Critical Essays on Arthur Miller ed. by James J. Martine (review)

Abstract

110 Book Reviews chronicles the gennination from theory to practice in Shaw's dramatic uses of antiidealism , he has left a murky region in his discussion ofthe tcnn "idealist." Wisenthal is unable to explain fully the apparent contradiction between Shaw's condemnation of an idealist like Brand and his later praise for the Superman in Man andSuperman, In a letter to the editor of the Daily Chronicle (18 November 1891 ). Shaw wrote: "having created Brand, Ibsen came to think him over in cold blood, he recognised that he was a sublime nuisance, and that the proper place ofthe idealist in the drama ofmodem life is that ofthe villain ofthe piece." For Wisenthal, Shaw reversed himself when he created heroes like Tanner, Major Barbara, Captain Shotover and St. Joan in his own dramas. Wisenthal is right when he depicts Shaw's concept of idealism as evolving and developing in the light ofhis experience and increasing knowledge ofIbsen, the theatre, and human society. At times he confuses the philosophical with the popular meaning of the tenn. He also leans too heavily on a chronological explanation, citing the changes in the early and later editions of The Quintessence as proof of some essential change in Shaw's critique of idealism. He would do better to place Shaw's remarks within the larger framework of the twentieth·century debate over the questions of materialism and idealism, He neglects to his peril the entire attack on idealism led in England by the empiricists and rationalists like Moore, Whitehead and Russell. Only within thatcontext can any sense be made of Shaw's position against idealism and of his equally emphatic disc1aimer of materialism. Without this background, Wisenthal can only cite but can make no sense of Shaw's boast to Chesterton, "It is my solemn belief that it was my Quintessence of Ibsenism that rescued you and all your ungrateful generation from Materialism and Rationalism." Throughout his life, Shaw refused to be drawn into the logical error of the false dichotomy; he was neither a philosophical idealist nor a mechanical materialist but a supersubtle Marxist, whose whole theory of creative evolution was forged out of the necessity to give comfort to neither camp. We are grateful to Wisentha) for presenting in one convenient volume the Fabian lecture fragments and the later edition of The Quintessence, with notes on the changes. In addition, his introduction provides the pleasure of provocation by asking important que~tions about the two playwrights. Shaw recognized his kinship with Ibsen on the basis of their common concerns with social reality, human nature and human will. Wisenthal deciphers their interrelatedness, and we can hope that his examination of these connections will bear fruit in a more detailed study of Shaw,lbsen and the modem theatre. NORMA JENCKES, BRYANT COLLEGE JAMES 1. MARTINE, ed. Critical Essays on Arthur Miller. Boston: G.K. Hall 1979. pp. xxii,217, Through itssubsidiary, Twayne Publishers, G.K.Hall published my own book on Miller as well as this collection of essays edited by James J. Martine, so probably I should refrain from biting the hand that feeds me. Still, it would by lying to agree with the general editor of the series, who claims that this collection is "a pennanent and significant addition to American literary scholarship." In addition to previOUSly printed reviews and interpretive articles on Miller's plays Book Reviews I I I and short stories, Martine presents three new items - a bibliographic survey ofcriticism about Miller, an interview with the playwright, and a short essay on Miller's "Jewish heritage" by Daniel Walden. The problems begin right off with the prefatory survey, which fails to discriminate between what can help us understand Millerand what cannot. For example, Martine calls another bibliography, Hayashi's Index to Arthur Miller Criticism, "the most ambitious guide to scholarship on Miller." This guide is certainly ambitious, but it is also confused and misleading, with errors, omissions, misplaced entries, and illogical classifications; elsewhere J have called it a bibliographical chaos. Inventories of books and articles on Miller's work have been made before (once by me); Martine's, while mildly interesting, is neithercomprehensive nor incisive. There should be more judgment on...