance
did he call hisonlyplaysimilarto a tragedy,
Saintfoan, "a chronicle
play."
5
CompareO. Burden,"A Critical
Strollthrough
BernardShaw,"inTheLondon
Mercury,
28 (1933),p. 136.

123

This content downloaded from 139.80.123.48 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:10:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Theirdifferent conceptions oftheoriginofevilcorrespondtothe
different structures of the worlds of Shaw and Shakespearewithre-
spect to the moral-ethical. While in Shakespearethe evil and the
inhumanarisein thesame wayas does thegoodfromthedepths ofthe
individual soul, in the social-deterministic drama the cause of eviland
inhumanity liesoutside of theindividual soul in the socialinstitutions
whichare conditionedbyprivateproperty.Consequently, in Shakes-
peare the individual soul is thescene ofinner struggles between Good
and Evil.In Shaw,contrariwise, theGood in the human soul struggles
withtheexternal Evil.In Shaw,socialinstitutions - civilpower,prop-
erty,law,armies,police- are,in principle,inhuman;humannature
on the otherhand is,in principle,good, whilein Shakespearesocial
institutions are,in principle,good and divinelydecreed,and theindi-
vidual man,on the otherhand, potentially evil and fallible.In the
social-deterministic drama the inhuman societydestroysthe moral
integrityof the individual, while in Shakespeare's individual-
voluntaristic tragedythe bad individualdisturbsthe divine social
order.
Shaw's localizingof evil in social institutions, and, indeed,ulti-
mately privateproperty, Shakespeare'slocalizingofevilin the
in and
depthsof the soul,compelseach dramatistto certainconsequences.
The social-deterministic dramacan makevisiblewheretheevilarises
and how it brings the individualinto its power only throughthe
discussionof economicsand politicsin the play. In the individual-
voluntaristic drama,however,whichsuggeststhatevilarisesfromthe
individualsoulwithout externalcause,sucheconomizing and politiciz-
ingis dispensable.However,ifthemoralsignificance oftheactionis to
become inescapable,it cannot dispense with a correspondingly
thoroughpsychologizing of its figures.The importantquestionfor
Shakespeare,howlargeis thepersonalguiltof a Brutusor Macbeth,
wouldremaincompletely in thedark,ifall thestirrings of theirsouls
werenotvisibledownto thefinestnuances. On the other hand,Shaw
can make motivation inJohnBulls OtherIslandcomprehensible only
throughan exactanalysisofthewaycapitalworks,to showthatLarry,
whodeceivesand exploitshiscountrymen and Haffigan, whoattempts
to murder his landlord, are not guilty. How fundamentally
Shakespeare'sconceptof the significance of economicand political
factorsin the fateof man differsfromthatof Shaw displaysitself
strikingly in hisapparentlycommercialplayTheMerchant ofVeniceas
well as in his apparentlypoliticalplayJuliusCaesar.The numerous
economicreferencesin TheMerchant of Venicecontributeabsolutely
nothingtoexplainthecharacterand mannerofactionofthefiguresof
theplay.On thecontrary, thecharacterof an Antonio,forexample,
standso muchincontradiction tohisprivilegedpositionin societyand
to his splendidlyprosperingbusinessdeals,thatforSolanio onlythe

124

This content downloaded from 139.80.123.48 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:10:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
conclusionremainsthatthe characterof a man is determinednot
throughnature:
throughhis positionin societybut arbitrarily
Nature has framed strange fellowsin her time:
Some thatwill evermore peep through theireyes
And laugh like parrotsat a bag-piper;
And othersof such vinegar aspect,
That they'llnot show their teeth in way of smile
Though Nestor swear the jest is laughable.6
JuliusCaesar,a playostensibly concernedwithpolitics,similarly reveals
tous littleor nothingaboutthepoliticsofancientRomeat thattime,at
leastnotin thesensein whichpoliticsis understoodbyShaw.We hear
nothing ofanypoliticalparties,welearnnothingofanysortofpolitical
plansand measuresof Caesaror of hisopponents,nothingaboutthe
economicand politicalinterestsof the classeswhichthe individual
characters represent, nothingaboutanysortsofeconomicand political
necessities, to whichtheyare obedientas thatwouldbe thecase or is
indeedthecase in Shaw'splayabout the subject.Instead,we get an
exactand thoroughdescription ofall thestatesofsoul throughwhich
theylive.If one hastheimpression ina Shavianplaythattheevildeed
and theevilintentarisefroman economic-political compulsivesitua-
tion,a playbyShakespeare,on thecontrary, awakenstheimpression
thatan evilorder- thetyranny ofCaesar,forexample- and theevil
deed themurderbyMacbeth,forexample- are groundedonlyin
-
theindividualsoulsof theperpetrators.
The different localizingof theoriginof evilin Shaw and Shake-
speare is closelylinked withthequestionoftheabilitytorecognizethe
causesofan evildeed. The sourceofevilintheimpenetrable depthsof
theindividual soulrecoilsfromeveryanalysis.Itisutterly impossibleto
saywhyjustMacbethand notBanquo succumbstothepowerofevil,or
toforetell in whatothercharacterevilwillobtaintheupperhand.The
localization oftheoriginofevilinexternalthings, moreprecisely in the
compulsionarising from politicaland economic on
necessities, the
otherhand, allowsan exact explanationand predictionof the evil
deed. In so faras one recognizestheeconomicsituations ofLickcheese,
Sartorius, Haffigan or Broadbent, one can saywhy and how longthese
characterswill be harsh and unyieldingtowardothers.When the
externalcompulsionis removedfromthem,theycease to be eviland
harshtowardthemselves and others.Ifitdid notmeanthecollapseof
theireconomicand politicalpower,Sartorius,Warwick,and the In-
quisitorwouldat once layaside themasksof eviland showtheirtrue
humanfaces.In each of Shaw'scharacters, thereis concealeda good
man,theBrechtian good girlofSezuan. Theywouldall be goodifthey
wereallowedto. For to be evil requiresan effortagainstone's own

({ The Merchant
of Venice, I, 1.

125

This content downloaded from 139.80.123.48 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:10:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
naturein Shaw,or,as itis statedin a shortpoembyBertoltBrecht:
On mywallhangsa Japanesecarving,
The maskof an evildemon,lacqueredwithgold.
I see
Sympathetically
theswollenveinsin theforehead,signifying,
howstrenuousit is to be evil.7
However,iftheevilis explainablerationally byreferenceto economic
thenitis also eradicarlethroughpoliticaland
and politicalnecessities,
economicmeasures.When,as in Shakespeare,it is uncaused,unex-
plainable,itcannotbe removed.It can onlybe repressedbyforce.Not
incorrectly,therefore,does Shaw preenhimselfvis-à-vis Shakespeare
in his puppetplayShakesversusShav thathe, whileshowingthevul-
nerabilityof evil,leads his greatpredecessorin a decisiverespect:
You werenotthefirst
To singof brokenhearts.I was thefirst
That taughtyourfaithlessTimonshowto mendthem.8
The questionof theimpliedutopiain thedramaof Shaw and Shake-
spearehangscloselytogetherwiththediagnosisand finalconquestof
evil.The anthropology drama impliesthe
of the social-deterministic
utopia, that in the absence of, or afterthe of private
dissolution,
property and the order founded upon it, man would be whollyand
entirelygood and lifecompletelyhuman.The anthropology of the
individual-voluntaristic dramasetsfreetheoppositeillusion,thatlife
would be paradisaical,if the crimeof individualsdid not constantly
subvertthe divineorder. The golden glow of utopia is found in
Shakespearebeforethecriminaldeed and afterthecompletedrepen-
tance - in Duncan and Banquo's marvelousdescriptionof the
paradisaicallife of the doves at Macbeth'scastle,as well as in the
peacefuland philanthropic programofthenewkingat theend ofthe
tragedy. In otherwords, the UtopianelementinShakespeareliesinthe
glow and thebeauty of the ordained, god-willedexternal
order,whilein
Shaw it liesin theinnerheavenwhichis containedin thehumansoul.
WhatShaw damnsfromthe beginning,Shakespearemakesintothe
locale of his utopia; but whatShaw makesthe locale of his utopia
Shakespearemeetswithscepticism. As we haveseen,Shaw'sutopiais
reconcilable withno powerand subordination, withno king,no prop-
erty,with no preferment of mother,
father, and childrenand with
wife
no preferential treatment of one's own nativeland beforeall other
countrieswherehumanslive,whilein Shakespeareitis preciselythe
existenceof thesethingsthatmarktheworldin well-being.Whilein
Shaw powerand propertydeformpeople,and gradationsof philan-
thropyare a negationof theuniversalphilanthropy demandedin his
in
utopia, Shakespeareroyalpower and the obedienceof thesubordi-

7 Brecht,CollectedWorks,X, 850.

«Plays, p. 1404.

126

This content downloaded from 139.80.123.48 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:10:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
nateas wellas the exactgradationof all human relationsis, on the
a prerequisite
contrary, of an ideal humanity:
Oh, whendegreeis hak'd.
Whichis theladderto all highdesigns.
The enterprise is sick.How couldcommunities.
Degreesin schoolsand brotherhoods in cities.
Peacefulcommercefromdividableshores.
The primogenitive and due of birth.
Prerogativeof age, crowns,scepters,laurels.
Butbydegree,standin authenticplace?
Take butdegreeaway,untunethatstring,
And hark,whatdiscordfollows.9
Wesee thatUtopianEngland,whichJohnofGauntheldup totheDuke
ofYorkas an idealand mirror-imageofthesad reality,canbe a "throne
ofkings"and a "residenceofthegodofwar"withoutthereby losingthe
qualityof"anotherEden." The marvelousand happyEngland,which
is foretoldat the end of HenryVIII at the birthof the laterqueen
thus:thatitsqueen is truthful
Elizabeth,is characterized and spreads
fearamongherenemies,thattradeflourishes and menrejoicein their
possessions. isnotlocatedin theabsenceofthose
The Utopiansituation
things,whichforShaw'sutopiaareprerequisite, buton thecontrary in
theexistenceofstrongpoliticalpower,privateproperty,and evenfear:
She shallbe lov'dand fear'd.Her ownshallblessher:
Her foesshakelikea fieldof beatencorn,
and hangtheirheads withsorrow.Good
growswithher;
And in herdayseverymanshalleat in safety
Underhisown vinewhathe plants,and sing
The merrysongsof peace to all neighbors.10
The divinesocial orderas such is unassailablein Shakespeare.It is
identicalwiththatutopia,that"otherEden," thatis expresslyand
implicitlyconjuredin his work.If realitycontradictsthe order,that
saysnothingagainsttheorder,butonlyagainstthemenwhoviolateit.
As we have seen,thatis absolutely contraryto Shaw'sutopia,bothof
theutopiawhichhe paints in The oftheElderly
Tragedy Gentleman as also
of thatdreamed of utopia whichis implicitin his whole dramatic
creation.
Accordingto everything we know,Shaw and Shakespearewere
veryconsciousoftheethical-moral oftheirplaysas wellas
implication
of the specialmoraleffectof theirdrama on theirspectators.Shaw
knew,thatin his worldof the stage all guilt fallson society,and
thereforeis notat all surprisedwheneversocietyshoweditselfstungto
thequick.An utterancelikethe following, whichcould be amplified
withmanysimilarones,showsthatwithcompleteclarity:
I must,however,
warnmyreadersthatmyattacksaredirectedagainstthemselves,
not
againstmystagefigures.Theycannottoothoroughlyunderstandthattheguilt. . .

9 Troilusand Cressida,I, 3.
10
HenryVIII, V, 5.

127

This content downloaded from 139.80.123.48 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:10:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 does not lie on the people who actuallywork the commercialmakeshifts. . . but with
the whole body of citizenswhose public opinion, public action,and public contribu-
tion as rate-payers,alone can replace Sartorius'sslums withdecent dwellings. . . and
Mrs. Warren's professionwith honorable industries.11
ObviouslyShawwantstoholdthemirrorup tosociety as a whole.On the
otherhand,Shakespeare,ifwe maytaketheconfessions ofHamletfor
hisown,wantsonlytoattribute hiscrimetotheindividual
rogueand his
virtueto the individualhero. Consequentlyhe promisedhimselfa
moraleffectonlyin thecase oftheindividualcriminal,
whosemisdeed
is represented:
The play's the thing
Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King.12
Giventheconstruction of his dramaturgy,shouldhis spectatorsfeel
themselvesresponsiblefor crimeswhichtheyhave not personally
committed? Hamletproceedsfromthis,thata spectator isremindedof
hisownguiltthrougha happeningonlyifthatwhichisrepresented on
stageis similarto thecrime he personallyhas committed.WhileShaw
transportedthe wholesociety whichattendedthe performancesof
Widowers* Housesand Mrs.Warren's Professionintotheremarkablestate
wheretheycriedouttheirguilt,13 sucha thing,accordingto Hamlet's
observation, succeedsfordramatists of the kindknownto himonly
accidentallyand thenonlyin individualinstances:
I have heard
That guiltycreatures,sittingat a play,
Have by the verycunning of the scene
Been struckso to the soul that presently
They have proclaimed their malefactions.14
Unfortunately,we cannotask Shakespearewhathe thinksof the
drama.It wouldhavebeen interesting
social-deterministic to see how
he would have reactedto a confrontation
withan entirelydifferent
dramaticand philosophicconception.WithrespecttoShawweare ina
morefortunate Shaw
position. wassuchan excellentconnoisseur ofhis
work
predecessor's and he expressedhimself so frequentlyand exten-
sivelyaboutthevariousaspectsof theartof Shakespeare,thatwe can
learnhisopinionofthequestionwhichinterests us. To anticipatethe
answer:Shawwasveryclearlyconsciousofthedifference betweenhis
philosophical
conceptionand thatofShakespeare, whom he accusedof
a
being "privateerthrough and through."15What he understands by
11
Prefaces,p. 727. Compare also Henderson, Playboyand Prophet,p. 600.
12Hamlet,II, 2.
13
Compare Prefaces,p. 220.
mHamlet,II, 2. (See also Shaw's The Quintessence ofIbsenism,where he uses Hamlet's
description to identifythe drama of the future: "In the theatre of Ibsen we are not
flatteredspectatorskillingan idle hour withan ingenious and amusing entertainment:
we are 'guiltycreatures sittingat a play'; and the technique of pastime is no more
applicable than at a murder trial." [ed.])
15
Prefaces,p. 768.

128

This content downloaded from 139.80.123.48 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:10:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 of thecompletelackof the
thathe clarifieshimselfin hisobservation
socialdimensionin Shakespeare'sfigures:
Xobody in his plays, neither the king or citizen, has any public business or
conception.16
is stillmoreclear in the prefaceto SaintJoan.It is said
His criticism
therethatShakespearehas no historic sensewhatsoever: "Thereis not
a breath of medieval atmospherein Shakespeare's histories."17
Shakespeareplacesonlytheprivatemanon thestageand completely
ignoresthepowerofthosesocialforceswhichultimately determine the
way of the world:
His figures are all intenselyProtestant,individualistic,sceptical, self-centeredin
everythingbut theirlove affairs,and completelypersonal and selfisheven in them.
His kingsare notstatesmen:his cardinals have no religion: a novicecan read his plays
fromone end to theotherwithoutlearningthatthe world is finallygoverned byforces
expressing themselves in religions and laws which make epochs rather than by
vulgarlyambitious individuals who make rows.18
A littlelaterhe citeshisownplaySaintJoanforcomparisonand praises
initnotonlyitssupra-individual dramaticconcept,butalsoitshistoric-
ity:
Nature abhors thisvacuum in Shakespeare; and I have taken care to let the medieval
atmosphereblow throughmyplay freely.Those who see itperformedwillnot mistake
thestartlingeventitrecords,fora mere personal accident. They willhave beforethem
not onlythe visibleand human puppets, but the Church, the inquisition,the feudal
system,withdivine inspirationalwaysbeating against theirtoo-inelasticlimits:all the
more terriblein theirdramaticforcethan any of the mortalfiguresclankingabout in
plate and armour or moving silentlyin the frocksand hoods of the order of St.
Dominic.19
This noteworthy citation,afterwhatwe alreadyknowabout Shaw,
scarcelyneedsan additionalcommentary. It showswithabsoluteclarity
thatShaw was consciousof the decisivedifferencebetweenhis and
Shakespeare'sdramaticconcept.In his view,Shakespearedoes not
recognizethatthe singleindividualis onlya puppet of more than
individualforces,whichexpressthemselves in politicaldoctrines,
reli-
gions and laws.An outspoken of
feeling superiority on Shaw'spartis
clearin thequotation:he, Shaw,fillsthevacuumwhichShakespeare
has leftbehind.He believesthathe has somethingto sayand to show
whichShakespearehas notshownor said. Fromthisalone he deduces
thejustificationof his work:
What is the use of writingplays . . . ifyou have nothingmore to say or shew than was
said or shewn by Shakespeare?20
judge theworldfromhiscontemporary
He believesthathe can better
point of view and thereforehe considershimselfstrongerthan

16Ibid.

i7 Ibid., p. 630.
18Ibid.
19Ibid.

20 Ibid., p. 750.

129

This content downloaded from 139.80.123.48 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:10:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Shakespeare.That is clearlystatedin whatis nearlyhislastplay,Shakes
versusShav. In it,whenShakesis struckto the groundby Shav, the
formerexcuseshimselfbythefactthattheyoungermannaturally has
an advantagein boxing:
Youngeryouare
By fullthreehundredyears,and therefore
carry
A heavierpunchthanmine.21
The modernstandpoint, accordingto Shaw,is moreadvantageousto
sucha degreethattodayeven a mediocreauthorcan surpassShake-
speare in theweightof his pronouncement:
The humblestauthor,and muchmorea ratherarrogantonelikemyself, mayprofess
to havesomethingto saybyhistimethatneitherHomernorShakespearesaid.And
theplaygoermayreasonably eventsand personspresentedto
ask to havehistorical
himin thelightofhistime,eventhoughHomerand Shakespearhavealreadyshewn
themin thelightof theirtime.22
One must emphasize that Shaw's criticismof Shakespeare's
conceptiondoes notmeancriticism
philosophical ofShakespeareinan
aesthetic
sense.ShawconsidersShakespearea greatdramatist,
one that
even he, Shaw,cannotsurpass:
It does notfollow,
however, Shakespeareinvolvesthepower
thattherighttocriticize
ofwriting betterplays.And in fact- do notbe surprisedat mymodesty- I cíonot
professto writebetterplays.23
is limitedto the philosophicalcontentof Shakespeare's
His criticism
work.Everyepoch,whichhas something newtosay,producesalso the
necessarygreat artist.In to
respect artistry the greatdramatistsof
differentages are all alike:
theoutlookon lifethatchanges,nottheartoftheplaywright.24
It is thephilosophy,
This is nottheproperplace to determinewhichof thetwocon-
trarywaysofseeingcorrespondsto theactualconditionsin theworld,
or moreclearlycorresponds.There are thosewhojoin withShawand
assumethatShakespearewasabsolutely blindto therealrelationships
in ourworld,and thereare,on theotherhand,critics whobelievethat
ShawoverlookedexactlytheessentialthingswhileShakespeareis said
to have perceivedthewholeworld.The factis firmly establishedthat
Shaw'swayofseeinghas becomeaxiomaticin modernpolitics,sociol-
ogy,educationand historiography. Naturally,thisis earnestlyregret-
tedbythefollowers ofShakespeare,orexpressedmoreprecisely bythe
followersof the philosophyembodiedin Shakespeare'swork.Thus,
for example, Goddard, who sees the simple truthset down in
Shakespeare'sworks,expressesthehope, whichwas forShakespeare
somethinglikea firstprinciple:
Perhapseducationwillsometimerevert ofwhatwassolikean axiomto
toa perception

21Plays,p. 1403.
"Prefaces,p. 751-752.
23
Ibid., p. 750.
24 Ibid.

130

This content downloaded from 139.80.123.48 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:10:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 goesdeeperthanpoliticsand thatknowledgeof man
Shakespeare:thatpsychology
mustprecedeanyfruitful
himself of theinstitutions
consideration he has created.25
A followerof Shaw's philosophyof course will protestvigorously
againstthisconclusionand pointout thattheindividualhumandoes
notexistbeforeand outsideof thesocialrelationsand thatthe indi-
vidualhas also notcreatedthesocialinstitutionsas Goddardassumes.
He willobjectthatitis thoroughlyfalseto makeindividualpsychology
thestarting pointforsocialprocesses.Let us notbecomeinvolvedin
thisquarrel.A workaboutaesthetic problemsis nottheproperplaceto
treata philosophicalquestionas to whichof thetwoopposed waysof
seeingcorrespondsto realityor morecloselycorrespondsto it.Every
observerof Shaw'sand Shakespeare'sartcan decide forhimself.We
proceedfromtheassumptionthatinjudgingworksof artitis notso
mucha questionof thecontentof truthin anyphilosophybut of the
and artof presentation.
plausibility We assumethateverytrueartis
irreconcilablewithuntruth.Weassumefurther thatbothShaw'sas well
as Shakespeare'spresentationofhuman fatearejustifiedbythefactsof
humanlifeand thatneitherShawnorShakespearecan be accusedof
untruth.Fromthe philosophicalpointof viewthismeans thatboth
waysofseeingcanbe regardedas relatively true.The co-equalvalueof
bothsystems inthisrespectnaturallydoes notexcludethefactthatthe
latersystem embracestheearliersystem and therefore,philosophically
regarded, means progress.As we have seen, thiswas theviewof Shaw
and thebasisofhisfeelingofsuperiority overShakespeare.It maybe
just so,thatShaw'slaterinterpretationoftheworldcertainly does not
contradictShakespeare'sinterpretation, yetmakes itrelative,
similarly
as the new physicshas made Newton'sphysicsrelative.From the
aestheticpointof viewthisis, of course,completely irrelevant.

2:>Goddard,
p. 175.

131

This content downloaded from 139.80.123.48 on Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:10:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions