________________________________________________
_ Arms and the Man
by George Bernard Shaw
To the irreverent--and which of us will claim entire exemption from that
comfortable classification?--there is something very amusing in the
attitude of the orthodox criticism toward Bernard Shaw. He so obviously
disregards all the canons and unities and other things which every
well-bred dramatist is bound to respect that his work is really unworthy
of serious criticism (orthodox). Indeed he knows no more about the
dramatic art than, according to his own story in "The Man of Destiny,"
Napoleon at Tavazzano knew of the Art of War. But both men were
successes each in his way--the latter won victories and the former
gained audiences, in the very teeth of the accepted theories of war and
the theatre. Shaw does not know that it is unpardonable sin to have his
characters make long speeches at one another, apparently thinking that
this embargo applies only to long speeches which consist mainly of
bombast and rhetoric. There never was an author who showed less
predilection for a specific medium by which to accomplish his results.
He recognized, early in his days, many things awry in the world and he
assumed the task of mundane reformation with a confident spirit. It
seems such a small job at twenty to set the times aright. He began as an
Essayist, but who reads essays now-a-days?--he then turned novelist with
no better success, for no one would read such preposterous stuff as he
chose to emit. He only succeeded in proving that absolutely rational men
and women--although he has created few of the latter--can be most
extremely disagreeable to our conventional way of thinking.
As a last resort, he turned to the stage, not that he cared for the
dramatic art, for no man seems to care less about "Art for Art's sake,"
being in this a perfect foil to his brilliant compatriot and
contemporary, Wilde. He cast his theories in dramatic forms merely
because no other course except silence or physical revolt was open to
him. For a long time it seemed as if this resource too was doomed to
fail him. But finally he has attained a hearing and now attempts at
suppression merely serve to advertise their victim.
It will repay those who seek analogies in literature to compare Shaw
with Cervantes. After a life of heroic endeavor, disappointment,
slavery, and poverty, the author of "Don Quixote" gave the world a
serious work which caused to be laughed off the world's stage forever
the final vestiges of decadent chivalry.
The institution had long been outgrown, but its vernacular continued to
be the speech and to express the thought "of the world and among the
vulgar," as the quaint, old novelist puts it, just as to-day the novel
intended for the consumption of the unenlightened must deal with peers
and millionaires and be dressed in stilted language. Marvellously he
succeeded, but in a way he least intended. We have not yet, after so
many years, determined whether it is a work to laugh or cry over. "It is
our joyfullest modern book," says Carlyle, while Landor thinks that
"readers who see nothing more than a burlesque in 'Don Quixote' have but
shallow appreciation of the work."
Shaw in like manner comes upon the scene when many of our social usages
are outworn. He sees the fact, announces it, and we burst into guffaws.
The continuous laughter which greets Shaw's plays arises from a real
contrast in the point of view of the dramatist and his audiences. When
Pinero or Jones describes a whimsical situation we never doubt for a
moment that the author's point of view is our own and that the abnormal
predicament of his characters appeals to him in the same light as to his
audience. With Shaw this sense of community of feeling is wholly
lacking. He describes things as he sees them, and the house is in a
roar. Who is right? If we were really using our own senses and not
gazing through the glasses of convention and romance and make-believe,
should we see things as Shaw does?
Must it not cause Shaw to doubt his own or the public's sanity to hear
audiences laughing boisterously over tragic situations? And yet, if they
did not come to laugh, they would not come at all. Mockery is the price
he must pay for a hearing. Or has he calculated to a nicety the power of
reaction? Does he seek to drive us to aspiration by the portrayal of
sordidness, to disinterestedness by the picture of selfishness, to
illusion by disillusionment? It is impossible to believe that he is
unconscious of the humor of his dramatic situations, yet he stoically
gives no sign. He even dares the charge, terrible in proportion to its
truth, which the most serious of us shrinks from--the lack of a sense of
humor. Men would rather have their integrity impugned.
In "Arms and the Man" the subject which occupies the dramatist's
attention is that survival of barbarity--militarism--which raises its
horrid head from time to time to cast a doubt on the reality of our
civilization. No more hoary superstition survives than that the donning
of a uniform changes the nature of the wearer. This notion pervades
society to such an extent that when we find some soldiers placed upon
the stage acting rationally, our conventionalized senses are shocked.
The only men who have no illusions about war are those who have recently
been there, and, of course, Mr. Shaw, who has no illusions about
anything.
It is hard to speak too highly of "Candida." No equally subtle and
incisive study of domestic relations exists in the English drama. One
has to turn to George Meredith's "The Egoist" to find such character
dissection. The central note of the play is, that with the true woman,
weakness which appeals to the maternal instinct is more powerful than
strength which offers protection. Candida is quite unpoetic, as, indeed,
with rare exceptions, women are prone to be. They have small delight in
poetry, but are the stuff of which poems and dreams are made. The
husband glorying in his strength but convicted of his weakness, the poet
pitiful in his physical impotence but strong in his perception of truth,
the hopelessly de-moralized manufacturer, the conventional and hence
emotional typist make up a group which the drama of any language may be
challenged to rival.
In "The Man of Destiny" the object of the dramatist is not so much the
destruction as the explanation of the Napoleonic tradition, which has so
powerfully influenced generation after generation for a century. However
the man may be regarded, he was a miracle. Shaw shows that he achieved
his extraordinary career by suspending, for himself, the pressure of the
moral and conventional atmosphere, while leaving it operative for
others. Those who study this play--extravaganza, that it is--will attain
a clearer comprehension of Napoleon than they can get from all the
biographies.
"You Never Can Tell" offers an amusing study of the play of social
conventions. The "twins" illustrate the disconcerting effects of that
perfect frankness which would make life intolerable. Gloria demonstrates
the powerlessness of reason to overcome natural instincts. The idea that
parental duties and functions can be fulfilled by the light of such
knowledge as man and woman attain by intuition is brilliantly lampooned.
Crampton, the father, typifies the common superstition that among the
privileges of parenthood are inflexibility, tyranny, and respect, the
last entirely regardless of whether it has been deserved.
The waiter, William, is the best illustration of the man "who knows his
place" that the stage has seen. He is the most pathetic figure of the
play. One touch of verisimilitude is lacking; none of the guests gives
him a tip, yet he maintains his urbanity. As Mr. Shaw has not yet
visited America he may be unaware of the improbability of this
situation.
To those who regard literary men merely as purveyors of amusement for
people who have not wit enough to entertain themselves, Ibsen and Shaw,
Maeterlinck and Gorky must remain enigmas. It is so much pleasanter to
ignore than to face unpleasant realities--to take Riverside Drive and
not Mulberry Street as the exponent of our life and the expression of
our civilization. These men are the sappers and miners of the advancing
army of justice. The audience which demands the truth and despises the
contemptible conventions that dominate alike our stage and our life is
daily growing. Shaw and men like him--if indeed he is not absolutely
unique--will not for the future lack a hearing.
M. _
Read next: ACT I
Table of content of Arms and the Man
GO TO TOP OF SCREEN
Post your review
Your review will be placed after the table of content of this book
